ethical question - autistic sperm and egg donors

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I think autistic people should be allowed to donate sperm or eggs, but that the intended parents (the ones raising the child conceived by donation) deserve to know what their kids are likely to be like, and make an informed choice. Otherwise, the children ultimately suffer from being born to parents who are hung up on wanting a different kind of child than what they got, just like many autistic kids born to NT biological parents experience.

Unfortunately, due to the negative perception of neurodiversity, openly autistic people are barred from donation through official fertility clinics for eugenic reasons. This is despite the fact that there are some people who would rather have a child on the spectrum, just like there are parents who want a deaf child.

What I'm uncertain about is whether it's really important to disclose the diagnosis per say. A lot of sperm and egg banks give detailed personality descriptions of their donors to the intended parents, including things like what their hobbies are, how athletic they are, how well they did in school, etc. If an autistic person didn't give their diagnosis but described their personality honestly, there'd be a lot of hints about autism in that. A knowledgeable person can look at a description like that and say 'this person has a high probability of being autistic' - just as many people do on this forum with descriptions at a similar level of detail. Most intended parents won't know those are signs of autism, but even so, if they're expecting a quirky, socially awkward, clumsy kid with strong interests in unusual topics, a high functioning autistic kid wouldn't be that much trouble for them, would they?

After all, I'm sure there are plenty of undiagnosed autistic people who have donated sperm or eggs. Donor X, for example, sounds like he may have been an autistic guy.

Yep...the potential parent should know.

They should also know that the kid might not turn out autistic.

About the diagnosis, or is disclosing the traits enough?

Disclosing the traits would probably be better, actually.

I feel, in at least some cases, that a diagnosis of autism is not as precise as it should be.

It should be remembered that someone who was not autistic in 1990 could be autistic in 2016.

I think that autistic people should be able to donate sperm and eggs, but that there should be some kind of disclosure.

Whatever form the disclosure takes, I think the information should match what would be available in an unassisted pregnancy, so if no diagnosis is mentioned it should at least include explicit disclosure of autistic difficulties both current and in the donor's childhood.

I have doubts that any kind of personality profile would be enough, since autism is not restricted to people with certain personality traits, interests, or academic histories (I'm not saying there aren't trends).

Please don't tell me this is more of this "not autistic enough" attitude, and that people diagnosed earlier are somehow more legitimately autistic than younger generations being diagnosed now. You're usually far too reasonable for that.

Didn't even know this was "forbidden", what about an autistic female who doesn't want the trouble of having socially addicted cattle for a kid? Does this mean she's basically screwed?

I don't mind. However if the children are autistic they may have to suffer depending upon how severe it is. I won't have children because there are many in the world already and I don't want them to be like me.

Naturally or adoption are the only ethical ways.

Your ethical ways are not everyone else's ethical ways. I think this is perfectly fine, except maybe for the fact that you put someone else in charge who might abuse it (this has happened in the past).

Then other traits should be disclosed, too. What if the prospective parents don’t want a child with a certain eye, hair or skin color?

I am ethically opposed to the donation of sperm an eggs, no matter the donor.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

C2V: I don't believe in the "not autistic enough" ethos.

I do believe autism was different in 1990 than it is now.

People with Asperger's are legitimately autistic, in my view--even though it wasn't a diagnostic entity until 1994.

Especially since it is no longer a separate diagnostic entity and is instead included with high functioning autism

According to the DSM-V. According to the ICD-10, which is sometimes even used in the US, Asperger's still exists.