ASRM fights record keeping, tracking, and limiting numbers of offspring to one donor

The ASRM and SART continue to fight the ideas of donor registries, accurately tracking offspring births, and limiting the number of children born from any one donor.

News & Publications: News & Research › ASRM Bulletins

http://tinyurl.com/btogved

February 20 , 2012

by: ASRM Office of Public Affairs
Orginally published in ASRM Bulletin Volume 14, Number 13

ASRM/SART sent a letter of opposition to members of the New York House and
Senate health committees regarding problematic sperm donor legislation. AB
9039/SB 6272 would curtail the rights of patients who need a sperm donor to
build their families. The bills would limit to ten the number of offspring any
one donor can conceive and create a donor registry in the state. ASRM argued
there is no scientific evidence to support the cap at ten and referenced
existing professional guidelines while maintaining a single state based registry
would not only be ineffective, but also intrusive.

Sean Tipton of the ASRM is the contact person for this information.
Phone: 202-863-2494
Email: stipton@asrm-dc.org

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to ASRM fights record keeping, tracking, and limiting numbers of offspring to one donor

  1. marilynn says:

    Wendy you might find it interesting that the ASRM endorced the 10 offspring limit until recently. Specifically for your reference is this excerpt from an Oxford Journal of Medicine Article here http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/8/1553.full:

    It notes the exact point in time when the ASRM changed its opinion from a 10 offspring per donor period to

    “To limit the risk of consanguinity, the 1993 American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines suggested limiting the number of pregnancies to 10 per donor (The American Fertility Society, 1993). In the UK, the HFEA is the statutory body that regulates, licenses and monitors clinics, and limits donors to ten pregnancies.”

    Then something changed in ASRM’s 1998 guidelines were published consistent with DeBoers study that came out in 1995. By 1998 ASRM had gone from maximum 10 (ten offspring per donor worldwide) to 213,766 (two hundred thirteen thousand seven hundred and sixty six offspring minimum limit per donor world wide)

    “Since semen from a single donor in the USA can result in many pregnancies, deBoer et al. has suggested limiting donors to 25 per 800 000 population (deBoer et al., 1995), as did a 1997 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) committee opinion (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1995). ”

    http://www.theafa.org/blog/growing-concerns-about-non-regulation-of-donors-really/

    “Red Huff Mar 12, 2012 9:13pm
    Stuart, most reputable companies in this business say that they adhere to the limitations in the ASRM’s current practice guidelines of 25 pregnancies per donor per population of 800,000 which were published in 1998. Prior to 1998 the ASRM’s practice guidelines limited the number of offspring to 10 per donor, period.

    You mentioned that going from the current voluntary limits of 25 offspring per population of 800,000 down to only 10 offspring like they have in Europe would drive prices of eggs and sperm to increase 10-fold.

    The ASRM endorsed that 10 offspring per donor limit in its practice guidelines up until 1998 when it switched to the deBoers formula of 25 per population of 800,000. I don’t recall reading that prices plummeted 10 fold in 1998, what possible justification would there be for them skyrocketing 10 fold for returning to them now? Even if testing requirements are more rigorous today than they were 14 years ago, it still would not account for the fact that prices did not fall at the same rate your saying they’d rise.

    There has also to my knowledge never been a good explaination for the ASRM’s sudden and drastic change of heart in changing its practice guidelines from limits that resembled a large farm family to limits that resemble infinity.”

Comments are closed.