The possibility of large-scale human tragedy is dawning on the legal profession as the Government enacts legislation to name the ‘commissioning persons’ as parents on the birth certs of donor conceived children, rather than the natural, genetic parents. In a major article in the Law Society Gazette, Mary Hallissey writes that the creation of such ‘legal fictions’ have left child law experts aghast that birth certs will now sidestep the truth of a child’s origins and deliberately falsify legal documents.
Furthermore, the Department of Employment and Social Protection confirmed to the Gazette that the format of Irish birth certificates will change. The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are expected to be replaced with ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two’.
Children’s ombudsman Niall Muldoon is quoted as saying that every child born through donor-assisted reproduction should have full, accurate information on their lineage and birth, including the identity of any gamete donors or surrogates. He said this is a basic aspect of human dignity and it is an injustice to ignore it.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the article says, is also abundantly clear on “the right of every child to its genetic identity, and to know and be cared for by its natural parents”.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) is reported as pointing out that the right to information about one’s identity is “a fundamental human right,” and the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling that “everyone must be able to establish the substance of his or her identity”.
The article says it beggars belief that the law should effect this change now given the parallels with the abuse of the adoption system through fictionalised birth certs. Susan Lohan of the Adoption Rights Alliance said there are “layers and layers of parallels” to past adoption scenarios: “How can eradicating a child’s identity ever be in their best interests?” she asks.
“Have we learnt nothing about the sense of genetic bewilderment that these children feel? If a child is interacting with the State with this fictional piece of paper, it’s going to make any future search for them by their family of origin nigh on impossible.”
She feels that past law has largely been more concerned with protecting the feelings of adoptive parents, and that the same mistakes are being made again with regard to donor-conceived children. She notes the irony that we seem more particular about our bloodstock industry than the sense of self of Irish children.
At the same time, other experts such as Dr Geoffrey Shannon believes a child’s right to its identity is vindicated by the creation of a national register of donor-conceived children which will hold information about the child’s genetic parents and siblings. The child will be allowed to request access to this information once he reaches the age of 18, though the parents of the child are under no obligation to pass on to the child the fact that he is donor-conceived.
According to psychologist Emma O’Friel, however, there is no correct way to legislate for this because it is a harmful practice that causes psychological distress and puts some children into a discriminatory position.
“It is wrong to allow children to be removed from their biological parents for no other reason than the desire of an unrelated person. No one would choose this as a start in life – the temporal and geographical dislocation of a child – so why are we doing it?” she asks.
