"Houston: We've got a problem."

For someone who may need to use someone elses eggs I find your post alarming and worrisome. Although my husband is fine in the sperm department does this mean that he may be treated crudly if he goes in to drop off a sample for us to use? And it is very scary the statistics about the decline and ALL the reasons why. I don't know about all the ins and outs or any others feelings but this doesn't make me too happy or comfortable about something that should be wonderful and the fact that a man can be held accountable for child support?, well we really are going to hell in a hand basket!

If the reasons sperm donors identities are not being kept secret is because the children of sperm donors are demanding the ability to find their fathers, then I think we need to take that seriously. If it means that there are fewer sperm donors then so be it. What right do we have to legally deny children any knowledge at all of their fathers?

I think the bigger issue is, what should we be doing to encourage reproductive health? (So that more men are capable of donating sperm, yes, but more than that, so that fewer people need to be going for artificial assistance in reproduction.) Does anyone else wonder why it is infertility (for both males and females) is such a huge problem? Maybe it is one more sign that there's things we have to start rethinking about how our society is functioning.

People who can't find a partner but want a child should adopt!!

There are plenty of foster children who would love to have caring permanent homes.

Artificial insemination is selfish and disgusting.

Does anyone else wonder why it is infertility (for both males and females) is such a huge problem?

It could be partly related to the fact that a lot of couples choose to delay starting a family until they are in their thirties. Fertility tends to decrease with age for both men and women.

realmseer: I really doubt there will be any problem with egg donation over the next fifty years. We'll probably pick up some fairly heavy duty knowledge on the topic. Don't forget that only 10 years ago science thought it would be impossible to save eggs! (They're too big: You can see a human egg with the naked eye.)

Sperm donation for one's own use is under a different set of rules than total donation. There are still problems, but not quite as severe. Plus, science now knows several things which can be done to increase the sperm count in a low-count sample.

cknk: You raise a good point. Children should be able to find their genetic fathers: That means there will be far fewer men willing to donate due to the very real risk of being held financially accountable (as well as the other problems). Pennsylvania just ruled that if the sperm donor meets the child, he is financially responsible right back to the child's birth: That's going to mean that men will FIGHT HARD to not meet the child (as well as just not donating). It may be that only the wealthy men can donate; I've seen that opinion. I wonder what that will mean for the future?

I know a bit about reproductive health in males, but not as much about females. Environmental estrogen and heat are two of the big things implicated in dropping sperm counts. There will be other things, but no one as of yet knows WHAT other things. (ie: A man trying to get his wife pregnant should NEVER put his laptop in his lap: Heat lowers sperm counts and laptops produce plenty of heat.)

You're probably right in asking about the why's of infertility. This is a first world problem; it is a problem of wealthy people as only the richer people have the time/money to worry about such things. As for society? Yes, there are problems and we should be fixing them. Unfortunately, problems are fixed on the basis of who is in control, not on the basis of need or common sense.

Mely: You're right in saying that age has a big part to play in the problem. There's more to it on the male side than just age, but age must be considered.

All: The whole thing started out as a good thing: A way for male-infertile couples to have a baby. It's become UGLY. Why do we humans do such insane things? Why do we turn kind-lovely into ugly-dangerous?

The market take care of itself on this. How can a scarce and valued resource be called powerless?

As donations continue to drop, for all the reasons you point out, men will increasingly be courted to come back. THEY will have the power and it's an economic one if nothing else.

It's a market like any other. You have no customers, you get desperate and do whatever you can to lure them back.

whatsup: Well, in a free market you are right. However, this is not a free market but a controlled market. This is a point both John Stossell and Wendy McElroy make in talking of free-market theory: One must never assume that a controlled market will behave in the way a free market behaves.

First off, the bigots are in charge. They will (not may) blame and shame the men. That creates anger which will drive more problems which will drive more court judgements into violently anti-male decisions. You now have a self-reinforcing system.

Secondly, free-market forces only work were there is no outside pressure. You have immense pressure to define all males as biological cash machines and cash-machines only. That too makes it almost impossible for there to be sperm donors.

Lastly, we have biology. Sperm counts are dropping and it will take at least another couple decades to get the medical research money needed to find out why and then more years to find a strategy to cope with the problem. You must remember that research in reproductive medicine is overwhelmingly female only. The women's health groups will not let that change ... at least not yet. Again, we must wait for the anti-hatred of males groups to gain enough power to overcome current thinking.

In other words, we ARE going to lose most and maybe all of our sperm donors. That will go on until the current effort to drive misandry out achieves sufficient force to undo the bad done over the last thirty years and THAT will take a century or more.

So, we come back to the original question: What are couples and singles needing sperm donors going to do?

Why is it a controlled market? By whom? Who are the bigots and how did they get and manage to hold onto this supposed power? Power is resource dependency, period.

If sperm banks can't do business they'll do something about it. You only need one in a thousand men to produce enough sperm for a thousand babies. Where is the evidence there is a shortage of sperm at clinics?

I think you can do better than to quote a TV reporter on the nature of economic markets.

Wendy McElroy is a TV reporter ... true. She is also one of the most eminent and respected libertarian theorists on the planet. She's a Canadian too and an all round good egg: I've always liked Wendy.

You cannot just go out and start a new sperm bank! There are laws against that, many of them.

This strikes me as sort of inflamatory- anyone else.

I have plenty of personal experience with the canadian alternative insemination process and I must say that you don't back up your points with valid links or information. this type of thread can take an uniformed reader and create fear or inaccurate facts.

can you please substantiate your post?

Donors in the candian hospital system of alternative insemination are very well protected in my opinion and experience. There is not a lack of potential donors but a problem with access for the individual seeking the programs- but this is an issue in any program in canadian medical hospitals.
And then there is the financial barrier that a family would face using insemination - in my city hospital each insemination can be 240$ each and a cycle may require three inseminations- that doesn't include any medications an individual needs.

I await , with an open mind,your points to consider how a program I am actively aware of in my own city has suddenly become the issue of availability and "support" rights that you propose.

You lost me JW. Who said anything about starting a sperm bank? Power comes when one holds a resource that is scare and valuable, so others are dependent upon it. As sperm becomes an increasingly a rare commodity (assuming your thesis correct), the power yield by men with that sperm increases. Fertility clinics, private or public, NEED sperm. Men decide whether to provide it or not....hmmm... Whose in control now? Think about it.

JW: care to explain more about the one year commitment that sperm donors face, and about how their lives are controlled during that time?

In response to your question about why something that started out being a good thing became so messy... I'm not sure. I don't know enough about why it is messy or even how it is messy. But I do think that it could easily be messy because we don't really have ways in our society to deal with things that are really important and personal. Children are just so amazingly important. There aren't returns or refunds. They are forever. And yet we can't pretend they are products seperate from ourselves. They come out of us (both males and females - I'm guessing the controls you mentioned are meant to try to insure "good" sperm, a recognition that the father's contribution matters long term). Market ideas fall apart for something that requires a part of ourselves to go into it.

We talk about sperm donors, a recognition that they are giving something, not selling, and yet... and yet its like we're too ingrained in market ideas to really think of things as gifts.

We have little training in life about how to accept what life brings us, be it infertility or "imperfect" children. There's almost a sense these days that it is wrong or old fashioned to accept what is if there is any possible way of doing otherwise.

Then the language of rights enters into things. People talk as though their right to have kids means they have the right to have kids regardless of what obstacles stands in their way. So it isn't easy to see sperm donors as generously "helping" people who would otherwise have to accept infertility, but instead as supplying something that is needed. In some ways it might have been like an annonymous neighbour helping out, and now its taken for granted that there should be sperm donors there, because after all, there is demand for it, and shouldn't supply always follow demand?

I don't know. I really have never looked into the subject of sperm donors. These are just random thoughts as I try to think about what some of the aspects might be. I know that I've seen posters around two different universities asking for egg donors and I know I cringe every time I see them. My view on the whole issue of anything to do with infertility is colored, I know, by the fact that I decided to drop out of the career race as a young woman and have children when I am best able to do so, even at a fairly substantial cost. My husband meanwhile is working towards a career where we know many people who have been unable to have children because they put them off until they are unable to. I believe my husband and I made the right choice to do what we're doing, despite the hardships, but one result is that I have little sympathy for people who make different life choices and then complain that they are unable to have children because of age related problems. I mean, I know of people who want to adopt, regardless of the cost that would inflict on both child and (birth)mother. Then the people who want a (probably broke) university student to give them eggs for $2500. (Yes, there was a price listed on at least one of the posters I've seen.) I don't know. I just think we can't have everything. No one can have everything. Yet life gets messy because we all expect to be able to have everything. So while I know nothing about sperm donors, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the whole issue does get messy.

I personally think that the secrecy rules should fall apart. Why? Because I talk to people who are busy searching for birthparents, and I know it matters to people to find out about who their "natural" parents are. I think there should be ways of protecting sperm donors from having to pay child support, but I recognize that it gets messy there because there are so many people already in stupid situations fighting with their kid's parents and because laws can end up being set partly by precident based on strange circumstances. We need to challenge our politicians on things, to encourage them to enter into real debates on issues. Heck, we need to encourage one another to enter into real discussions on issues.

What are we going to do for parents who need sperm? What is the plan?

Simple answer: Adoption.

Sperm and egg donations are wrong and immoral.

You really think so? Why do you consider it immoral?

At the risk of upsetting jw, I don't think you can compare the donation of eggs and sperm. Sperm are donated through a very natural process. If a man is willing to donate sperm and follow the required health related rules in order to do so then I applaud his generosity. If they don't want to for whatever reason then that is fine.

A woman to donate eggs must undergo a lengthy and not totally safe process of high hormone treatment to cause her ovaries to produce multiple eggs. She then requires a medical extraction through her abdomen.

Is the system aimed at women? Perhaps, they are the ones who get pregnant.

To me the bigger issue is the amount of money and resources both in the medical system and in the research field , that is spent on helping couples have children. Our generation has decided it is a right to have a child and alot of money is spent on just that. In the past, infertile couples adopted or had no children.

If there is a drop in the availability of sperm then so be it.

Easily said by those who have no trouble having their own biological children. A right perhaps not, but surely a strong biological desire. I applaud those that have adopted but do not sit in pompous judgment of those who have experienced the intense pain of infertility.

Even for you, oh judgmental one, I assure you much money and research has been "wasted"on your simple desires: Own a car? A TV set? Travelled on plane for a vacation?

Actually I have alot of experience with couples desparate to have babies. I understand the pain. My point related to money is that we as a society are spending tons on this one issue. Is it justified?

I agree, I have kids and so it isn't my issue. but I work NICU. I see the problems that soem of these technologies cause.

Ethically , it isn't a clear cut issue. It is a complex issue.

It isn't compariable to the cost of TV's and other consumer items. We pay for those items at market value. If it costs a ton of research dollars to invent a plasma TV then we pay a ton for it. If you don't want one then you don't You are comparing apples and oranges.

What proportion of NICU admits are due to premature multiples that are due to ART? What percentage of people using ART end up with babies in NICU? I don't know the numbers but I will bet they are very small. I would agree it's a downside but so do most things have such a downside.

Yes, SOME things we pay at market value. But who pays for our roads? For car related injuries and deaths because of our love of the car? For the polluted air from desires to drive and fly? For productivity losses or increased violence due to computer and TV use? For medical costs directly attributed to drug, alcohol and cigarette consumption?

We could go on and on and on but there isn't one issue but many many issues we collectively 'pay for' as a society all the time due to our desires, and few of them are entirely borne by market value.

Having said all that, this is a most interesting thing to discuss and you raise some interesting things for me to think about.

I have worked in NICU's for 25 years. Our unit admits approximately 2000 babies annually. About 400 will be infants of diabetics who require monitoring for a few days. Approximately 400 will be full term babies in distress; meconium at delivery, low apgars, difficult delivers, congential malformations.

Of the remaining 1200 or so babies about 600 will be premature between 34 weeks and 37 weeks. These babies range between 1400 grams to 2 kilos and will stay in hosptial between 4 - 8 weeks if healthy.

the remaining 600 ish babies are extreme premies. From 24 weeks - 34 weeks. THese babies will stay in hospital between 2 months up to a year. Depending on their health. Obviously the more premature the infant the more risk of complications and the longer the stay.

Occasionally a live baby will be delivered at around 22 weeks. That baby may also be cared for on the hope that in fact the dates are wrong and it is more mature. They ususally don't survive.

The smallest baby I have ever cared for weighed 320 gms at birth and dropped to 290gms. she did not survive. The parents were on their 4th pregnancy with no living children.

In our hospital we refer to multiples as Baby Smith A, Baby Smith B.....

I have cared for and seen 7 sets of Quadruplets. All were a result of fertility treatment.

I have cared for dozens and dozens of Triplets over the years. I can remember one set of natural triplets; all fraternals. However there may very well have been more that I was unaware of.

Twins are a mix. We get twins that are a result of fertility treatments where they got twins, others where they selectively aborted to reduce the number to two from 4 and natural twins. Natural fraternal twins are familial so usually a parent or grandparent are also twins. Natural identical twins are a fluke and those will pop into a family unannounced.

Over the past 25 years fertility treatments have tremendously improved. Less fertilized eggs are implanted, medications are more carefully monitored. As a result we are seeing a decrease in the number of triplets but not twins.

I have worked one weekend where every single extremem premature baby in our unit, a total of 23 babies in the highest risk room , were all multiples. It was the most amazing thing and we had it as our record for years. They probably still have it as the record. I set of quads, 3 triplets sets, 5 sets of twins.

So , yes in fact fertility treatments do result in multiples. I am unsure what the current statistics of the number of live births via fertility treatments that result in multiples nationally are but I would expect that the percentage has dropped alot over the past decade.

The risk of triplets being premature is significant and the risk of health issues for premature babies is very real.

Couples should carefully check re policies for implanting are and when on meds the mother needs to be very carefully monitored.

FYI
although I am enjoying the debate.
The majority of people turning to alternative insemination programs offered are NOT facilitating their conception with fertility drugs. They will easily conceive in the 2-5 months of trying- similar to those using the traditional method. They will however monitor their ovulation to predict proper insemination.
This thread was about donor insemination and eggs.

My experience with the basic program of alternative insemination is that in the majority of individuals there would be no fertility NICU related births due to complications.
Heck- our babies follow the normal trend of birthing statistics. Some early , some late, some premie some differently abled some not .....you get the picture.

Fertility assisted conception is a whole different argument- ethical and moral and societal. I like your posts on that but wanted the reader to understand the distinction between most individuals using alternative insemination programs.

Oh and I can't help but notice that the original poster has fallen silent when his accuracy was called in question.
The wonderful thing about the web is information and its availability. A double edged sword , though.
When I read inaccurate and inflammatory facts I am compelled to point out what I consider false information cleverly introduced as debate. I think the reader needs to see someone challenge their "facts" and I think it is imortant to note that the poster has failed to respond.

You are correct Metta, I got off track here talking about fertility issues not just sperm donors.

Women who use sperm donors don't have multiples unless it is part of their genetic profile to have them.

I was recently reading some interesting blogs on this topic:

http://thedonorwhodared.blogspot.com/
http://donatedgeneration.blogspot.com/

Oh