Shortage
Fertility treatments are of a unique nature as many users of such services are not only reliant upon the clinic for provision of their treatment, but also upon donors. Given this dependent relationship between the user and the donor with clinics standing as the middle man, the greatest failure in the fertility sector is a shortage of donors and gametes. In other words, if demand far exceeds supply, then there cannot be a provision of treatment, let alone a provision which can be considered ‘high quality’. With the increased eligibility of fertility treatment to single women and lesbian women thus increasing demand, and the removal of donor anonymity in 2005, there are concerns within the sector that there is a drought of donors. Yet, verifying such concerns can be a difficult task. Whilst the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (‘HFEA’) provides statistics regarding yearly donor registrations and number of treatment cycles, there is no provision of statistics evidencing the demand for treatment or waiting lists for treatment. Given the severity of this potential failure in the fertility sector, this lack of information from a UK Government independent regulator is notable. Moreover, despite statistics released by the HFEA demonstrating that there has been a steady increase in sperm donor registration between 2004 and 2012, these statistics are on shaky grounds. At face value the figures imply that such an increase in registration proves that the donor shortage is simply a “myth”, however when a deeper analysis is conducted, this statement lacks substance. Such figures alarmingly include imported sperm, which now makes up around one third of all sperm in UK clinics. The HFEA have justified this huge proportion of imported sperm stating that it saves clinics “the cost, time and resources required to recruit donors themselves” and that it enables “almost half of clinics… [to] meet the needs of their patients for ethnicity and religion.” Imported sperm is also interestingly useful in masking the shortage of UK donors and the failure to provide fertility treatments using solely UK donor samples. This increasingly resonates in the current climate in which there has been a drop of new UK sperm donor registrations for the first time since the removal of donor anonymity in 2005, now falling below 400 in 2013. Most importations are from the USA and Denmark which in essence have a relatively unregulated sector and allow for donors to be paid, which opposes the sacred principle of altruism in UK which the HFEA on the outset appears to hold in such high regard.
It is both short-sighted and naïve to take the stance that the removal of donor anonymity in 2005 has had no effect on donor rates. Even the HFEA and the Warnock Report had previously identified the “risk to the future availability of donors” and noted that removal of donor anonymity would discourage donations. Interestingly with egg donations, despite an initial decline between 2005 and 2006, there has been a surge of newly registered non-patient egg donors, surpassing the 1000 mark in 2013. The increase of egg donor registration is particularly telling as this defies societal gender norms. There is a view held by some in society, that female donors are “giving away their potential babies” and that donation is “psychologically contrary to [women’s] reproductive psyche”, precisely that women receive, not give. In theory, such societal gender expectations would infer that egg donor registrations would decrease and certainly not increase so dramatically. Such an increase adds validity to [FIRST NAME] Baetens findings that egg donors are less likely to donate on the condition of anonymity, and additionally that egg donors seek more information and involvement with the child. In this sense, the removal of anonymity has not led to a failure of egg recipients in fertility treatment, but rather has encouraged egg donations.
On the other hand, the same conclusions cannot be drawn with sperm donors, and the removal of anonymity has played a part in the sperm shortage. Eric Blyth and Lucy Frith are reliant upon the figures provided by the HFEA that show an increase of 10 donors between October 2004 and October 2005 in their assertion that the removal of anonymity has not created a donor shortage. This viewpoint is in contrast to that of David Batty, whom notes that “the number of women treated with donated sperm fell by nearly one fifth in the first full year after the change in law.” The findings of Batty hold more strength than that of Blyth and Frith because he provides holistic figures, viewing donor registrations within the climate of non-anonymity, and not in isolation. Furthermore, he has also been supported by Professor Allan Pacey who provides the explanation that sperm donors are now adding restrictions to the use of their donations for instance specifying the recipient or providing a maximum number of recipients lower than the legal limit of 10. Understandably, many donors may feel uncomfortable at the prospect of meeting ten biological children eighteen years later. At the very least, the removal of donor anonymity has indirectly contributed to the sperm shortage with more restrictive limits on how much, and to whom, donor samples can be used.
The ‘New’ Donor
The main challenge to the claim that the removal of donor anonymity has effected donor rates and thus contributed to the failing of service users, is that there has been an emergence of a ‘new donor’. To be more precise, that the removal of anonymity has encouraged a donor of a different demographic to register and replace the ‘old donor’ (pre- 2005). In practice, for instance in Sweden which was one of the first countries to enact non-anonymity, this means that there would not be a shortage of sperm or eggs, and there would be no failure in the provision of fertility treatment, simply that such donations would be taken from different people. However, whilst it is almost certain that the removal of anonymity has attracted a ‘new donor’, this does not necessarily mean that the removal of anonymity hasn’t played a role in the failure of those who use fertility services. Research on the ‘new donor’ indicates that the ‘new donor’ may not have solely altruistic motivations for donating and that this new demographic may not be sustainable.
There has been conflicting research produced with regards to what demographic of men make up the ‘new donor’. For [FIRST NAME] Daniels, he found that older, heterosexual men in relationships who already have children were more likely to donate without anonymity. Whilst some academics assert that such a demographic of men are “more responsible” , it is with relief that Daniels’ findings are not reflected in reality due to the correlation of age and declining sperm quality. However, research conducted by Damien Riggs is preferable as it is reinforced with current HFEA statistics.