I Feel Like I've Always Known You

The recent report from the UK, about a married couple who turned out to be biological twins separated at birth, is being cited as an example of the many "what-if's" in the wide open ethics of reproductive manipulating.

David Alton, a member of Britain's upper House of Lords, brought the anecdote up in discussion about proposed legislation in the UK that could allow the anonymity of sperm donors on birth certificates. Before any American sperm donors or related infertility patients become alarmed, you need to know that current UK rules by the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Authority (HFEA) allow for NO anonymity by gamete donors after April 2005.

So while the once-married-now-divorced twins in question were not (as far as I know) the result of IVF, Lord Alton used their sad story to illustrate further potential for heartache and lawsuit among the millions of people being born as the result of donated gametes, cases in which most are thus far not aware of their biological connections.

The folks at BioEdge report "The tragic case highlighted the growing possibility of unwitting incest in the population, now that as many as one child in 25 is born through IVF in some countries."

Never mind the ramifications of not knowing your genetic propensity for certain diseases, and there's the important issue of simply knowing from where you come in every way.

I have truly enjoyed reading about the ART-related ethical dialogues in other countries over the past decade and more. While it may seem to Americans, focused and driven as we tend to proudly be, like so much circular banter, the truth is that we don't engage in enough of the same over on this side of the pond. We just do not, not in wide circles anyway.

Evidence of my claim: if you were to breeze through the headlines (as I tend to do for lack of time) and especially if you stick to the US papers and news websites, you'll get that the most important part of this whole story is "Separated twins marry, forced to break up in UK", as said the Reuters report published in, among other spots, the Boston Globe.  Even the NY Times' own correspondent writes focuses on this titillating moment of "eeww!" in regards to the dilemma at hand. We hear echoes in our reading brains to the tune of "Shocking! Outlandish!" -- the freakish sideshow lives.

But if you want the real story -- the details of the legislation that is being proposed and considered and debated in all earnestness, wherein the deeply felt concerns about the welfare of children and their parents and, indeed, society as a whole are being expressed with persuasive emotion -- you might want to slog through the clay-thick transcripts of Parliamentary proceedings (I've at least narrowed it down a bit for you to this page of the Daily Hansard, but I encourage you to link through to the previous and continuing discussion pages).

Granted, in addition to risking glazed eyes from the convoluted language common to any governmental transcript, you have to wade carefully through the British niceties that are, well, foreign to most of us Americans. But if you manage it, you'll find the story by Lord Alton, true though it is, was only an example used to illustrate a potential area of concern. It is not The Story.

Perhaps The Story is that the American media prefers to present the teasing tawdry tidbits of an incredibly powerful ongoing inquiry that can have lasting impact on the human experience. Oh, but that's just so blase.

Link: Separated twins marry, forced to break up in UK - Boston.com.