Scrolling through Facebook I suddenly see a message from Ties van der Meer.
“Following the insistence of the donorkind (donorchild) foundation, research was done last year into the age limits in the Donor Data Act. The good advice that came from that was to let it be removed. Although there has just been a change in the law in which this research was not included, the minister now seems to be wanting to remove the age limits! It will certainly take more than a year before this restriction on our human rights will be abolished! Donor conceived people and donors are just biological relatives and you shouldn't have to turn16 first to get to know each other. It is precisely the task of parents to shape relationships in such a way that a child feels free and can make autonomous choices.'' - Ties van der Meer, donor conceived person & donor, Chairman of the Donorkind Foundation -
Looking at the post, a joy comes over me. The little child in me must laughs and cries. She gives me a hug and says she is proud of me. I read the letter from the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport. On 20 June 2023, he (Ernst Kuipers) responded to the Research Report 'Care in dealing with age limits in the Artificial Fertilization Donor Data Act. Then looking in my mail, I see happy reactions from the research team, for which I was on the advisory committee.
Very happy and emotional
Before this blog post is about the letter from Minister Kuipers + occasional annotations from me in it, I would like to let you know how proud I am of the team. I have had the pleasure of advising them and advocating as a donor conceived person. The research has brought something that I can proudly speak about and look back on in the future. That my half-brothers and half-sisters who are still unknown, any donor conceived nieces and nephews in the future, should my siblings ever become or use donors, any other donor conceived distant cousins, the entire future generation of donor conceived people should always have the right to know all information about their origin and family. We will give you back your human rights. Your lineage information is now truly yours, without limitations.
Outcomes of the research
In short, the research shows that there is no generally appropriate age limit for making a decision about receiving personal identifying data from a donor. International treaties indicate that it is permitted to set a threshold (in the form of an age limit) for access to parentage information, but that this must be properly substantiated.
The researchers conclude that this substantiation does not currently exist. What used to be said in the Netherlands is that the age limits that were chosen were based on when a person can make medical decisions for themselves. The researchers argue that the primary responsibility for looking after (the interests of) donor conceived people lies with the parents. Other parties, such as fertility clinics, the donorinformation foundation and the government, and donors have a supporting responsibility in this regard. The researchers indicate that it is the government's responsibility to make options and resources available for providing adequate information to parents and donors. The researchers also indicate that the research gives rise to a number of conditions and due care requirements for the provision of the donor's data.
Point of attention
In practice, there is often confusion about what exactly a donor conceived person is entitled to. The Wdkb law guarantees that donor conceived people can request information about the identity of the donor. The law says nothing about the right to meet with the donor. I myself also thought that I was always entitled to at least one meeting with my biological father, but this turns out not to be the case. These two points do not always seem to be seen separately in the research, but also in the (public) debate. Dropping the age limit of 16 years does not mean that there will be automatic contact between the donor conceived person and the donor. Donors have no rights and obligations towards the donor conceived person in a family law context. If prospective parents see a role for the donor in their child's life, it is best for them to make use of a so-called 'private' donor with whom they can make agreements about, for example, co-parenting and record them (at a civil-law notary). If a donor is used through a clinic, the donor remains an unknown donor to the prospective parents at the time of treatment. It remains desirable in all cases for the treatment to take place at a Dutch clinic, whether using an 'own' donor or a donor via a clinic. This is the only way to guarantee that a maximum number of women will be treated with the sperm cells of one donor and that the donor will be registered.
Proposed decision on age limits in the Wdkb law
In recent months, Minister Kuiper has carefully studied the research report and has held discussions about it with those involved, such as with the Donorkind Foundation, representatives of clinics and counselors. These conversations gave him a better picture of the significance of the results of the research for the various parties involved. All things considered, he intends to abandon the age limit of 16 years for donor conceived person for requesting personal identifying data from the donor in the Wdkb law, because there are currently no grounds to maintain that age limit. As a result, the donor conceived person can at all times have access to both the social and physical data (the donorpaper) and the donor's personal identifying data.
Next steps
The Netherlands is the first country that intends to completely abandon the age limit for providing personal identifying data of a donor. In some countries, parents can request the data earlier on behalf of the child, such as in Australia (Victoria) and Germany, but there are age limits everywhere for the donor children themselves. Because there is no example on which the Netherlands can build further, Minister Kuipers wants to handle the change with care. He aims to bring an amendment to the Wdkb law for consultation before the summer of 2024.
1. Setting up a new process.
Due to the abolition of the age limit of 16 years in the Wdkb law, the process for providing personal identifying data of the donor will have to be organized differently. It will be possible for the donor child to have access to the donor's personal identifying data at all times. A question that needs to be answered is to what extent parents have access to the donor's personal identifying data if they want to request this for young children. The question is also whether the law will also apply to children who were conceived before the new law.
2. Exchange of information about half brothers and half sisters.
The research report does not substantively address the implications that dropping the age limit of 16 years may have for the exchange of data and possible contact between half brothers and half sisters. After the current amendment of the Wdkb enters into force, they have the right to approach each other from the age of 16 if both so wish, but this may change with the expiry of the age limit. I expect this to change with DNA testing and Facebook groups already making it possible to get in touch with half-brothers and half-sisters and parents who used the same donor.
3. Adjusting information and education.
Dropping the age limit of 16 may raise other questions regarding information for prospective parents, donor conceived people and donors. Both the counseling of the donors and the prospective parents will change. This means that clinics must be given time to reorganize their activities. An example could be drawing up a guideline for uniformity regarding counseling in the context of donor conception. Donors will also have to be informed differently about the age at which donor conceived people can contact them and how to deal with this. Other parties involved, such as Fiom and the National Information Point for Donor Conception in the Netherlands, will also have to adapt their information to the amendment to the law.
4. Guidance. Based on the Wdkb
In Article 4, paragraph 1, the Sdkb must provide guidance in providing the donor's personal identifying data. The research report refers to the assumption, at the time of the creation of the Wdkb law, that having age limits protects children. Indeed, as the researchers describe, we do not know whether this assumption is still valid in the current context. But we also do not know what it does to a child to have access to the personal identifying data of a donor at a young age. For example, if the donor does not want contact or if this contact does not go as expected, this may have harmful consequences for young children. The report also calls for attention to be paid to donor guidance regarding possible contact with a donor conceived person. In all cases, the guidance will change when the age limit of 16 expires. The parties involved must be given the opportunity to change their protocols and/or guidelines with regard to supervision.