Guidelines seek to limit gay parenting
Dear Editor,
There is a troubling new recommendation being considered by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), the two powerful medical associations that set standards in the field of IVF. If adopted, this recommendation would have a devastating impact on LGBT couples wanting to create or add to their families. That’s why our practice, Reproductive Sciences Center in La Jolla, is asking for the community’s help to let ASRM and SART know that what we view as a completely medically unnecessary guideline should not be adopted. It’s not good medicine and it’s not good policy.
The new draft guideline
In the current, unapproved draft of new ASRM guidelines, gay and bisexual men would be excluded from being able to undergo any of the third party reproductive techniques currently available to them, up to and including being able to use their own sperm to create their own genetic children through the use of an egg donor and surrogate.
In third party reproduction, intended parents are classified as “designated donors “, i.e. donors known to the recipient surrogate. The draft guidelines state that “directed donor specimens should be treated in the same manner as anonymous door specimens; results of screening or testing that would exclude an anonymous donor also should exclude a directed donor, and directed donor specimens should be quarantined and released in the same manner required for anonymous donor specimens.” Note that screening criteria currently adopted by the American Association of Tissue Banks and the FDA, on which this guideline was partly based, prohibit gay or bisexual men from being anonymous donors.
In short, because gay and bisexual men are prohibited from being “anonymous donors,” this guideline would also then prohibit them from being “directed donors.” We believe this new exclusion is unfounded, medically unnecessary and unfairly limits rights.
A little background
ASRM is a great organization and normally we are proud of our long association with them. The society is powerful and wields tremendous influence over the field, including setting the standard of care by which most responsible practitioners adhere. For example, it was ASRM that first set compensation limits on egg donors – an important move that helped lower the risk of the “commoditization” of a woman’s reproductive system. ASRM also set limits on how many embryos achieved through ART techniques should be transferred into an intended mother in order to reduce the potential for pregnancies that may be higher risk for women and/or babies.
Participation in ASRM is completely voluntary, as is compliance with their guidelines. Although not legislation, those guidelines carry significant weight, and clinics that fail to follow them do so at their peril, with consequences that include but are not limited to losing the ability to publicly announce their success rates on the most viewed Web resource for intended parents, sart.org. Since RSC’s third party success rates are among the highest in the nation, we proudly boast our numbers there.
Fortunately, the opinions and guidelines adopted by the ASRM are done so through a democratic process, with medical professionals who are themselves practitioners in the field. There is a thorough process of peer-to-peer scientific evaluation that goes into even the most benign of ASRM’s positions. In the vast majority of cases, the guidelines put forward by the ASRM are geared toward making the entire field of advanced reproductive techniques as safe and successful as possible.
That’s why we at RSC have been proud to be a part of ASRM for almost 20 years. Both our laboratory director, Catharine Adams, Ph.D., and medical director, Samuel H. Wood, M.D., Ph.D., have been asked to speak at the society’s national conferences many times over the years.
The draft guideline is wrong!
However, in the considered opinion of Drs. Adams and Wood, ASRM isn’t always right.
The motivation for the draft guideline that would suddenly and at once ban gay and bisexual men from using ART is unclear, but the repercussions are unmistakable. If gay men are not allowed to avail themselves of third party reproductive techniques, they will no longer have the option to have a child with whom they share a genetic link.
While adoption remains an option in many states, the ability to share a genetic link with a child is one millions of heterosexual men choose every day, and we believe should not be excluded from the lexicon of tools available to gay and bisexual men.
Fight with us
In response to these guidelines, RSC’s laboratory staff compiled a thoroughly researched letter of input to the ASRM during the public comment period after the first draft of the guideline was made available. The letter advocates strongly for the rights of gay and bisexual men to continue enjoying the same reproductive rights and privileges of their heterosexual counterparts.
As is typical of ASRM’s thoughtful process, the guidelines are still being reviewed and the window for public comment is closed, officially at least. However, because this issue is of such great importance, we at RSC are asking the LGBT community to stand with us to protect your reproductive freedom and let ASRM know where you stand.
Send an email with “Draft ASRM Guidelines” in the subject line to asrm@asrm.org and tell them to eliminate the draft guidelines that would prohibit gay and bisexual men from participating in third party reproduction.
We at RSC are fighting for your rights. Please join us.
ROMAN JIMENEZ
Director of operations and corporate communications
Reproductive Sciences Center, La Jolla
