Nobody's Baby
By A. HALILIDIE SMITH To me the most significant piece of informa- tion in the Feversham Report is not that there are only a hundred births annually as the result of AID, but that a hundred children each year owe their existence to this method of pro- duction. The Report and the discussion which it has provoked have centred round important issues of public morality, of the upholding of legal concepts of legitimacy, of crime and sin and all the rest. But has sufficient attention been paid to the rights and interests of the individual who is permanently and inextricably involved in the transaction? The donor may go his way in the knowledge that he has been of service to others: the infertile husband may feel that by his consent he has atoned for his inadequacy: the wife may be a more complete person through her experience of childbirth: and the doctor has done his best for his patient. But between them they have brought about the existence of a person with no clearly defined legal status, whose security depends far more than that of any other category of child on the continued happiness of his parents' marriage, and who may later by accident or design be subjected to untold misery and bewilderment.
It is not clear from the Report exactly what motives lead people to seek a child by this means. They must seem compelling to the people concerned, and the welfare of the child is pre- sumably one of them. But it is difficult to see how this can be the first consideration. The reason why most people want children is a mixture of the desire to care for a child (which is good) and the desire to possess a child (which is not so good). If a couple is not willing, in the absence of children of their own, to adopt a child who already exists and needs caring for, but would prefer to resort to AID in order to have one who is at least the mother's 'own,' the clement of possessiveness may well predominate. If so, the outlook is bad to start with.
It is an unfortunate fact, too, that even ori- ginally happy marriages do not always last a lifetime, and that when marriages break up there is apt to be a fair amount of mutual recrimina- tion. Where there is an AID child, the husband may be under a considerable strain which could make a break-up more likely. A sense of inade- quacy can easily turn to resentment, which in this case is likely to be directed against the child who is the constant reminder of it. He must find it galling when fond neighbours or aunts com- ment on 'how like his father the dear little thing is.' And looking ahead one does not find it diffi- cult to imagine the feelings of an adolescent who overhears a parental quarrel in which the resent- ment is voiced. 'You know damn well he isn't my brat. Why don't you both go and live with your bloody test-tube?'
From the child's point of view, it is difficult not to endorse the opinion of the majority of the Committee that AID is in all circumstances un- desirable. At the same time it is not 'immoral' in the sense of infringing the marriage relation- ships--at least. I cannot sec how it is, when it is planned by husband and wife in the context of the marriage bond and with the intention of strengthening it. And since motives are never unmixed, and human temperaments and cir- cumstances vary enormously, Mrs. Jay and Mr. Ross may well be right in their view that in fact AID is sometimes the best answer. In any case it is a fact that it takes place, and is likely to continue to take place: and an attitude of strong disapproval is more likely to harm the child than to prevent the spread of the practice. In trying not to 'condone' something which may be im- moral, the majority of the Committee is pre- pared to deprive the child of any definite legal status. One might think that the safeguarding of the peace of mind of a hundred children a year was of more importance than maintaining the purity of Debrett or the rights of second cousins who might otherwise have inherited property if the husband has neglected to make a will. Also from the child's point of view, one must endorse the Committee's decision that legal prohibition of the practice of AID would not be the best solution. The publicity of a court case, in the rare instances where the practice was detected, would only make matters worse., But in view of the rigorous investigations which precede an adoption, it does seem alarming that selection for AID should be left entirely in the hands of individual practitioners who must, after all, be fallible. A possible solution might be the • setting up of an advisory committee which could issue advice to practitioners on selection both of donors and of suitable couples, and which would be able to recommend experts when a si !cod opinion was sought. There is a case for makia the husband's written consent a statutory re' quirement (so far this has almost always bee° obtained, but some practitioners might be tempted to dispense with it if the practice were to spread). And there is one possibility of legal enactment which the Committee did not coo sider: this is that in all cases A1HD (husband and donor) should be used, and not AID alone No practitioner would be likely to think it worib breaking this law, and it would solve several the apparently insoluble problems. A1H is11°1 questionable either morally or legally, except the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church which ° going through a phase of undue preoccupat° with physical details. And since it is very setdoro possible to prove 100 per cent. infertility, de could be no certainty in an AIHD transactiod that it was not in fact the husband's seed will° had caused conception. This might lessen temptation to feel resentment, would ensure obligation to act as a father to the child: a° would presumably act as a presumption of ler timacy which would obviate the need for pain° in registering the birth and possible legal tangle later on.
But the matter will be debated, we are told, the next Session. This debate will be right up Butler's street. For here we have a difficult complex problem, an embarrassing and dista ful' issue, which calls for many more years discussion and research before we finally dee to do nothing about it.
Previous page
