Anonymous Egg

Lacks’s story is unusual because she lost her anonymity. But I’ve talked to other still-anonymous donors with strikingly similar experiences. Like the Lacks family, they’re proud they helped science. They believe tissue research is important, but they wish they’d been asked permission from the start, to avoid difficulties that followed: the shock of learning they were part of research, debates over who controlled samples, questions over profits. I’ve also heard from scientists and medical professionals who believe this transparency is overdue. And patients who want to control their tissues to, say, ensure their samples are used to study only their specific rare disease. So far, few of these people are part of the discussion. The Common Rule changes, like most such proposals, haven’t been widely publicized, and they’re laid out in a thick document even experts find confusing. But the Department of Health and Human Services has posted a brief summary and several explanatory videos. With few exceptions — like a public health emergency — the revised rule would require informed consent for research on all biospecimens, but not all genetic information inside them. How detailed that consent will be is up to researchers, but it can’t be less than “broad consent.” In a widely criticized move, the consent form template that would generally be required for “broad consent” hasn’t been released yet. Much of the debate has focused on what that form might look like, whether it can

Two facets comprise this issue: the social and the legal. Proposed social impacts of open records are the increase or decrease of abortions and adoptions, birth parents right to privacy, the forcing of unwanted relationships with adoptee children, and the undermining of the integrity of the adoptive family. Proposed legal impacts of open records are the violation of privacy to the family, right of reproductive privacy, and a birth a mother’s equal rights with a father’s (because of more birth mother’s names being provided in comparison to father’s names).

But there are many factors to where someone would donation an embryo to a clinic. From a couple’s

So after the doctor determine the gender of the baby, which can easily be done by removing a cell from the embryo after it has fertilized for several days, the cell the gets tested to identify the gender. If the embryo happens to be a male, the doctors can then help parents to choose a healthy girl embryo to implant into the mom’s womb. Couples who are unable to have children because they would come out with genetic diseases would appreciate this chance to start a family. Genetic diseases would be screened out so that the baby could be born without carrying any genetic diseases. Giving them the opportunity to create a healthy baby. Not only it would save the child from suffering, reduce medical costs, but the parents also would not have to bare the pain that comes with having a sick

The most controversial issue with receiving organ donations is that the donor cannot legally choose who the recipient will be in most cases. Of course in a situation where one’s parent is dying, one is allowed to give up an organ if it is a good match, but if one decides to donate a kidney to his or her best

There are worse problems than not knowing whom their donor parent is, though. Lots of donor children grow up not knowing that they have a greater chance of having a medical problem. To donate, a person does not have to take any certain tests. They just have to show up and if their sperm or eggs look fine the hospital staff take it. “Regardless of socioeconomic status, donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental health problems,” said Karen Clark, an investigator. Not only are donor children more likely to get into problems with the law, they are more likely to get into problems dealing with their health. That is why donor children and their parents, the ones who raised them, should be allowed to know who the donor parent is.

However, some sperm banks promote discrimination as minorities are often discouraged to apply or simply not accepted into the program. I think that this is unfair because the phenotypical

Main Point 2: Myths, we have all heard some, we have all believed some. But right now, I am going to set the record straight about some of the misconceptions surrounding organ donation. Organdonor.gov will tell you about many facts and myths about organ donation. So let’s start with money. I’m sure you have all heard that when a someone donates their organs, their family has to foot the bill for all it. That is completely false. There is no cost to donors or their families for organ or tissue donation. Hence the word “donation”. The donor won’t be able to have

New technological advances will lead to more exorbitant fees, which will in turn cause a reduction in the amount and types of people that can afford these new procedures. Will future generations of natural births then be lorded over by a genetically enhanced master class? Will these future "perfect people" segregate themselves from the flawed human class of today? Will they be at an advantage in the society? Another moral and social problem that arises from this genetic donation is the loss of the ability to trace genetic lines. If a man gives a sperm sample about three times a week, and each donation is split up into three samples, he has the potential to father a dozen children in one week alone. If this matter is shipped all over the country between different sperm banks how can we keep up who is from what genetic descent? This can quite possibly lead to inner familial (in the genetic sense) marriages, causing many genetic defects in future generations. These new technological advances can actually hinder the human race.

Many opponents of sperm donation also believe that donation should not be allowed to remain anonymous, citing that this causes negative effects on the resulting children in the long run (Christian Science Monitor); however I believe this should be entirely the donor’s choice. Many countries have already passed laws no longer allowing anonymous donation. According to the article “In Britain, a decline in sperm donors; Anonymous no longer, most say they want to help infertile couples, not just earn extra cash" by the Christian Science Monitor, this ban on anonymous sperm donation has vastly affected the number of donors, resulting in a shortage of sperm available for use. This action does not seem to be the most logical answer as it leaves many people wanting children without means by which they can do so. The effects on the donor conceived children could just as easily be reduced by other methods such as the creation of a national registry that includes more accessible data about their donor, such as medical issues the donor themselves may have and a more detailed family history of medical predispositions; something that many children including Kathleen LaBounty, a young woman with a

With new technologies available everyday, it seems almost as if we can customize our children. Reproduction is no longer an outcome of random and inherited genes, but now it’s a process of creating the child that we want to have. Fertility clinics are in debate as to whether or not it is ethical to be able to determine the sex of our children. Some view this as a valid option, while others see it as another step down the road to designer babies. But how far is too far? That is a question that we can only answer for ourselves. While this article remains unbiased, we are able to form our own opinion after seeing the pros and cons of both sides.

| In this option Michelle’s parents are not presented with a lot of options. There would be a lot of stress involved with not being able to donate and trying to find a donor for Michelle. If she dies they are basically left with nothing but grief and a hefty hospital bill.

This article describes how and why there has been an increase in demand even though there are ethical issues. The article states, “‘People want it. It’s legal,’ said Dr. Michael Feinman, medical director of HRC Fertility offices in Westlake Village and Encino. ‘In a competitive market, it’s obviously a way to acquire other patients’” (“Lab Methods”).

Proponents of financial compensation for organ donors argue that it’s legal to be paid for donating reproductive material, and they suggest that organs should be handled in the same manner. The obvious difference, however, is that inability to conceive a child isn’t life-threatening. Healthy organs for transplant are limited, and recipients must be carefully selected to ensure that the transplant is successful. Imagine the moral chaos that would ensue if organs were sold to the highest bidder.

Some view altruistic surrogacy as a form of exploiting the surrogate. There is no monetary compensation to woman placing her health and well-being on the line for another’s benefit. However, it can also be held that the woman knowingly entered into the agreement with full disclosure of the risks and benefits to her health and body. Again, autonomy and justice are extremely prevalent ethical principles to explore when discussing the topic of surrogacy. Same-sex marriage has become a hot topic in the United States in the last few years. The idea of raising a family by homosexual