By contrast, most sperm banks have been chronically resistant to any move toward acknowledging kinship. Some (including Fairfax and CLI) actually withhold their own donor numbers from donors, thereby making it much more difficult for donors who do wish to establish contact, even just to update and share crucial medical information with families on the DSR. The sperm banks have also ignored or opposed calls for other much-needed reforms — for example, more accurate, up-to-date record keeping; allowing donors and families to make mutual consent contact before a child is 18; updating and sharing of all medical and genetic information; initiating comprehensive medical and genetic testing of donors; accurately tracking donors and the children being born; and placing limits on the number of children created from any one donor.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) has taken a very strong stand against regulation and has argued that there is “no scientific evidence to support a cap at ten children per donor.” The September 2012 ASRM’s Mental Health Professional Group (MHPG) newsletter lists sponsorship by three sperm banks: Fairfax, Xytex, and California Cryobank. (Fairfax and Xytex continue to have the largest number of very large half-sibling groups on the DSR.) It seems to me that for the MHPG to accept funding from parties with a commercial interest in maintaining the status quo could give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as raise questions as to whether MHPG policies, recommendations, or guidelines are in fact influenced by the interests of their sponsors. Can they fulfill their mission statement (“to promote scientific understanding of the psychological, social, and emotional perspectives of infertility patients”) with this type of sponsorship?