Our fertility industry is a mess. As a donor, I know what could fix it

It pains me to say Australia’s fertility industry is a mess because it’s a system into which I’ve donated sperm to create humans, in good faith.

You’d hope, after the notorious malpractice of past practitioners, the industry – which insists it’s reformed from those bad old days – would enforce the strictest of procedures and the most watertight regulation. Sadly not. The profit-driven industry regulates itself, which is proving problematic, to say the least.

Not so perfect match? Some children have been linked to the wrong sperm donors or the wrong women.Credit: Getty

Staff report being burnt out enough to make mistakes, and the mistakes have emerged with alarming pace in recent weeks. Monash IVF has twice transferred the wrong embryo into a woman. The first time, reported in April, experts said that, while it was worrying, it was an extremely rare, isolated case of human error. Then it happened again last month.

My own investigation this week revealed two leading Australian fertility clinics – both owned by Virtus Health – are sending sperm donors inaccurate lists of the children born from their donation. Donors are being introduced to children who are potentially not even biologically theirs. Melbourne IVF sent one donor the wrong child list three times. He’s now distressed the kids he has formed relationships with aren’t related to him.

While voices calling for calm seek to reassure us that Australia remains a very safe place to receive fertility treatment, try telling that to the anguished and conflicted donors who spoke to me. Or to the two women who gave birth to children who aren’t theirs.

These problems are the tip of the iceberg too. The fertility industry is a bureaucratic quagmire, and it feels like it is now in crisis. It is governed by more than 40 pieces of differing state legislation in nine jurisdictions. It should be governed by a statutory, nationally applicable set of regulations.

Urgent changes are clearly needed, which is why a rapid review of the industry was announced by federal Health Minister Mark Butler. He has his work cut out. The most important stakeholders he must listen to are donor-conceived people themselves – the humans created from this industry. They have a set of requests he should prioritise above all others.

But as a donor, if we could add one urgent thing to his to-review list, it would be this. Clinics should build in and pay for DNA testing of donors and the children born from their donations as part of their later matching procedures.

Clinics won’t like this; they’re driven by dollar signs and creating pregnancies. But those matching moments between sperm donors and the children conceived from their donation really matter. Statutory guidelines should better reflect this. And it’s why we need a national, independent regulating body.

I sometimes think about how my donor/child matching might go, as and when that day comes. The resulting humans, upon turning 18, have a right to access information about me – or earlier by making a request to the clinic. I dread having to ask them to take a DNA test for irrefutable evidence that we’re related. It’ll be a cold and suspicious first conversation. But knowing about recent sloppy clinic bungles, I’m left with little choice – for the good of both of us.

It also shouldn’t fall to donor-conceived people to ask and fund DNA tests to know the facts about their parentage. That’s what happened with Giselle Newton, who told me she offered to pay the man she believed to be her donor to do a DNA test, who accepted. Cashed-up clinics created her – and they can afford to pay for and facilitate this.

For now, that isn’t happening. The clinic simply sends me an annual “family list” of the sex and month of the babies born from my donation, and it expects me to trust it’s accurate. Trust in clinics is already low from all the past ways they lied to donor-conceived people and their parents pre-DNA-testing. (“Go home, pretend she/he’s yours.”)

Even if those annual child/family lists I am sent are accurate according to the clinic’s records, they could still be wrong. A straight couple could have had a surprise conception at the time of treatment: it happens. A single woman could have had intercourse at the time of treatment and conceived.

Only DNA testing will reveal the truth. Either clinics or the government should offer testing when children are matched with their donors. Otherwise, potential donors like me, who hope for a future connection with their kids, will be put off donating altogether.

Gary Nunn is a regular contributor.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.