Arguments and Analogies: Do Children Have a Right to Know Their Genetic Origins?

TL;DR

The paper debates whether children have a right to know they were conceived using donated gametes, comparing it to adoption and natural reproduction.

Contribution

The paper argues that adoption is a more appropriate analogy than natural reproduction for determining children's right to genetic transparency.

Findings

Adoption provides a stronger basis for arguing children's right to know their genetic origins.

Using natural reproduction as an analogy weakens the case for transparency in donor gamete use.

Stronger regulation of donor gametes is justified compared to natural reproduction.

Abstract

Whether children have a right to know that they were created via “donated” gametes has generated debate for a quarter of a century. Pro‐transparency theorists use policies and attitudes concerning adoption to argue for changes in regulations related to “donor” gametes. Anti‐transparency theorists claim that discussions about whether children have a right to know their genetic origins must consider natural reproduction (and not just adoption). They argue that if we use an analogy to natural reproduction instead, we begin to see the problems with requiring transparency. I will argue that adoption is the more appropriate analogy for this debate and that we can make an argument for a strong right to know. I end with some further reasons that we can apply stronger regulation to the use of “donor” gametes than we would to natural reproduction.