Medical history.

I was reading a post on "Di-dad"'s blog titled "a dad's worries about a sick child".

".....when I read about diseases that pass from donors to other donor conceived children that could have been prevented by increased screening techniques I worry about what could be out genetically waiting for my kids that I can do nothing about...."

One of the main reasons for the child's need to find information about his donor given by the medical profession relates to the importance of knowing one's own medical history.

This is all very good but how much do you know about your family medical history? Personally not a great deal. I know that my mum has recurrent sinusitis for example and it seems I have inherited part of it but believe me the fact that I know that we share a common ailment doesn't make me breathe any easier.

The other thing with medical history is that it is not good enough to know that for example your grandmother died of bone cancer, because the bone cancer might have been caused by breast cancer in the first place and that's what you need to be screened for.
So in conclusion it is not good enough to have a vague idea of what your medical history is...it needs to be very accurate.



On the other hand if you are not too sure, you could go and have some Genetic testing done. Unfortunately from what I understand, Genetic testing is not what it's all cracked up to be.

Limitations of genetic testing

Genetic testing isn't 100 percent predictive. Limitations to the predictive ability of genetic testing include:

• Many genetic tests fail to detect all of the mutations that can cause a disease. Cystic fibrosis, for example, is linked to hundreds of mutations — most of which are rare. Other diseases are caused by mutations that can occur in one of several genes. So while you may test negative by current methods, you may have another unknown genetic defect that increases your risk of a particular disease.
• A positive result doesn't mean you'll develop a disease. Genetic tests can't always tell you with certainty whether you'll develop a disease. They can only tell you that you have a mutation that's shown to be associated with the disease. Your probability of developing the disease may be low or high.
• A negative result doesn't mean you won't develop a disease. Noninherited, sporadic gene changes can occur, or you might carry a different, unknown gene that increases your risk. For example, most cancers result from genetic damage that occurs after birth, such as from smoking or exposure to UV rays.
• A positive test doesn't predict severity of the disease. For example, symptoms of cystic fibrosis range from mild bronchial abnormalities to severe lung, pancreatic and intestinal difficulties, regardless of results from genetic tests.
• Individual genes are only part of the puzzle. Most cancers and common disorders such as heart disease arise from multiple causes, including interactions among several genes. A disease that runs in your family may be the result of shared environmental conditions, not genetics. Factors include diet, smoking and exposure to chemicals, sunlight and other forms of radiation.
• Genetic testing can be expensive. Costs range from less than $100 to a few thousand dollars. Your health insurance may not cover testing.

Full article can be found "here"

In my case I happen to be "KS", it's a genetic condition that is not hereditary. It's just one of those things, no amount of testing prior to my conception was going to predict my dilemna. In fact It was through a fertility test that I found out about my condition at 41 years of age. Had I not been inclined to have children I'd probably wouldn't have ever found out.

Health in life is of utmost importance there is no doubt about it, but we cannot foresee, prevent nor cure everything and worrying about what might be, is detrimental to our wellbeing .

Life is just a big lottery....but had I been given a choice between getting "KS" and winning the lottery, I would've picked the latter.

Lost traditions.

This morning, my wife and I went shopping and I was not only surprised but also disappointed in finding that our local supermarket was already selling Easter eggs.

I have fond memories of spending Easter at my grandparents place. Searching through their garden, which to my brother and I was like a vast mysterious jungle, for Easter treats that my grandmother had previously hidden. Christmas and Easter were special times.

Nowadays you can buy anything at anytime of the year and I think it is rather sad.

Ignorance is bliss ...or is it ?

There is much turmoil in the world of DI these days. Should children born in this way be told of their origins? What are the rights of the Donors and the parent s who raise those kids ? Some believe that ignorance is bliss and choose not to tell while others believe that it is important to disclose that information for medical reasons and yet some ex donors believe that DI should cease because they feel a sense of loss that not only affects them but the children as well. I respect all of these views, I think that they all have their valid points.

Personally my wife and I agreed from the start that our potential donor conceived child should have the right to know how he/she came to be from an early age.

I find it interesting that "the rights of the children" is something mostly discussed and legislated by adults. No family unit is perfect regardless as to how the child was conceived. There are plenty of dysfuntional families out there so to say that a child would be the happiest if not born from DI is simply not true. There are no guaranties in life that a child born in a "normal" way within a family unit will not only love but be grateful to his parents forever.

When I look at my own family. My parents divorced when I was 16. Both my parents have remarried but my mum lives in France while my father lives with me in Australia. My brother who also resides in France has ceased all contacts with our mother (his personal decision), Both my brother and I find that we do not share much in common with our father, and I personally believes that I inherited much more from my mum's side rather than my dad's.
I have decided to remain neutral within our family nucleus and if anything it has taught me what NOT to do with my kids.
That goes to show that there is no direct link between the way in which you were created and your happiness as a child.

Also while there is much talk about Di, what about those thousands of children born out of wedlocks every year?

"Lansac" pointed out that in natural reproduction the child does not know the secrets of his parents. He also estimated that in France, 10 000 children are born by adultery each year and there has been no claim that this should be revealed to the children.

(Lansac J: One father only: donor insemination and CECOS in France. Politics Life Sci 1993)

Victorian Laws.

"Under the State Law of New South Wales the husband who consents in writing to receive treatment by donor insemination is deemed to be the legal father of the child born as a result of the procedure. He therefore has all the legal rights and obligations of such fatherhood and the child is in all ways "legitimate". Birth certificate is filled out as though it were an otherwise normal pregnancy."

(Department of reproductive medicine, patient information, donor insemination.)
In the state of Victoria laws differ greatly:

Here is an article that appeared in "The Age" newspaper today.

Bid to ease trauma as donors seek children

PARENTS will be encouraged to tell their children if they were conceived through donor sperm in a public education campaign expected to start in April.

In a move that has upset doctors, it is believed that the State Government is unlikely to adopt interim recommendations by the Victorian Law Reform Commission that sperm donors not be permitted to initiate contact with their biological children.

The $100,000 campaign will include counselling for families with donor-conceived children.

It comes after The Age revealed last year that under present laws, children of sperm donors may be contacted by the Infertility Treatment Authority asking for their consent to meet their biological fathers. Children will also have the right to initiate contact. The child must be 18. The first to be affected by the law will turn 18 in July but research suggests only one in three children knows they were conceived with donor sperm.

A Government spokesman denied it was going against the commission's recommendations, as they did not address the issue of whether the changes should be retrospective.

Authority chief executive Louise Johnson said identifying information could be released only with the consent of child and donor.

But Monash IVF managing director Donna Howlett said donor-initiated contact could have serious consequences.

CAROL NADER

Introduction.

Hi and welcome to my blog. I'm DD (aka Dynamodad) and as the title says a hopeful dad to be. In August last year I found out that I had a medical condition called Klinefelter's syndrome that would prevent me from ever producing children of my own.
It was obviously devastating for both myself and my wife. Thankfully mostly to the generosity of a donor and the advance of science in the world of reproductive medicine we have decided to embark on a journey of hope via Donor Insemination.

This journal was inspired by di-dad's blog to which you will find the link on this page. I would like to credit him for having the courage of bringing what is still regarded as a taboo subject in our society, out in the open, in the form of an informative and at times a touching blog.
Male infertility and its ramifications has for too many years been a subject that most people would rather avoid.
I feel that ,we as men are partially responsable for the fact that there isn't much help and support available to others like us, we must learn to put our machismo aside at times in order to make the broader population aware and to reach up to others in need. Thus I hope to follow in the steps of Di-dad but from an Australian perspective.