DOCSLIB.ORG

The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the Uk: the Silencing of Claims by Would-Be Parents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the Uk: the Silencing of Claims by Would-Be Parents THE REMOVAL OF DONOR ANONYMITY IN THE UK: THE SILENCING OF CLAIMS BY WOULD-BE PARENTS like TURKMENDAG BRUNSNES, MA. UniVCt2ity of Nc:.tingh2m H :~H'·.J2rcJ, Library .{ ----....'~h_ Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2009 Abstract From 1 April 2005, UK law was changed to allow children born through gamete donation to access identifying details of the donor. The decision to abolish donor anonymity was strongly influenced by a discourse that asserted the 'child's right-to-know' their genetic origins. Under the current regulation, if would-be parents want to receive treatment in the UK, they have no option but to use gametes/embryos from identifiable donors. For a majority, this also means that they will be on lengthy waiting lists due to the donor shortage. Interestingly, the voice of would-be parents - those who would be most affected by a contraction in donor supply and would carry the burden of informing children of their origins, should they so choose- were not heard during the donor anonymity debate or thereafter. Adopting a social constructionist approach, this thesis studies removal of donor anonymity as a social problem and examines why would-be parents remained silent during the public debate. There are two major steps taken: first, examining the donor anonymity debate in the public realm through media presentations, and secondly investigating would-be parents' reactions through ethnographic studies: a virtual ethnography study and interviews. The accounts of a sub-group of would-be parents reveal that having a donor-conceived child constitutes a permanent charge of deviance against the family. Many would-be parents were reluctant to raise their voices during the donor anonymity debate because they did not want to be exposed to publicity. Their reluctance to mobilise around pressing claims against the removal of donor anonymity reflects the variety of ways in which they can avoid the impact of this legislation. The thesis concludes by underlining the importance of having an informed public debate about the disclosure policy, and of developing mechanisms to protect both would-be parents' and donor offspring's interests. Journal article published during thesis period: TURKMENDAG, I., DINGWALL, R. and MURPHY, T., 2008. The Removal of Donor Anonymity in the United Kingdom: The Silencing of Claims by Would-be Parents. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 22(3), 283-310 . 11 Acknowledgements My thanks go first of all to my supervisors, Professor Robert Dingwall and Professor Therese Murphy, for their continual support, strategic guidance, and for all their help in converting my ideas into the thesis. Thanks also to the Institute for the Science and Society (ISS) and to the School of Law for providing a stimulating academic home for this work. ISS and the International Office provided funding for my tuition costs. Without the scholarship I could never have conducted a doctoral work in the UK. My thanks go to Gill Farmer, Patricia Hulme, Alice Phillips and my colleagues at ISS for making me feel at home. Thanks to my family and friends for having faith in me. I am grateful to my mother, Hulya Bahtiyar Turkmendag for her encouragement and endless support. My special thanks also go to Thomas Brunsnes who helped me on both the academic and the domestic front. This thesis benefited from numerous conversations with him. Thanks to Richard Elliot for helping me with the bibliography. Thanks are also due to my friends Cecily Palmer and Emilie Cloatre who helped in at least a hundred ways. And finally to Emil Brunsnes for his patience, who arrived in April 2007 to put it all into perspective. Finally I would like to acknowledge all those who gave up their precious time to be interviewed and to share their experiences with me. This thesis is dedicated to Hulya Bahtiyar Turkmendag. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 The research question ..................................................................................... 2 Background ..................................................................................................... 2 The process of project design ......................................................................... 7 Structure of the thesis ................................................................................... 11 Limitations of the study 15 Chapter Two: Social Constructionist Studies of Social Problems ............. 16 The functional approach to social problems ................................................ 17 Challenges to functionalism ........................................................................... 19 Value conflict theory ....................................................................................... 21 The rise of social constructionism ................................................................. 25 Theoretical controversy: challenges to constructionist theory ..................... 28 Contextual constructionism .......................................................................... 30 'Silenced' Claims-Making ............................................................................ 32 Natural history models ................................................................................... 35 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 38 Chapter Three: Natural history of Donor Anonymity Debate ................... 40 Claims-making activities in Stage 1: constructing the problem ................. 42 The Children's Society's call ........................................................................ 43 A study on donor conceived adults ............................................................... 45 Rose and Another v. Secretary of State for Health ([2002] EWHC 1593 (Admin)) ...................................................................................................................... 47 Culmination of Stage 1 ................................................................................. 52 Claims-making activities in Stage 2: recognition of the problem ............... 53 The Donor Information Consultation, a MORl poll and the HFEA's survey53 Removal of donor anonymity ....................................................................... 59 Debates in parliament ................................................................................... 61 IV ._------_.. _..... _-_ ..-. __ ...._ ........ _---------- Claims-making activities in Stage 3: re-emergence of claims and controversy 63 Claims against the new law from the child's right - to - know camp ........... 64 Claims against the law from opponents of the open donation system .......... 69 Silent resistance of would-be parents ........................................................... 77 Claims-making in Stage 4 .............................................................................. 80 How did children's rights come to monopolise rights claims? ................... 81 The adoption analogy ................................................................................... 81 Violation of moral standards ........................................................................ 86 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 88 Chapter Four: Research Design and Process ............................................... 92 Rationale of the study undertaken ................................................................ 94 The research questions ................................................................................... 96 Why perform another study on donor conception families? ...................... 97 Why interviews? ......................................................................................... 100 Why virtual ethnography? .......................................................................... 101 Sampling, access and recruitment ............................................................... 104 Recruiting participants for the interviews ................................................... 105 Access negotiations to the online support groups: Locating an informant. 106 Problems with recruitment and snowballing .............................................. 109 What kind of interviews? ............................................................................. 113 Ethical issues .................................................................................... ·········· 117 Data saturation .................................................................................... ········ 121 Description of the virtual ethnography study ............................................ 122 Virtual community ...................................................................................... 123 Virtual ethnography .................................................................................... 126 Ethical issues .............................................................................................. 128 Online pseudonyms and copyright ............................................................. 133 Sampling ..................................................................................................... 134 Representativeness ...................................................................................... 135 \' ................ _.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Secretly Connected? Anonymous Semen Donation, Genetics and Meanings of Kinship
    SECRETLY CONNECTED? ANONYMOUS SEMEN DONATION, GENETICS AND MEANINGS OF KINSHIP Jennifer M. Speirs Doctor of Philosophy University of Edinburgh 2007 Dedicated to the memory of Izzy Speirs a beloved wife, mother and sister, a much loved and respected friend, kinswoman and colleague, and a stotter of a sister-in-law. Stotter, stoater: excellent, admirable, exactly what is required (Scots, esp. Glasgow). Acknowledgments I am overawed by the number of people who have supported, exhorted, pushed, pulled and accompanied me on the journey of producing this thesis. Many of them will never have the occasion to read it, such as library staff across the length and breadth of the UK who facilitated internet access whilst I was doing fieldwork, the staff in the ticket centre of Edinburgh’s Waverley station who helped to plan my travel, and the staff in the David Hume Tower Senses Cafe, particularly Joan who made it her job to ensure that students eat cheaply but well. For perseverance and (almost) unremitting cheerfulness the reward goes to my principal supervisor Professor Janet Carsten and second supervisor Professor Lynn Jamieson. Their encouragement to believe that I could write a PhD thesis, their attention to detail, their kind but astute and prompt feedback, and their sharing of practice wisdom and intellectual knowledge, were crucial to the achievement of the project. I take this opportunity to thank also my thesis examiners, Professor Anthony Good (Edinburgh) and Dr Bob Simpson (Durham) for their careful analysis of my thesis and their interesting and thought-provoking comments and questions during my viva. Over the years I have benefited from help and encouragement from many other social anthropologists and I thank Soraya Tremayne (Oxford) and Monica Konrad (Cambridge) for their invitations to present my work in progress, and Jeanette Edwards who gifted me a copy of ‘Born and Bred’.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepted Version
    Turkmendag I. The voice of silence: UK patients’ silent resistance to the assisted reproduction regulations. In: Cloatre, E; Pickersgill, M, ed. Knowledge, Technology and Law: At the Intersection of Socio-Legal and Science & Technology Studies. London, UK: Routledge, 2015. Copyright: Permission is granted by the publisher to include this chapter in this repository Link to publication: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415628624/ Date deposited: 07/04/2016 Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk Knowledge, Technology and Law At the Intersection of Socio-Legal and Science & Technology Studies Edited by Emilie Cloatre, Martyn Pickersgill To Be Published 1st February 2014 by Routledge – 224 pages Series: Law, Science and Society Knowledge, Technology and Law examines the interface between studies of law, science and society, from the perspectives of socio-legal studies and science and technology studies (STS). The relationships between law, science and society are central to a diverse range of practical, ethical and theoretical issues. With an increasing emphasis on the fluidity and uncertainty of each of these areas, the analysis of their intersection(s) has become complex. Accordingly, scholars have borrowed from a range of disciplines and case studies to analyse not only how such intersections materialize, but also how and from where they should be approached. Notably, STS has provided a basis to explore the links between science and society, and socio-legal studies has offered many tools to understand the relationships between law and society. In recent years, a growing number of scholars have borrowed from both fields in order to further their efforts to understand the interconnectedness of law, science and society.
    [Show full text]
  • Lisa Jardine and the Hfea
    SALT AND LIGHT PAPERS Salt and Light Papers provide important information and analysis to help Christians and Churches to engage with 21st century social issues AA10 NEW CHAIRMAN, NEW DIRECTIONS: LISA JARDINE AND THE HFEA On 1 October, the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFE Act 2008) came into force. It is the single greatest change to affect the UK fertility and embryo research sectors since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) was established nearly two decades ago. The HFEA’s first chairman, back in 1990, was Professor Colin Campbell, followed in 1994 by Baroness Ruth Deech and in 2002 by Dame Suzi Leather, plus a couple of short-lived heads. Now, since April 2008, Lisa Jardine is in charge. Professor Lisa Jardine CBE is also the Director of the Centre for Editing Lives and Letters and Centenary Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. So, is she bioethically liberal or conservative? Will her rule be stringent or compliant? Has she already stamped her imprint on this disorderly organisation? Perhaps, not yet, but some of her recent statements are worrying, even alarming. For example, she has recently called for a public debate to decide whether people who donate ova and sperm to infertile couples should be paid more than the current maximum of £250 for ‘reasonable expenses’. The thought of trading in human gametes leaves a nasty taste in one’s mouth. Will there be a standard price, or a premium for gametes from beautiful or intelligent people, or a discount for multiple purchases? Donations of bodily tissues, such as blood and organs, have traditionally been regarded in the UK as willingly-given, altruistic gifts.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law Fifth Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I HC 7-I House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law Fifth Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 14 March 2005 HC 7-I [Incorporating HC 599 i-ix of Session 2003-04] Published on 24 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Science and Technology Committee The Science and Technology Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of Science and Technology and its associated public bodies. Current membership Dr Ian Gibson MP (Labour, Norwich North) (Chairman) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Abingdon) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Dr Brian Iddon MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr Robert Key MP (Conservative, Salisbury) Mr Tony McWalter MP (Labour, Hemel Hempstead) Dr Andrew Murrison MP (Conservative, Westbury) Geraldine Smith MP (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Bob Spink MP (Conservative, Castle Point) Dr Desmond Turner MP (Labour, Brighton Kemptown) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental Select Committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Fix the Funding of Health and Social Care
    How to fix the funding of health and social care Nick Davies | Lucy Campbell | Chris McNulty About this report The UK’s health and social care services face long-standing pressures. Successive governments have known about these challenges for years, but failed to adequately deal with them. As a result, there is a growing funding gap. Successfully developing and implementing proposals will be hard. Plausible solutions will inevitably have trade-offs: there will be both winners and losers. Yet, for the settlement to be sustainable, government will need to build public and political support. This report examines how to enable politicians to promote answers for tackling the long-term funding challenge facing health and social care. Via a wealth of case studies supported by analysis and interviews, it identifies different approaches to policy-making on contentious issues, and how these could be applied to health and social care. This project has been funded by the Health Foundation. Supported by www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/ public-services/health-project June 2018 Contents List of figures 2 Summary 3 1 What are the questions that need answering? 7 2 What are the options open to the Government? 13 3 How should the Government answer the funding questions? 17 Conclusion 25 Annex A: Health case studies 27 Annex B: Social care case studies 43 Annex C: Other case studies 53 References 83 List of figures Figure 1 Percentage of emergency admissions (type 1) admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours, August 2010–April 2018 8 Figure 2 Real-terms percentage change in UK health expenditure, 1954–2015 11 Figure 3 Real-terms percentage change in net social services spending, 1995–2016 11 2 HOW TO FIX THE FUNDING OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE Summary As the UK’s population ages, the NHS is doing more than ever before.
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing March 11.P65
    No to Eggsploitation: The Case Against Payments for Egg Donation March 2011 Summary This briefing makes the case against HFEA proposals to increase compensation payments for egg donors. We argue that increasing payments above current levels will create financial incentives to donate. This would violate the international consensus against the commercialisation of human tissue, which has always governed blood and tissue donation in Britain. In particular, it is against the spirit of the EU Tissues and Cells Directive. It will create a form of exploitation (‘eggsploitation’), in which poor women and students with large debts will be induced to take significant health risks, and inevitably, some will be harmed, as has happened in Eastern Europe over the last ten years. We show that the risks of egg donation are greater than the HFEA acknowledges, and that there is a lack of adequate monitoring of the most well known risk, Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. The HFEA has argued that increasing compensation would help to overcome the shortage of donors in Britain. However, there are many problems with this argument. Firstly, it is wrong to change ethical rules in order to achieve pragmatic goals, and we question why the supply of eggs should be expected to meet the demand. Secondly, only IVF clinic staff and the HFEA support the idea; there is no call for increased compensation from donors, parents and the public at large, and donor-conceived people are strongly opposed to the idea, because they do not want their ‘donor parent’ to have been motivated by financial gain. Thirdly, there is no evidence that increasing compensation will actually succeed in increasing the number of altruistic donors: evidence from Spain, whose approach the HFEA wants to copy, suggests that most donors there are motivated by financial gain.
    [Show full text]