|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > Chapter 8 - Testing and Storing Semen
Discussion Paper 11 (1984) - Artificial Conception: Human Artificial Insemination
Chapter 8 - Testing and Storing Semen
I. FRESH AND FROZEN SEMEN
8.1 Semen used for AID maybe “fresh” or” frozen”. Our inquiries indicate that six of the eight substantial AID clinics and practitioners in New South Wales use frozen semen and two use fresh. Fresh semen refers to semen produced by a donor and used within a few hours. Frozen semen refers to semen that has been frozen after donation, and thawed prior to use. Corson and his co-authors in their article “Donor Insemination”1 describe the production of semen for AID in the following words:
Specimens can be produced by masturbation, or, if necessary, by ejaculation into a plastic condom. Coitus interruptus is unsatisfactory as a method of collection because the first few drops of semen, often containing the most hardy sperm, are emitted without conscious muscular contractions. Rubber condoms may adversely affect motility.2
8.2 The respective usage of fresh and frozen semen varies from place to place. A 1978 report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in England3 described semen usage in insemination procedures in 22 United Kingdom Al clinics. Six clinics used fresh semen only, five used frozen only, and 11 used both types.4 There are advantages and disadvantages in the use of each type of semen.5 The principal advantage of fresh is that it has better fertility potential.
There is no argument over the fact that sperm, once frozen and thawed sustain some loss of motility compared with pre frozen levels.6
The advantages of frozen semen include its ready availability for use as required and the fact that it can be carefully measured and placed in straws, thus allowing more inseminations “per-ejaculate”. Frozen sperm can be stored while the time-consuming tests for sexually transmitted disease (STD) are carried out, this being not possible with fresh sperm which must be used promptly if it is to be effective. In other words, a clinic using fresh sperm must use different procedures to satisfy itself about STD.7 Frozen sperm requires more technology, more technicians and more care with security and record indexing. On the other hand, it gives more time to match physical characteristics between donor and the recipient s husband, and a higher prospect of ensuring the donor’s anonymity. “There is no evidence that freezing introduces a risk of abnormal progeny”.8
II. TESTING AND STORAGE
8.3 In semen the primary characteristic sought by AID practitioners is a high sperm count, namely a high number of healthy, active spermatozoa. The standard sought by Mr. I. Johnston of Victoria is described by him as “at least” 80 million spermatozoa per millilitre of semen.9 In the United States, practitioners have employed standards of analysis called” the rule of 60s”, described by Corson as follows:
The rule of 60s has served well as a general index to seminal quality; at least 60 million sperm per ml of semen, 60 percent good motility and 60 percent with normal morphology.10
In New South Wales all clinics conduct a routine analysis of donated semen in order to ascertain sperm count and “motility”, that is, the capacity of the sperm to move actively. Semen analysis will also produce information about abnormalities in the spermatozoa and the general suitability of the spermatozoa to achieve fertilization.
8.4 Clinics that use frozen sperm normally perform additional tests including semen tests for STD and blood tests to determine blood group, Rh status and the presence of hepatitis B.11 Tests and semen analyses are also normally carried out at regular intervals on stored semen.
8.5 In Chapter 7 we expressed the opinion that the standards of practice observed by the medical profession in New South Wales in AID are of a high order. This opinion extends to semen analysis and testing and Justifies public confidence in the medical and scientific standards employed. Obviously, it is not possible to be certain that every practitioner will always observe the highest standards or that mistakes will not be made. However, the question for law reform is whether specific legal regulation of standards of practice will do better, and whether the law should involve itself in this aspect of AI. Our inquiries to date have produced no complaints on this subject nor any evidence of harm or prejudice to recipients or AID children in New South Wales arising from the quality of donated sperm. The answers we have been given by practitioners suggest the reverse.12 However, we have not yet invited comment from the community generally.
8.6 For reasons given earlier, there are strong arguments in favour of the view that semen acquisition testing and storage is best left to the medical and scientific professions. The suggestions concerning the publication of standard guidelines by the medical profession (paragraphs 7.12 and 7.13) could also be applied here. Further, it should be remembered that the civil law of negligence and contract is applicable and imposes legal duties upon practitioners and donors (see Chapters 17 and 18).
III. ISSUES FOR REFORM
8.7 (1) Would the restriction of AID practice to the medical profession as envisaged in Chapter 5, together with the employment of procedures now used by medical practitioners in New South Wales to test and store semen donated for AID, offer reasonable protection to female recipients and children born as a result of AID? (see paragraphs 8.1 and 8.5).
(2) Is that protection enough to outweigh the benefits and detriment’s that would flow from statutory prescription of detailed procedures and testing and storage criteria (see paragraph 8.6).
(3) Assuming that established medical procedures offer reasonable protection, is it desirable to reinforce the protection by asking the medical profession to prescribe standard guidelines for testing and storing semen? (see paragraph 8.6).
Footnotes
1. S.L Corson et al., “Donor Insemination” (1983) 12 Obstetrics and Gynaecological Annual 283.
2. Id., p.287.
3. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Confidential Enquiry into Extent to which Artificial Insemination by a Donor (AID) is practised in the United Kingdom (up to the end of 1977) (1978).
4. Id., p.11, table 4.
5. See note 1 above, p.29 3.
6. Id., p.292.
7. Ciba Foundation Symposium 17, Law and Ethics of AID and Embryo Transfer (1973), based on comment by Dr. Bridgett A. Mason during discussion pp.27-40.
8. See note 1 above, p.292.
9. C. Wood et al. (eds.), Artificial Insemination by Donor (1980), p.15.
10. See note 1 above. p.289.
11. See note 9 above, p.15.
12. Enquiries conducted by Law Reform Commission in February 1984. See paras.2.1-2.6.
|
