What are birth certificates for?

The question in this title was at the heart of a debate that took place in London, care of Progress Educational Trust, on Monday this week.  The UK’s Law Commission is currently seeking contributions to it’s consultation on whether or not the system of birth registration should be reformed and PET put on this event, Birth Certificates and Assisted Reproduction: Setting the Record Straight at very short notice.  Given that, an amazing 200 people registered to attend.  It was also interesting to learn from civil servants present that the General Register Office, responsible for the registration of births, death and marriages, are seriously considering the digital upgrading of a system that dates from the 1950s and before.

Julie McCandless from the London School of Economics felt that reform should be wider than just taking into account assisted reproduction.  What about those parents in transition from one gender to another and the increasing incidence of co-parenting, where more than two parents are involved in the commitment to raise a child.  What is the purpose of birth registration she asked; for what reason is it necessary and for whose benefit do we need it?

Natalie Gamble, solicitor and lesbian mum to two donor conceived children seemed clear that a birth certificate was a piece of paper that documented legal parentage of a child.  An adoption certificate showed that legal parentage had been transferred from one (set of) parents to another.  She argued, that the ‘natural’ parents, who were not necessarily the biological parents, but those who arranged and intended to become parents, should appear on the certificate, gamete donors not being parents and therefore not having the right to appear.  A birth certificate, she went on to say, tells a child that they have a secure identity.  There should be space on the certificate to include same sex parents and co-parents, so that it is clear who has legal responsibility for a child.

Natalie then went on to explain her views on changes in the laws around surrogacy, which the Law Commission is also consulting on, but I will not expound these here.

Marilyn Crawshaw, social worker, academic and Chair of the British Association of Social Worker’s working group on assisted reproduction PROGAR, said that birth certificates had only recently shifted from being a record of biological to legal parentage.  She supported the United Nations Rights of the Child position to be able to know one’s heritage which she sees as compatible with being raised by legal parents who are not necessarily biologically related.  She proposed a form of birth certification for everyone that draws attention to the document being a record of legal parentage but referring those who are interested to seek further possible information about genetic progenitors.

Craig Reisser is a dad by surrogacy and egg donation and spoke from his personal rather than a professional perspective.  His definition of a parent is that of a caregiver who has rights and responsibilities in relation to his/her child.  He believes that the children have a right to know their full story and he and his partner have gone to great lengths to have an egg donor and surrogate who are both willing to be known to his children.  He does not believe that children’s rights trump those of the parent but that a balance must be struck.  He also does not believe that the birth certificate is the right place to record ‘other elements’ such as the fact of donor conception/surrogacy or the name of the donor.  He went on to say that the birth record was just that, a record of an event and a document that was proof of identity and nationality.  It is a matter of public record and available publicly (in the UK) for purposes of population numbers and research, but is also a private family matter.  It is up to parents to share the information about donor conception with their children.  Donors and surrogates do not intend to be parents and do not wish to appear on the birth certificate.

Kate Litvinczuk is a donor conceived adult who felt it was right that her raising parents should be the ones named on her birth certificate.  Her parents did not intend to ‘tell’ her at the beginning – having been advised by their clinic not to do so – but Kate recounted how when she was around three her parents recognised her as an independent person in her own right and felt they could not withhold the information. The whole family are very pleased that they did tell and in fact have been more open than many families, occasionally appearing in the media.  Although Kate has the right to put her name on the Donor Sibling Register to be in touch with half-sibs by mutual consent she does not feel the need to at the moment, although she recognises that this is different for other DC adults.

Stephen Snyder, a lawyer from Oregon Reproductive Medicine, seemed to be on the panel, partly as a sponsor of the event, but also to provide a a contrasting American perspective.  He is very much against family secrets but believes the primary purpose of the birth certificate is to establish legal parentage, although this could be more than two people and the bureaucracy  should allow for that.  He explained the American federal system whereby each State has it’s own laws on donor assisted conception.  I think he said that he believes that anonymous donors remain in most places in the US because of inheritance laws that might allow offspring to claim on the estate of donors.  Perhaps some of my American readers could comment on that.

Each of the above speakers only had seven minutes in which to make their presentation and the rest of the time was spent in debate with questions and comments from the audience.

The whole issue of what happens to those children conceived abroad but born in the UK was raised several times and seen by some as a red herring and others as an enormous challenge to any change in the birth registration system that would enable enable donor conceived people to learn of their beginnings.   Any floor participant with a legal background was very clear that the BC is a legal document giving status, identity and nationality to the holder, but two donor conceived adults present were adamant that they had a right to be told early in life and to have information about their donor if they chose to have it.  Neither of them had been told until they were much older, they had suffered from this and they believed that marking the birth certificate in some way was the only way to persuade parents to tell.  Others felt that pressuring parents was not the right way to go and that there should be campaigns of awareness raising that would educate parents about the need to be open with their children.  Kate Linwinczuk felt that using a BC as a tool to give donor conceived people information (if their parents did not do this) was a rather inefficient way to go about it as people don’t usually see their own birth certificate until they are an adult and many people would not bother to follow up a bit of small print that suggested there may be further information available.  Others may be unduly worried by this.   A representative from the London Egg Bank said that undoubtedly a BC was a legal document but wondered if it had any other responsibilities.

An issue I felt was avoided was that of identity.  Several people mentioned the word but it was always in the context of legal identity.  Who we feel we are is of course quite different.  Personally I feel my own identity is made up of a complex multiplicity of factors…and they increase rather than decrease in shape and size as I get older.  Perhaps my genetic identity is part of that – Italian father etc. – but to me it feels like a pretty small component.  However, I know that for some donor conceived people – particularly those who were late-told and/or had childhoods marred by difficulties – feel very differently.  Their genetic make-up and links to others who share genes feels vital to their sense of self and their need to know their donor is great.  This was not explored and I wonder if it had been raised by the donor conceived people present it would have been possible for others present to take seriously…given the general leaning towards identity being seen only as a legal status.

A final topic that came up under several different guises was DNA testing; something that is pulling the carpet from under donor anonymity by providing the means for tracing genetic relatives mostly without their permission and revealing to some unsuspecting amateur genealogists that their genetic connections are not as expected.  Why use birth certificates to reveal donor conception when a DNA test will do the job for you?

No conclusions were drawn but I guess that’s what debates are about and PET should be congratulated for arranging the evening.  No doubt they will be writing up the event in the weekly on-line Bio-News.  Subscribe now for free to be kept up to date with news, research and events around assisted conception and genetics.

Update at 24.10.16   For an official version of the presentations and debates see Daniel Malynn’s account in BioNews this week http://www.bionews.org.uk/page.asp?obj_id=717831&PPID=717694&sid=321

29.10.16  Read also this excellent blog about the same event by Rebecca Steinfeld, The Politics of Birth Certificates http://www.rebeccasteinfeld.com/2016/10/the-politics-of-birth-certificates.html

Advertisements

About oliviasview

Co-founder and now Practice Consultant at Donor Conception Network. Mother to two donor conceived adults and a son conceived without help in my first marriage.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to What are birth certificates for?

  1. Unfortunately we are not able to attend in person, but have a few comments below:

    Firstly we are in agreement that there is a requirement to have the ability for biological parents (donors) to be listed on birth certificates for historical reasons (Genealogy) and also for medical reasons.
    In addition we believe that there needs to be a system which suits all scenarios, whether that is for donor conceived created through a clinic with an unknown donor, through a clinic with a known donor or outside of a clinic via home insemination.

    Our ideas would be as follows:

    – To have a Birth certificate which names the two legal parents, either married heterosexual couples, lesbian or gay couples (as current)
    – In addition to have a code within the birth certificate which is not recognisable to the general public which indicates that one or both of the parents is not the biological parent.
    – To have an Addendum, an additional document (part 2) of the Birth Certificate which is used to give information regarding the biological parents (donors).

    This Addendum would be completed by Fertility Clinics and optionally completed by those using donors outside of a clinic, when registering the birth.

    The question is whether this Addendum would be kept ‘secret’ and who would be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality until the donor conceived child was 18 years, or whether this Addendum could be released earlier if consent was given by the donor and or for medical/legal reasons?

    We think that having this discreet method of naming donors would help parents feel that the donor was not being viewed as a parent, but has the benefit keeping records for the future.

    • oliviasview says:

      Thank you Erika for this contribution to the debate. I’m afraid I can immediately see some problems with your suggestion. I think the ‘code’ would become known about very easily and therefore identify people as being donor conceived to those who have no need to have this information – birth certificates being demanded in a vast range of situations these days. There is the possibility of stigma or judgement from others as a result. Also, would it not both drive people abroad or into the unregulated sector for treatment so that they could avoid the completion of the Addendum by a UK clinic and/or create two classes of donor conceived people…those with a marked birth certificate and those without, thus defeating the object.

      • Hi Olivia,
        Yes I am in agreement that the birth certificate should not appear different or allow for the identification of donor conceived individuals. The idea of a code or number was just an idea for linking the birth certification to further information held about the donor’s details. It may be that the addendum could simply be linked via the birth certificate number, thereby not creating any difference on the birth certificate. I am not too sure in what form the donor’s details could be held, but it is really positive that we are having these discussions.
        Best regards
        Erika

  2. TAO says:

    Olivia,

    In the US there are actually two forms of the birth certificate. The common one most have is called a Certificate of Live Birth, and is the short form version, it is the recognised version for identity except for your passport. The long form version has more details included about the birth, prenatal care, etc., in addition too everything listed on the short form. (To complicate that, each state has their own version of both, how different I can’t tell you.)

    As an adoptee – my solution would be to change the short form version to state “legal parents” instead of mother / father or parent 1 / parent 2, then add to the long form version an addition field/box showing the genetic parents. Only the long form would show both sets. Your privacy would be protected. Your factual details about your birth, your genetic identity, would be available to you.

    Note: in the US, some states still allow the birth place of the adoptee to be changed upon adoption, the hospital removed so even that can be inaccurate depending on the judge.

    In the US – Birth certificates are public records but are not available to the public, they used to be but aren’t any longer.

    • oliviasview says:

      Thank you TAO, that’s really interesting. In the UK we have long and short versions of birth cert as well but the long one is demanded so many times these days…something to do with security against terrorism. Anyone’s birth cert can be accessed by anyone else in completely open records.

  3. Jeff Bergstrom says:

    Leaving donor conceived births aside, what about regular/natural or ‘normal everyday’ pregnancies? It is a well known fact that many parentages are questionable (e.g. Who is the real father?). Thus in the context of this key fact, what exactly are you proposing? DNA testing for *all* births? If not, your birth certificate chat is a fallacy and indiscriminate against donor conceived births alone.

    • oliviasview says:

      The thing is, the event was about donor conceived births NOT about those births that may have come about in other ways.

      • Jeff Bergstrom says:

        Yes, I appreciate that. But my point highlights the folly of such a discussion. Can you not see that?

        • oliviasview says:

          I think this is where the term third party assisted reproduction comes into it’s own Jeff. This refers to a conception that was planned and involved a willing donor and (mostly) a fertility clinic and in the UK a semi-government body as well. Again in the UK and in New Zealand and States in Australia a register of treatments, donor and offspring. In other words lots of people were involved and knew what was going on.
          In other cases where children do not have the genetic parentage they have been led to assume, there has been a distinct lack of involvement of others. It is an (often regrettable) private matter and I believe that donor assisted reproduction should be removing itself from association with this by acting in a scrupulously ethical way and not emulating the confusion and lies that are often part of covering up such events. Active third parties have to take responsibility for their behaviour.

  4. Jeff Bergstrom says:

    I hear you, except assisted reproduction obviously includes ‘regular’ IVF which as you know does not necessarily introduce third parties.

    Regardless, for donor conceived births, is the proposal for voluntary information submission? I mean, personally I would not advertise publicly (coded or otherwise on public records) my family’s private business. Happy to inform the child(ren) at the appropriate time, but for public consumption thereafter? No thanks.

    So if its voluntary only (and it clearly can’t be mandatory anyhow, how could it), and only for a minority subset of society, it still begs the question, what’s the point?

    Meanwhile the GRO introducing digital records is aimed at birth records across the board, makes sense in 2016+. I hardly imagine they have a specific interest in specifically targeting a tiny minority of ‘assisted reproduction’ births.

    As for clinic/third party involvement in birth registration, are you aware of the current process of registering a birth? Such parties are long gone by then. Nor have they the remotest interest in what wee Jimmy’s middle name is or what parentage is recorded…even if interested (polite term) parties such as yourself do.

    If I recall correctly from your previous articles, you’re big into “egg sharing”, which is the predominate donor route for infertile women who wish to undergo DE treatment in the UK. Have you consulted with these eggsharers?

    Many others wish for a much younger donor (as it does matter if you consult relevant research) who has no fertility issues (whereas UK egg sharers are typically older ladies with fertility problems of their own), thus have to go abroad. Again if I recall correctly, you’re against such a choice (due to anonymity alone, or for other reasons also?) Do you genuinely think such third parties are going to have an interest in this birth certificate proposal?

    • oliviasview says:

      So many misunderstandings and things to respond to here Jeff.
      Firstly, there is no one proposal about changing birth certificates (BC). The UK Law Commission has simply asked for submissions to it’s consultation as to whether they should look at changing the law relating to BC. This is almost certainly part of their parallel request for submissions to it’s potential enquiry into changing laws around surrogacy in the UK, something that there is a strong lobby for. It is apparently serendipitous that the GRO is looking into digitising it’s records at the same time, thereby creating an opportunity to change the system to take account of births by donor conception and issues around gender identity and children with multiple parents. It almost certainly would not have considered doing this simply to take account of DC people otherwise.
      Those who would like to see all birth certificates marked in some way to indicate that there may be further information about biological parentage elsewhere (still to be decided) would like the birth registration system linked to UK fertility clinics so that parents could not lie about their child being donor conceived. So not voluntary. This would leave people who had conceived outside of a licensed clinic and those who had conceived abroad able to avoid giving this information to the registrar if they chose to do so, thereby creating two classes of people (and that’s just within the DC community, let alone those conceived as a result of an affair).
      I have written about egg-sharing but am not particularly ‘in to it’ as you infer. UK egg donation is pretty mixed with plenty of ‘altruistic’ donors as well as those who egg-share. I’m not quite sure why you feel they in particular need consulting, but I would like to correct your assumption that egg-sharers are women with problems themselves. Clinics, who like to keep up their success statistics, would not allow women to egg-share if there was something significantly wrong with them. The vast majority of egg-sharers are women in relationships with infertile or semi-fertile men and that is why they need IVF. They do tend to be slightly older than egg donors in the US for instance, but personally I would much prefer a donor who had the maturity to understand her responsibility to offspring from 18, rather than a very young woman who was donating to support herself through college.

  5. Jeff Bergstrom says:

    Misunderstandings indeed. How exactly would the process of birth registration become mandatory to include donor information? In case you are unaware, the current birth registration process is completely voluntary. A woman can name any ‘father’ and put said name on the BC. No-one checks (or is remotely interested), believe me. Are you suggesting the birth registration process will be heavily policed in the future (I’m beginning to imagine lie detectors/armed police etc) to cater for future DC (amongst other) births? I for one look forward to seeing such a process.

    If I have the wrong end of the stick, please do clarify for me as I am genuinely finding such proposals entertaining now. I strongly suspect the wider public will concur once they become aware of such folly.

    (PS – In truth, I suspect you realise such proposals are wholly unworkable but are too proud to admit it)

    • oliviasview says:

      Absolutely not too proud Jeff. I do think they are unworkable.

      • Jeff Bergstrom says:

        That’s fair of you.

        However it still leaves a question hanging regarding your earlier line “Active third parties have to take responsibility for their behaviour.”

        I guess clarification of who specifically these ‘third parties’ are (in terms of donor conception) would be welcome?
        (Just the clinics, eBay sperm sellers etc? or the infertile adult/s themselves also?)

        And thereafter, what, in your opinion, have these third parties to do exactly ‘for their behaviour’ – you make it sound like unilateral behaviour, whereas we all surely appreciate that the infertile adult(s) are those responsible for making/taking such a decision.

        The clinics and eBay sellers are simply providing a service to meet demand. If there was no demand, they would obviously not exist.

        Are you suggesting these third parties be legally compelled…or are you just suggesting they morally ‘have to’?

        • oliviasview says:

          I’m still not quite clear that we are talking about the same thing here Jeff. When I referred to ‘active third parties’ I had in mind fertility clinics, donors and those behind any legislation, guidelines and rules laid down in a particular country or State. Where there is legislation in place, as in the UK, then there is a legal requirement to behave in a certain way, but I think there is a moral one as well. Infertile people are subject to huge pressures, both external and internal. You may consider it paternalistic but I think that sometimes they need guidance or help to make decisions that will be right for their child, but never judgement. The presence of rules or laws helps with this.
          I’d love to know what your personal interest is in all this. I’m assuming you are in the UK as your email address is here and you seem to be responding in UK time. Are you a private sperm donor?

    • Kate says:

      Hi Jeff – I believe that you are incorrect when you say that a woman can name any father and put the name on the BC. The father would need to be present and consent to his name being put on the birth certificate. If a woman goes alone to the registry office, she cannot have anyone’s name other than her own listed as the other parent.

      • oliviasview says:

        Just my understanding too Kate. Thanks for raising this.

        • Kate says:

          I stand corrected on one point – if the parents are married then either parent can register the birth on their own – https://www.gov.uk/register-birth/who-can-register-a-birth

          • Jeff Bergstrom says:

            Hi Jane, you are correct on this specific, but on my original point you are incorrect in your assumption.

            If the woman (mother) had enjoyed a bit of side salad e.g. 9-10 months previously (and the actual father is someone else other than her husband) she can still stroll into the registry office and have the BC created to formally state the (legal) ‘father’ as being her husband, when that is plainly untrue.

            I’m unsure if many realise, but this happens most frequently, to avoid opening cans of worms (as DNA testing would show) or indeed unintentionally on occasion when a woman is unsure or hasn’t closely considered the true parentage. (many many affairs etc do happen in real life)

            As for unmarried couples, the same (opaque and flawed) process applies, its just that in such a circumstance, the poor unsuspecting bloke has to accompany her & live life oblivious to reality! (again, unless he performs a DNA test!)

            Is this really news to people?

          • Jeff Bergstrom says:

            I can’t yet see my earlier reply to check, but I’ve just considered that I may have inadvertently referred to Kate as Jane. If so, please accept my apologies, wholly unintentional mistake!

  6. Liz says:

    Birth certificates are legal documents, and one of their major functions is to determine national citizenship, so I can see why people focused on legal identity.

    As an aside, I can’t recall ever reading over my BC, although I’ve used it to get passports, immigration, and driver’s licenses. Unless alerted to the information, I can’t imagine that the # of people who had been donor conceived that would find out the information via birth certificate would be very large.

    Legally, in the USA, don’t believe most donors or clinics are thinking about inheritance lawsuits. Some donors may be concerned about legal obligations if their status as a donor is not legally clear. Known donors who do not go through clinics may be defined as a legal parents, depending on state law. But a legally recognized gamete donor is not a legal parent and would no more be subject to a lawsuit for inheritance $$ then a birth mother or father in a legal adoption.

    A court of law adjudicating a contested will or inheritance would examine the legal family members. If the gamete donor was not considered a legal family member, then there would be no legal standing to contest the will on the basis of family membership.

    In the USA there are anonymous, known, and known at 18 donors. Donor banks may find it easier to recruit donors who are anonymous, although open-identity at 18 donors are becoming more common. It’s easier for clinics with in-house donor banks to do anonymous donors, as the clinics are not obligated to keep records with this information for years.

    Seems to me that using birth certificates as a way to patrol parents isn’t going to be particularly effective. It also seems rather a patronizing attitude and sets up a confrontational interaction between the state and parents. Confrontation may push parents to avoid this type of surveillance and patrol, which would be rather easy to do.

    Parents who are comfortable with telling will stay in the UK. Parents who aren’t will go out of country or order sperm in from Denmark and conduct a do-it-themselves insemination. Some women may seek out an internet donor.

    Or, there’s a group of procrastinators that won’t tell anyways, despite info being on the birth certificate.

    Would be surprised if the existence of small print on a bc would persuade individuals to tell.

    Seems to me there’s some sort of hope this is a “solution” to parents not telling. But not telling is a psychological issue. The psychological urge, procrastination, or fear must be quite strong in people who do not tell. Psychological issues require psychological solutions. Legal documents are a poor substitute, and prob. not effective.

    • oliviasview says:

      Thank you Liz for some clear thinking about this issue. I absolutely agree that the existence of some small print on the BC will not solve the problem of parents not ‘telling’. It is a psychological issue but it is also one of education as well. We find at DC Network that just setting out the reasons for ‘telling’ in an unemotional and non-judgemental way will often result in people understanding why ‘telling’ is so important. It is true, however, that these are usually educated people who have simply assumed, without thinking about it, that not telling is the way forward. The ones who are more difficult are those who find it difficult to put themselves in the shoes of a child in the future and think about how they might feel. They also have a tendency to think of a sperm or egg as ‘just a cell’ that will make no difference to who a child is as they ‘are going to love them to bits’ and thats what matters.

      • Jeff Bergstrom says:

        “non-judgemental” – are you absolutely sure?

        (please do give any answer careful & considered thought before replying…as the potential exists for such an answer to be challenged with facts which may contradict)

        • oliviasview says:

          Please explain more Jeff.

          • Jeff Bergstrom says:

            I will be happy to, if you choose to clarify/answer.

            • oliviasview says:

              Can’t help but think you are trying to catch me out here. Care to tell me where you are coming from personally?

              • Jeff Bergstrom says:

                Hi Olivia, I guess the fact that you believe I am trying to ‘catch you out’ says it all.

                In truth I personally do believe you do have a judgmental (-ve) attitude towards those who choose to undergo donor conception using clinics abroad. It may not be intentional or you may not realise it (and I’m intentionally heaping on the benefit of doubt here), but this remains my (and others) opinion.

                Not only yourself either, but also other people who supposedly act/speak on behalf of DCN which suggests a particular underlying culture, which I deem most unfortunate. However please rest assured I don’t propose to use this forum as a name & shame mechanism or similar; I shall say no more on the matter. In any event I am also very aware it is your duty to moderate all comments on your blog.

                PS, sorry – to answer your earlier query, yes I am UK based, but no, I am not a sperm donor. But I do have a strong interest in all things DC related…which is one reason why I read your blog.

                • oliviasview says:

                  I’ve been away from the computer for some hours and returned to find your comment and Lucia’s spirited defence of me. So it’s going abroad that you’ve really been going on about. I thought it was about ‘telling’. Good to know now. My own position is that anyone considering going abroad needs to do so understanding and accepting that in the future their child may wish to have information about or contact with the donor that will not be possible for them but will be possible for a child conceived in the UK at the same time. Many people go abroad for good reasons and as Lucia says money is one of them. If people really understand what they are getting in to and plan to be open with their children and support them through any difficult times that may come about, then that’s fine. My very personal view, not necessarily shared by DC Network, is that people contemplating donor conception should always try to keep the door open for the future and going abroad/using an anonymous donor shuts the door…although DNA testing may be a game changer in the future.
                  I agree that I have been more judgemental in the past about people going abroad but my view has mellowed. Perhaps you are a parent who has a child conceived abroad.

  7. Lucia Grounds says:

    My 10 year old twins were conceived using donor embryo in Spain and I have told them from the very beginning about their conception (I am also a solo mum, so I have the added extra of explaining why we don’t have a daddy in our family). This is to say that, even if people are going abroad, that in itself is not a barrier to ‘telling’. You can’t shame or blackmail parents into telling. The best way is through positive examples, education and support (especially from the clinics). The fact that clinics abroad don’t provide counselling or in some cases donor information, is a potential issue for recipients and their children I think.

    DCNetwork used to have the reputation of being judgemental about people choosing to go abroad. That has greatly changed, but sadly the perception still remains (especially with those who actually know very little about DCNetwork and who have never spoken to us there), I work at DCN and counsel people every day who are choosing to go abroad for very valid reasons for their family (not least cost). All DCN would say is that please think carefully about all the aspects, perhaps pick a clinic that gives as much donor information (anon.) as possible and feel happy and confident in your choice.

    Children are all different of course, but in my own experience, my children are affected by the lack of donor information and are aware of the difference in the law in the UK as they know lots of UK conceived children and have spoken about how they can access the donor’s ID at 18 and they can’t. They also only have their donors’ blood group and age and would like more info.

    Jeff – it saddens me to hear you speak so aggressively to Olivia and I am not sure why you are taking that attitude. There is no need for it! There is a difference between being ‘judgemental’ and actively providing information and support so that families can make the best decision for them. This is what DCNetwork does every single day.

    I have no idea why you think Olivia is ‘into egg sharing’! Certainly it is a cost effective way of staying in the UK if you want that for your child. Don’t forget that many lesbian couples and single women egg share to reduce their costs and they are not infertile – you are sadly badly informed.

    Finally, I don’t personally believe that any donor information on a birth certificate is a workable or good thing.

  8. Lucia Grounds says:

    Sorry Jeff, just another comment. There are now much shorter waiting lists at UK clinics, egg banks and agencies with altruistic donors so the choice to stay in the UK is certainly easier than it was a couple of years ago. Affording it however, is another matter which makes me angry – why is IVF so expensive in the UK?

Comments are closed.