by Pa Rock
Citizen Journalist
Five years ago I had my DNA analyzed through the services of the esteemed National Geographic Society. The results were comprehensive showing the parts of the world where my lines originated along with percentages that those lines played in my eventual genetic makeup, as well as general migration routes that my ancestors likely traveled as their trails slowly merged over time.
Recently Ancestry.com has also gotten into the business of analyzing DNA - and Ancestry applies the results directly to the family trees of its users. Because Ancestry.com is a ruthless profit-generator, they will not accept the DNA results of other companies - such as the National Geographic Society - to link to their cash cow.
So I had my DNA analyzed a second time so that I could link it to my research on Ancestry.com. This time my results included a list of individuals who are members of Ancestry.com and who are likely relatives of mine. I knew most of them, a sure indicator that I am who I thought I was.
A lady from the Pacific Northwest, however, was not so lucky. The young woman had her DNA tested through Ancestry.com, undoubtedly hoping to learn more about her distant ancestors, and wound up learning a shocking truth. The results showed a parent-child relationship to her mother, but not to her father. The father-child link hooked to a man of whom she had never heard - but, her mother had. The man had been her mother's obstetrician - and also her fertility doctor.
Whoops!
The daughter, now an adult, never knew that her parents had used the services of a fertility doctor. The procedure that the doctor had explained to the young couple all those years ago was that to make up for the husband's low sperm count, the doctor would create a mixture consisting of 85% sperm from the husband and 15% sperm from a donor, and use that in an attempt to try and impregnate the woman. The couple requested that the donor sperm come from a college student who had basic physical similarities to the husband.
The mother remarked that she thought it was strange when several years later she told her obstetrician that the family would be moving out-of-state - and he began to cry.
Lawsuits are flying!
So, who's your daddy? Don't have your DNA tested unless you really, really want to know!
Citizen Journalist
Five years ago I had my DNA analyzed through the services of the esteemed National Geographic Society. The results were comprehensive showing the parts of the world where my lines originated along with percentages that those lines played in my eventual genetic makeup, as well as general migration routes that my ancestors likely traveled as their trails slowly merged over time.
Recently Ancestry.com has also gotten into the business of analyzing DNA - and Ancestry applies the results directly to the family trees of its users. Because Ancestry.com is a ruthless profit-generator, they will not accept the DNA results of other companies - such as the National Geographic Society - to link to their cash cow.
So I had my DNA analyzed a second time so that I could link it to my research on Ancestry.com. This time my results included a list of individuals who are members of Ancestry.com and who are likely relatives of mine. I knew most of them, a sure indicator that I am who I thought I was.
A lady from the Pacific Northwest, however, was not so lucky. The young woman had her DNA tested through Ancestry.com, undoubtedly hoping to learn more about her distant ancestors, and wound up learning a shocking truth. The results showed a parent-child relationship to her mother, but not to her father. The father-child link hooked to a man of whom she had never heard - but, her mother had. The man had been her mother's obstetrician - and also her fertility doctor.
Whoops!
The daughter, now an adult, never knew that her parents had used the services of a fertility doctor. The procedure that the doctor had explained to the young couple all those years ago was that to make up for the husband's low sperm count, the doctor would create a mixture consisting of 85% sperm from the husband and 15% sperm from a donor, and use that in an attempt to try and impregnate the woman. The couple requested that the donor sperm come from a college student who had basic physical similarities to the husband.
The mother remarked that she thought it was strange when several years later she told her obstetrician that the family would be moving out-of-state - and he began to cry.
Lawsuits are flying!
So, who's your daddy? Don't have your DNA tested unless you really, really want to know!
1 comment:
Despite the knee jerk reaction to sue, in this case I am not convinced that woman who discovered she is the progeny of her mother's physician has standing to sue. A convincing sine qua non can easily be argued that but for use of the doctor's sperm she would not have been conceived. If she were not conceived she could not bring suit for the intentional infliction of emotional distress or any other cause of action. Her parents are also in a box arguing that they'd rather not have had this child than have no child at all. They were damaged in what way by having this daughter?
Several cases with this particular ethical void are matriculating through the courts, they generally tend to sound in fraud. If violation of common decency and moral outrage were actionable then society could have standing. Society does not.
This argument may or may not be persuasive. Nonetheless I hope it gets argued, appealed, and taken to its fullest examination. This is the novel star dust from which common law is born.
Post a Comment