Sperm Sisters's Podcast

Ep 20 Effics

• Sperm Sisters • Season 1 • Episode 25

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 45:16

Would you trust 55-year-old sperm? And if scientists can create sperm and eggs from skin cells, are donor-conceived kids about to become a thing of the past?!

Welcome to this week's episode, "Effics" - part 1 of our chat with Harriet, close friend of the podcast and actually qualified to discuss the ethics of the medical industry. 

Join us as we begin to unravel who goes on the birth certificate when surrogacy is involved and why can't scientists research a fertilised embryo? Also, if donors were screened, none of us sisters would be here today. That's blown our minds. 

Gemma, Natasha and Helen, (your friendly unhinged Sperm Sisters), give you another episode that's funny, fascinating and guaranteed to give you an existential crisis. 

🎙️ Sperm Sisters - Episode 20: "Effics" 

🎧 Listen now on Spotify, Apple Podcasts & all podcast platforms
📺 Watch on YouTube
📱 Follow us on Instagram for more Sperm Sisters chaos

💬 We want to hear from YOU!
Got a question, a story or something you think we should be discussing? Send us a voice note on WhatsApp: (+44)7507 834096 - you might even feature on the podcast!

And if you loved this episode, please share it with a friend. It really helps us get the Sperm Sisters story out there x 

--------------------------------------

Get in touch and share your story with us, we're looking to interview people on upcoming episodes! 

Email us at: spermsisterspod@gmail.com

Whatsapp your questions: (+44)7507 834096

Follow us on insta: @spermsisterspodcast

Subscribe on YouTube: @SpermSistersPodcast

SPEAKER_04

Doobit does.

SPEAKER_03

This is a story about sisters. Just not the kind that you're expecting. Three years ago, we were strangers, living separate lives.

SPEAKER_02

Now we know we're biological sisters, connected by the same sperm donor. And that's just the beginning.

SPEAKER_01

This podcast dives headfirst into the how, the why, and the uncomfortable questions no one seems to want to answer.

SPEAKER_02

Uncovering secrets the medical world would rather keep buried.

SPEAKER_03

How many donor-conceived people are there really? No one can give a straight answer. Not the clinic, not the system, no one.

SPEAKER_02

So, how many siblings could be walking past us every day without a clue? It's messy, it's shocking. At times it's almost impossible to believe. And somehow, it's also really funny.

SPEAKER_01

Come with us as we dig deeper, ask the uncomfortable questions and laugh our way through the chaos of discovering who we really are. And just how many of us there might be.

SPEAKER_02

Coming up on this week's episode of Sperm Sisters.

SPEAKER_01

Hello and welcome back to another episode of Sperm Sisters. Now, today's guest is someone very special to us. Harriet Hall first discovered her passion for medical ethics while studying law, a spark that led her to complete a master's in the subject at King's College London. Harriet would be the first to tell you that she isn't an expert, but she has a particular fascination with the legal and ethical questions surrounding assisted reproduction and abortion. As medical technologies continue to advance, these areas raise incredibly complex questions about competing interests, societal values, and even when life begins, issues that have profound consequences for the people at the centre of them. Professionally, Harriet has spent her career in the charity sector, tackling some of the healthcare's biggest challenges. She's passionate about policy, people, and problem solving, which makes her the perfect person to join us for today's conversation. And finally, perhaps her greatest qualification of all is that she's been my trusted friend and confidant for over 20 years. And it is my greatest pleasure to welcome her to today's episode. Harriet, welcome to Spurb Sisters.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you. So excited about this. Before we kick off, can I put one thing on the record? Yes. Tash was popular in six form.

SPEAKER_03

Right. I didn't believe it. It's not, it's false. It's false.

SPEAKER_00

I'm not letting you edit that out. I was like one of those people that knew everyone, but didn't really form great relationships. Not true. Everyone loves Tash.

SPEAKER_03

And still does. How could they not after the umbrella dance as well? Anyway, that's not why we're here, is it?

SPEAKER_02

That's not why we are here.

SPEAKER_01

We're here to learn things. It would might be good to kind of start with the bigger picture, Harriet, if you don't mind, and ask you what you think are some of the biggest ethical questions around sperm donation that most people never stop to think about.

SPEAKER_00

I have a few. I think listening to all of your wonderful episodes, you've already hit on quite a lot of the core ones. But I kind of when you luckily very kindly gave me this question beforehand so I could have a little think. And also I went back and had a look at what you'd all been discussing, so I didn't just say all the obvious ones. I think there are probably four, so I couldn't choose just one. What comes next? What can we actually learn from sperm donation so that whatever the next big thing in fertility treatments, we don't make the same mistakes that we have from the past? Fertility clinic regulation and the rise of add-ons. Do we think that everyone should have a right to fertility on the NHS? Donor availability and screening. What do you think should and shouldn't be screened for? I noticed in one of the episodes you made a really interesting point about screening out for the anxiety, but if you did, maybe you guys wouldn't be here. So what are those kind of levels that we think are relevant or not? And then have I done four? No, that's the other one. Sorry. Four. What do we think about the use of dead donors, gametes, in sperm donation?

SPEAKER_03

So just some light-hearted ones to pick us off. Shall we start with death? But those are all like actually incre I I want to go through all of them.

SPEAKER_00

What comes next? So I thought I'd pose a question to you guys first. In all the research that you've done, what do you think is the next big thing in sperm donation?

SPEAKER_01

I think international regulation has to be one of them. Because following the episode that we recorded last week with our friend in Australia, down under, I mean, her story is I mean, her story is is wild, but I mean, yeah, I I think international regulation for sure is something for me that was never something I had considered prior to doing this podcast, but it's now something that I think is cropping up in a lot of our episodes. Whether we mean to bring it up or not, it seems to always come through as a theme.

unknown

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Tell him I totally like I think the main thing is international record keeping for sure, or just countries tallying up with each other. But also, I don't, well, this isn't like the a future thing, but what I found interesting was finding out that people who did hit the post-1991 regulations and they were then able to access identifying information, of which it wasn't really identifying. I didn't realise that the parents had to access that on their behalf. So I think then there'll be so many people, even post-91, who still have no idea that their donor conceived and whether there should be something going back through all of those records, like at least letters sent just acknowledging it to people. But obviously, I don't think that would ever happen. But that's something I think should happen.

SPEAKER_02

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't think they will ever create an international donor list. I don't think a law will ever be passed that everyone around the world has to know. I think what's more likely gonna happen is sperm donation and the creation of human life will get more sophisticated and people will be able to cherry pick features, personality traits, getting parents dying to say something.

unknown

This is the next point.

SPEAKER_02

Is it I think I think that's more likely gonna happen because realistically you make money on that, you lose money on the other bits, like letting people know, creating a donor list, like a like a register, that's gonna cost time and money. They're not gonna do that. Why would they do that when they could make money by charging an insane amount? Well, what do what do you think it is then, Harriet?

SPEAKER_00

Well, first off, amazing responses. I wasn't quite thinking of international regulation, but that is in my list to come to a bit later. The retrospective elements of law, very interested in that, and again is uh coming at a later point, but ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, Gemma. I was thinking about what is the next step in terms of some of the technological developments. And although I didn't quite go down the gene editing area, I did think I'd bring to your attention in vitro gametogenesis. What is that? Any of you know what that is. So this is the development of gametes, which are eggs or sperms that can be developed outside the human body from either embryonic stem cells or reprogrammed adult sketch cells like skin cells, which then can be used to form embryos, which means we've already demonstrated this in animal models, and so it is about seven years away, but it means that people that are same-sex same-sex couples or people with um specific fertility issues might be able to use their own cells, edit them, and then create sperm and egg cells. Which is really fascinating. But I thought that this brings out loads of the questions you guys have like started to raise on identity, what does that mean? What does that mean as well from any kind of like stigma and societal attitude perspective? I just thought it was a bit of an interesting one. Yeah. So sorry.

SPEAKER_03

Just to clarify Throw a lot at you there. So are you saying that in seven years' time people could literally just use skin cells in like a science setting to create an egg or create sperm from the skin cells? Yes. I don't know what to do.

SPEAKER_00

Now will that actually happen? Probably not. Like we I don't think we are, but it was in the Nuffield, uh, what was it? Nuffield Council on Bioethics that they put out seven years, which I think is incredibly uh ambitious. But it does pose questions about like what should we be preparing for if we know that those kind of things are possible. But for those donor con uh for those they wouldn't be donor-conceived children. I don't know what we would call them.

SPEAKER_02

Well that's an it that's yeah, entirely new. They're not donor. So it's the end of donor conception children as we know it. We're gonna have to change the end of your podcast and invite me on.

SPEAKER_04

Get a new brand, get a new brand. Rebrand.

SPEAKER_03

What what was the fancy term for that?

SPEAKER_00

That you said fancy term, in vitro, gamatogenesis, and because I thought you might have lots of questions, and I have just thrown this on you, which is quite like cruel, I've got two papers that I can send you afterwards. You can also link to if you'd like, uh, that gives you a bit more detail on what that could mean, what some of the ethical implications are for it, so you can dive into a bit more detail. But I just thought I'd raise that as a bit of a question in there might be lots of different technological developments in the next few years that might shift how we think about sperm donation. But I think what the important point is, is where do we pull out what our knowledge from now? Things like how we inform children about how they're conceived, what those technologies actually mean in the long run. Are we thinking about those children at this point, which isn't necessarily what we've done historically? Oh my god. I managed to tie it back around, not just to throw in the fact that I did all the research on Impatriar Kematogenesis, went down a bit of a rabbit hole and then went, oh, how am I gonna shoot on this it now, Jake?

SPEAKER_03

I actually can't believe that. But that is definitely where it will be heading because that's like what a money spinner that will be, and there's not enough sperm donors anyway, that is why they're having to go international.

SPEAKER_00

And that's gonna stop all of this bullshit. There is a point though, in what you said a minute ago, Gemma, to bring it back round to that genetic testing. What if you had a pre-disposition to a genetic issue and you wanted to use somebody else? You might not need to go for their sperm or egg anymore, you might just want to use a cell. What does that mean for that kind of donation instead? And will it be actually regulated by the HFEA at the moment? No, it'd be a completely different piece of law. So there's it I still think there would be the potential for donation. It's just even how we conceptualise and think about it might be a bit different. You're right, Tash. I have so I just have like so many questions. I told you, we're not getting past question one. Strap in, this is gonna be a three-hour episode. Fertility clinic regulation, which I know has come up on your podcast before about just the offers that different clinics have and also the costs that vary between different clinics. So my question was around do you think everyone should have a right to fertility services on the NHS? And if so, when we've got these kind of rise of add-ons and other bits like that, what should be the kind of minimum standard practice and some of the dangers around add-ons?

SPEAKER_01

What are these add-ons exactly?

SPEAKER_00

So, in a lot of fertility clinics at the moment, they will show you the kind of standard approach. But even for uh intra-uterine inseminations, the IUI, which is what you guys predominantly talk about, they will do add-ons that include tests, drugs, equipment, alternative therapies, lab procedures, and surgical interventions. And even within those, uh, although they claim to enhance pregnancy, mitigate risks of miscarriage, reduce time taken to get pregnant, the safety and efficacy is actually limited or lacking. There's not much evidence for each for those types of treatments. And so both the HFEA and the ESHRE, I don't know if you've come across the ESHRE before.

SPEAKER_01

What does that stand for?

SPEAKER_00

Thus, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, so the kind of European equivalent authority, have both done really interesting papers about treatment add-ons with limited evidence. And again, if you go on the HFEA, they've actually come up with like a system to say to you, what is, what does have evidence, what's limited, where is there none? Because, you know, people are going through a really vulnerable time of their lives, and so to be told, like, here's some add-ons that will incre improve your chances or reduce your risks when they're not necessarily accurate seems just really wrong for me personally. And I know that for some healthcare practitioners, they will be well-meaning in this, they'll be listening to what their patients are asking them about what's available with other clinics, etc. etc. And they might actually feel like, oh, I have seen it work, I do want to do this. But until there's real evidence behind it, you I feel like you are just, you know, really getting someone at a vulnerable point and then really using that commercial interest to take as much money as you can. And I think you guys mentioned six cycles are recommended before you go to NHS treatment alone. So if you're getting all these add-ons every time, what does that start adding up to? So I just think that's an issue that we don't really spend time on when we think about what should what sh what is information out there, what should we be doing. I mean, Gemma, you yourself, when you were looking at costs, it's so difficult to find out what even that basic cost, what you should be expecting as a minimum, that when you get there and they start getting told about additional things, how are you going to be able to take what you essentially need against these add-ons?

SPEAKER_02

It just seems wrong. Because it it kind of it it makes it sound like EasyJet. Yeah exactly. Yeah. Backgrounds. Like, do you do you get the luxury of pre-booking your seat or do you do you buy do you buy the meal on the flight? You know, all that kind of stuff. Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi. I didn't even realise that there were all of these add-ons and like different packages. I thought that people turned up to clinics to get XYZ what you needed to have baby, like rather than it just feeds into the whole thing of like us being here today is because someone had a great business plan.

SPEAKER_03

Totally. And preying on the vulnerability of people, because if you're in that situation, you're gonna buy every add-on, aren't you? If you're that if you're desperate to have a family and a doctor saying this is all available from a trusted source, you you'd be like, Oh, take the whole package. You'd buy the Wi-Fi basically.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, and that and that parental guilt starts before you've even conceived having a baby. Because you would, I imagine, you would feel guilty not getting on every single add-on. Each time you go in, you might say, I can't have that add-on this time. Next time, one less. And then and that's so demotivating when you're trying to get pregnant and to try and get into a positive headspace.

SPEAKER_03

Don't you think it's really interesting that Harriet has said that the HFEA actually have a whole list of what has been proven to be of use to buy as an add-on? Because throughout the whole time of us doing this podcast, we had no idea that that even existed. And that's such an important piece of information for anyone trying or going through fertility treatment. Again, if we're proving that it's a business model, it's the fact that that's pretty buried information.

SPEAKER_00

I will say I do feel a bit for the HFEA because they have a lot of plates to spin. And I also think there is some I've personally I think a bit more funding their way so that they can do some of these other elements would be really beneficial. Because if you're trying to regulate all the clinics and or give out information and all these bits, you're probably going to look at the safety of the clinics and make that your priority, if you know what I mean. What do you know what their funding status is, Harriet? Excellent question. I do not know, but I will happily look that up and then ping you anything I find. In fact, that that would be my pleasure.

SPEAKER_02

Because what came out in the last month that the HFEA were like, after all of the online sperm donation stuff, they had to release a statement, didn't they? There wasn't anything on their website about buying sperm illegally.

SPEAKER_00

There was some information on the legal ramifications because about legal parenthood, because going through HFEA licensed clinics, you've always separated out that parenthood parenthood issue. But you're right, I think I do think there is an information sharing opportunity for the HFEA to try and get this information more mainstream that maybe they don't have the resources to do at the moment. You will you will realise during this conversation I am a bit of a HFEA fangirl because what they're trying to do, even though it has its issues, I will agree. I do think that they are trying their hardest to deal with some really complex stuff. And although they don't get the balance right, they are trying to like listen and learn. And I do, I think it's really interesting regulation. And although I know you've had discussions with other people, I still maintain it is quite forward thinking when you take the whole of human fertilization and embryology together. I do understand how it probably misses parts, particularly if you're particularly from different, you know, where different interests collide. But that's just me fangirling over the HFEA for a second, sorry. Okay. I don't think Gemma agrees. But I think it's a two-way street, isn't it? The HFEA are doing good things as well, but they also do need to listen to donor-conceive people, and they do need to make sure that they're embedded in their regulation like regulatory framework so that you're getting opinions, perspectives. The same that they should have clinicians' input, the same that they should have, you know, people that have fertility issues. All of those views should be represented so that when you come to make the legislation, it is fit for purpose. Lived experience makes makes legislation better.

SPEAKER_04

Exactly.

SPEAKER_00

You took the words right out of my mouth.

SPEAKER_03

From your research, Harriet, who do you think then, just on a side note of being a fangirl of the HFEA, who do you think that they are listening to the most? Is it the clinicians, is it prospective parents, or is it the products, if you will?

SPEAKER_00

I think it's been a really big journey. And I think it starts from the kind of even before the HFEA, I think that originally when you were looking at all assistive reproduction technologies, doctors and scientists were like, the problem is people can't have a child. And so the outcome they were looking for was healthy child. I don't think they rightly or wrongly, well wrongly, but I don't think they were thinking of the future life and any of the necessarily ethical questions because I think they were running on the basis that a life is better than no life, and so if you've produced a life, like what's the word I'm looking for here? Like the alternative is the person doesn't exist. So I think from their perspective, they were like existence is better than non-existence. So let's just crack on with that. And I don't think it necessarily came from bad intentions, I think it was also you've got to remember that a lot of fertility is around kind of female health, which often doesn't get all of the research, all of the funding, all of the interest that it deserves. And so again, I think it in some ways it was pioneering to be like people want to start a family, we want to pioneer some technology in order to get them there, let's get people pregnant. I think then when you start to get towards the HFA, you see that you've got a group of people now that have come of age and are starting to push for regulation because they're like, well, what actually does come next? Like, I want to know some information, or I don't think this has been treated particularly sensitively, I don't think the guidance has been accurate. And so I think when by the time you get to the 90s, if you think about it, first kind was 1978, I think I'm right in saying. I know it was a lot longer before that, you're looking at 1940s for AID, but I think once you get to that point, you've got enough of a groundswell for people being like, Well, oh, actually we need this. And I think probably the balance was still researchers and scientists. And then when you get the amendments in 2005, it's because we've moved away from this like paternalistic medical model, and we're starting to think through more to that psychosocial model, which is what is the well being? What how are we balancing the interests of everyone involved? How are we keeping? People safe and thinking about them holistically as a person. I don't think that that's unique to the PHFEA. I think a lot of our views on medicine historically have been paternalistic and so the regulation has been paternalistic. I think now we're starting to think no counselling is essential. Information is like even without genetic testing, there is still a need for people to know in certain pieces of information. So how do we do that in the best way? And even in the 1990s, I know it genuinely wasn't done particularly well, but I think some of that anonymous information was an attempt, and it was only once they'd implemented it that they realised that it wasn't quite fulfilling the need. So again, you're seeing even now they're talking about another amendment to the law. And sorry, you've got me on my bandwagon. Another thing is lovely. I love it. Yeah, say you're really fucking clever as well. It's actually really complicated to change the law around the HFA because, slightly aside from the donor sperm, it's also looking at the research that you can do on an embryo. And there's a lot of debates about when does life begin. So when you start to unpick some of that, you can get a lot of lobbying from people that don't want research in this area, have different views about what a family should look like, can start to lobby. And it can be quite tricky to amend this legislation unless you've got really good because it's very technical information, unless you've got really good buy-in and support from Parliament and the House of Lords. Otherwise, it can get quite tricky. So at the moment you can only have an embryo for 14 days, then it has to be destroyed for research purposes. But that in and of itself is very controversial and highly debated. Because it does limit your ability to do certain pieces of research. But they an embryo develops something called the primitive streak at around 14 days, and that's when it's viewed as being unethical to continue any research on it. But that's also explains why we have some gaps in knowledge between initial fertilization, which we're relatively high up on, but then that gap from 14 days onwards where we've got less research and capabilities around what happens to an embryo at that point.

SPEAKER_01

This just reminds me of when you and I had a conversation fairly recently in relation to um some facts that we had previously spoken about in an earlier episode about the length of time that sperm can be stored for. And I think that we had said that that would be 55 years, so then we went on to have a conversation about, oh gosh, well imagine if in you know 50 years' time we discover that we've got our half sibling who's three or you know, four. And you had some really interesting points to make on that, Harriet. And I wonder if you could share them with us now.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, so I think it's important when we're analysing the HFEA Act that it's not an isolation, because it's also looking at the storage of egg, sperm, and embryos. And so originally you could only store them for 10 years, but particularly younger people freezing eggs, freezing sperm, freezing embryos were struggling with that time period. And although you might consider 55 quite high, there are some pretty interesting justifications for it. The first is that sometimes younger people can be experiencing things like cancer treatment, and if they have hip puberty, they can then freeze their eggs and sperm. And although I agree with you that 55 years is quite a long time, if you're someone in that specific situation, it does give you an element of choice about when you utilize that. And also you're, you know, men can have children up to that point, even depending on when you take that when you have that treatment. So I think there is some rationale to that. There's also other things that people consider. People are freezing much earlier. Although obviously 55 is still quite a big limit. The purpose was to try and ensure equality so that you weren't penalising women with like a shorter amount or you know, you trying to find a limit that suited everybody's needs. People going undergoing gender reassignment surgery that may still want to conceive. Obviously, again, skewing on the younger side demographic, again, as long as they've hit puberty, giving them the maximum option so that they would be comparable to other people. Those at risk of injury or death who wish for their partner to use their sperm uh eggs or embryo after death gives them more ability to grieve and then have that option without putting such strict time limits on it. Um and armed forces as well. If you're going into deployment, particularly if you're young and you're worried about injury, you can do that then as well, which again just gives you a longer time period to decide about what choices you want to make in your family. I will say that there are also less availability of gametes from people of black or minority ethnic groups. So when they were reviewing this, they did think that an extended time period actually gave a greater chance from people with a smaller pull to have some options compared to the majority, which again I do understand that if you're thinking about from the donor sibling perspective, does feel quite a long time. But I would also point out that in practicality, most are used within the first few years. Like they've they've looked into this, and oh yeah, donors themselves can actually reduce that time limit on the forms. And I've also downloaded the forms so that you can see them and see what they're asked for and what they can get information on. They can say if they don't want the donation to go on beyond a certain time limit. So it also 55 years might seem quite high, but I actually think when you think about all the different circumstances, it's erring on the side of caution to allow the maximum number of people that might want to use their gametes the opportunity to do so. But I do I do understand from a sibling perspective and just don't a sperm. But I think it's also good for clinics to only have one set of dates to be accountable for because if you start putting different time limits for different situations, you can get into a bit of a tricky situation where people's gametes might be being destroyed because they were mislabelled or you know, those kind of clerical errors where it's actually if you've got one solid time limit that it is more efficient, I think, for clinics to track. But happy to take any questions or considerations around that. Go on, Gemma. Do you think sorry, I've got two questions.

SPEAKER_02

Do you think that our donor he donated in the late 80s? Do you think that his sperm would still still be in circulation today?

SPEAKER_00

I don't think I can say either way because I don't know. I am very much talking about the UK. I don't know if he donated outside of the UK where it's not working. Just in London. Yeah. I don't know. In all honesty, I I I have no idea. I think I think it's unlikely, but it might be. Oh sorry, that was the other thing. You've just sorry, one other quick thing. It's also because of people wanting to use the same donor for two siblings. So they've tried to maximise the amount of time that you can do that for again beyond the 10-year limit, because they felt that that was unfair. Sorry, I probably should have said that earlier.

SPEAKER_03

I still don't but you would never but in like life you wouldn't get someone with a sibling who was like 30 years younger than them. I do agree with Jagger. I think oh sorry, go on. Unless you're Mick Jagger. Or who's Del Boy? Del Boy is like still cracking them out. What's his name? David something. Jason? David Jason.

SPEAKER_04

Is he really?

SPEAKER_03

I didn't know that. My god, yes. He's like prolific. Oh boy. Hang on.

SPEAKER_00

Sorry, Joe, I also interrupted your second question. Yeah, what's your second question?

SPEAKER_02

Is my second question is right if you have a pot of sperm on the shelf that is 10 years old and you have a spot of a pot of sperm on the shelf that's 30 years old, is it cheaper to buy the 30-year-old sperm? I don't think so. So do you I think that you're allowed to be a bit more of an appealing financial decision if you buy the cheaper uh it might be cheaper, like the older sperm.

SPEAKER_00

I don't I again would have to look it up before I say anything, certainly. But I don't think so. But I would have to look it up. Because I think that you're not supposed to actually do not I'm not gonna say anything in case I guess and get it wrong. I'll go look it up if I don't come back to you.

SPEAKER_02

Just my yeah, I maybe it's my cynical view because I feel so burnt by the whole process that I wouldn't be surprised if they had some kind of like bog-off deal. You know, buy one, get one free on the older sperm because they need to clear the shelf at the end of the year.

SPEAKER_00

But there is a season. There is a demand that outpaces the need at the moment. So I think I think it's difficult. I I kind part of me thinks that actually 55 years, unless you are one of those people I mentioned that are storing it for personal use, yeah. Which I do think does make sense. I think in reality, in donation, it's not it it's just not sitting on the shelf that long.

SPEAKER_03

If we're using David Jason as a case study just as we always should. Quite right. Uh what I found on Google is that he has an older daughter who's age 55, and a younger daughter who's 25, which is only 30 years then. Isn't it? And that's like everyone was shocked. That made national news with how old he was when he had his youngest daughter then. So, but that's still only 30 years, so I don't get why you would need another 40.

SPEAKER_00

Again, I think it's skewed that way, not for donors of sperm. I think it's skewed that way for people that, particularly teens, that are undergoing medical treatment that might want it later in life. And I think 55 years, although it might seem really advanced, there are also technological developments about how you can store like people pre-pubescent children's gametes if they're undergoing things like cancer treatment, for them to have reproductive choices when they get older.

SPEAKER_03

You're right, but I now feel like a knob. Why? What? That wasn't intended. But I now I've thought about it, I'm like, yeah, that is fair. Do you think that's why potentially there's all this chat about how even in set in seven years you could create life just from a skin cell? The fact that there's such a dwindling population as well, do you think that they'll try and like put more and more funding into that because they're so desperate for people to have children?

SPEAKER_00

I think the drive is more to because I think the drive is more from that treatment perspective. So it's rather than relying on donations, it's what can we do to solve the infertility of the individual. I think that's the drive. But I do think there are commercial interests within that as well, to be honest. You probably will have more people that would want their own genetic child. I'm saying that that's an assumption, but you may want to have more people that are more prepared to do that and think, or you might have some people that are put off by the idea of donor gametes and look at things like adoption instead. So because there are other pathways as well, or you know, so it might be that I I think the driver isn't necessarily, and especially not for the NHS. I don't think the NHS is sat there thinking we can make loads of money out of this. I think it's more the researchers thinking about how do we cure infertility, and then commercial interests step into that piece because of the resource issue. So a commercial interest will be we know people really desperately want to have children. We can make lots of money off this. We know that the NHS has limited resources, so we can step in and then charge a fortune. And that's that's where the commercial interest comes in, I think.

SPEAKER_02

Do you think you're also anticipating a handmaiden's tale scenario?

SPEAKER_00

Uh I love a bit of dystopian fiction. I'm always anticipating a same case because I bet that's easier than Don't get me started on surrogacy law, Gemma. I want to now it's a different podcast.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, because we've had surrogacy UK get in touch with us and say that they want to come onto the podcast. You should. It's really interesting.

SPEAKER_00

Can I tell you a little fact? Yeah.

SPEAKER_03

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

If you use a surrogate, who gets put on the birth certificate? Not the surrogate. The surrogate. Yeah, the surrogate, because in the UK, the person that birtheds a child is the person that's legally put on as the mother. And then you have to apply for a parental order in order to amend it.

SPEAKER_01

What the fuck?

SPEAKER_00

How long can that take? I do not know.

SPEAKER_03

My factors run out. We went to go and um get my daughter a birth certificate, and do you know what I think is so wild? When you're in there, they asked Jack, said like obviously I'm on the birth certificate because I gave birth to her. But they specifically asked Jack, so are you sure you want to go ahead with this? Because once your name is on here, you are legally responsible for the child. But if you don't want to be put on it, this is the time to not be put on it. In not so many words, basically. And Jack and I were like wetting ourselves afterwards because I was like, Can you imagine if we'd sat there and Jack was like, actually, I don't want to be on it at all, I don't want any legal responsibility. But like the woman doesn't get asked that, obviously. I just think that was crazy in this day and age to be like, Are you sure you want to?

SPEAKER_00

Not another word. No. Well, this comes back to your question on genetic parentage. Because you could just have a DNA test there and then and then decide whether he was or wasn't the father during that process if you really wanted to. For everyone. Yeah, yeah. If you have a right to know your genetic origins. Which I think you do, personally. I think you do.

SPEAKER_01

Because my Yeah, I think um I think I think yes. Yes. I think so. I feel like someone's holding a gun to your head for you to say yes.

SPEAKER_02

If you don't have to agree with us, Nat will still be sent.

SPEAKER_01

No, I do, I do, I do. I think I don't feel quite as passionately about it as perhaps you both do, but I do feel that it's important to like I I think like I don't feel different having like now known that I'm not half Polish or Hungarian and that I'm actually half where Irish? Welsh. Welsh Irish and Irish, yeah. Welsh Irish. Um I don't feel any different, but it has been very very it's not like I found it really interesting. And I do you see where I'm where I'm going with this? Like I don't think that it has like altered me as a person though. What's altered me is like knowing you two.

SPEAKER_00

This is really interesting because this comes up a lot in the literature, and a lot of the research around it often says that it just depends on the value that you play place on genetics, really, as to where you land on that spectrum. And although there is the European, no, not the European, Universal Declaration of What's it called? I know this.

SPEAKER_03

Do you want me to talk about David Jason while you're looking?

SPEAKER_00

If in doubt, talk about David Jason. The only case study we need. I'd be honest to be the only case. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Yeah, it it legally is established, and that is why you've got retrospective legislation happening in places like Victoria, only because it was put into the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child. But I would argue that it's actually as a right, it's quite difficult to enforce. And actually, you're unique uniquely privileged if you have gone through something like donation to find this information out. Because I could ask my mum, but she doesn't have to tell me. God bless.

SPEAKER_02

I mean DNA we took DNA tests. That was that was how we found out. Did all of our digging. But like I think mine isn't like hankering to know exactly the town location postcode of where we're from, it's the principle of it, and it's someone deciding for someone else whether they have the right to know or not. That's my beef with it. Yeah, who has to decide. And I'm I'm just about to let my golden retriever in, but what I will say before Albus comes in is I knew before the DNA test and doing this podcast, I knew more about Albus' heritage through his Kennel Club Crofts line than I did about my own. And I think that is what really pisses me off because how the fuck do I know more about a dog?

SPEAKER_00

Or can I ask you the can I ask you the ethical conundrum that some uh ethicists placed on this, which I think even with whether you agree or disagree with it would be interesting. If you feel that there is a right to your genetic origin, do you think there should be a registration of everyone that has ever had a one-night stand? Ooh. Yeah, should should people that have a one-night stand have to register on the basis that if that does result in a child, they have access to the other person's information? And then how and say three months after, if there's no pregnancy, you can delete that. God, what an awkward conversation in the morning before the water.

SPEAKER_02

But they're also the same people messaging these people saying, sorry, I've just tested positive for gonorrhea.

SPEAKER_03

So yeah, because then that's just everybody registering everybody you've ever slept with.

SPEAKER_00

No, the reason for the the reason for the like the test is basically how onerous do you think it should be on people to report that information. I do agree with you, everyone should have a right to know, but actually in practice, there will be some people that won't know. So it's quite it's hard to enforce a right that not everybody would be able to have access to. And so what I'm saying is, in some ways, it is you are in a better position to find out that information than some other people. And that's not a criticism, that's just to like test for how onerous you think those kind of systems are.

SPEAKER_03

May maybe it should be when someone's given birth and they say David Jason is the father.

SPEAKER_00

Do you need to go and talk to your partner?

SPEAKER_03

David. Should it be then that when someone gives birth actually I've already decided in my head that it shouldn't be this, but I'm just gonna pose the question anyway, that the person who's given birth needs to do a DNA test on who they're saying is the father to confirm that that is the truth or not. So at least it can't be a lie.

SPEAKER_00

Would there be any situations where you think that that would be unethical? Because there are two that jump out to me straight away.

SPEAKER_03

Go on, what are your what are your ones that jump out?

SPEAKER_00

Well, if you were conceived, because and it's like trigger warning, I'm gonna go into the case. I know what you're gonna say, yeah. If you were conceived by incest or rape. Because then I would argue that actually there's like a stronger set of criteria that you need in order to inform somebody of that situation. And so again, and and even just considerations about when you would find out that information, how, all of these things. So again, I find I do agree with you. I think that people do have a right to know their genetic origins, but I do think there's flexibility, and I think the key to all of this is actually choice, and it's the individual should have a place they can go to find this out, but equally, nobody should be dictating that you must know these things. If you don't want to know, I think you also should have a right to be like, it's great that I know that information is available, but I don't want anything to do with it, I'm happy to continue on as I was. And I think that that kind of covers all of your perspectives as well. I think it's knowing where to go to get information if you want or need it, that there are registers out there, but not being forced either way down a path that you're not prepared to do.

SPEAKER_01

Because I also think this like sort of makes us think about knowing medical information, for instance, of that of a donor. And actually, Harriet, just from everything you've just said, you know, I think previous conversations that the three of us have had, we've been like, well, yeah, we should absolutely know the medical history of um donors. But actually, with everything that you've just said, Harriet, you know, not everybody wants to know the history, like their medical history, because some people don't want to live a life through anxiety of knowing that, you know, they may be predispos they may have a predisposition of a certain medical issue or a cancer or you know, a mental health problem. You know, I think there is actually that to take into consideration as well, if I'm playing like devil's advocate.

SPEAKER_00

Can I turn my light on? No, yeah. No, I think there might be some continuity issues.

SPEAKER_03

Well, actually though, day and night. I think because all of this is so day and night. What's um meh. Because I personally think all of this has been really interesting. I think this should be a two-parter job anyway. 100%.

SPEAKER_00

Put me in the dark, want to be in the light.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah. Yeah, because I also would love to get you on, Harriet, for you to basically tell us the rights and wrongs of things that we that like we've said before, or or in like a legal point, be like, you guys have got to rein that bit in, or like you've got to be careful saying that.

SPEAKER_00

And no, I I think it's really interesting because, like I said earlier, you need multiple perspectives, and a lived experience is is so essential to how we think about all of this stuff. So I don't think there is any right or wrong. I'd also say ethics, there isn't right or wrong. There's like all the societal, cultural norms, there's what we know now, there's loads. So I don't think there's right or wrong. Although if you have said anything legally incorrect, I will let you know. Oh God. David Jason Seuss is not on me.