Utah university investigates sperm switch

Medical technician accused of switching patient's sperm with his own.

A woman and her husband underwent infertility treatment in the early 1990s. Now they learn their daughter, contrary to what they thought, is not the man's biological child. Instead, her biological father is a former medical technician responsible for preparing sperm samples. That's the situation facing a family that received treatment at the University of Utah Community Laboratory and Reproductive Medical Technologies Inc., known as RMTI.

The university says it's investigating the case.

http://www.krdo.com/news/Utah-university-investigates-sperm-switch/-/417220/24067410/-/tvuev0z/-/index.html

Wow. Wonder if he's done it to other couples.

That is simply horrible. He has robbed that family of having a child that is biologically theirs. I'm sure they will still love it, but that isn't the point. Add to that, if he has done it a lot, children could be growing up who are biologically related and not know it, leading to all kinds of complications. Plus, the couple would have known if they had anything genetic in their past, now they don't know the medical history of the father. What was he thinking!

Looks like he may have done it to more couples:

(Reuters) - The University of Utah on Wednesday said it is providing free paternity testing to women who conceived children at two fertility clinics that employed a lab worker suspected of artificially inseminating a patient with his own sperm.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-utah-sperm-idUSBREA0M06S20140123?feedType=RSS&virtualBrandChannel=11563

Vile man, I really hope they prosecute him, the misery he has caused!

Agreed sass...but I wonder what laws he has broken?  Fraudulent sperm-switch?  Fraudulent impregnation?  Theft of the original sperm?  What if he kept the original sperm in a refrigerator and it's still there?

Some of these fertility clinics advertise anonymous fathers/donors who have PhDs and other marks of genetic preeminence.  If somebody messes with that process and switches in the sperm of some druggie, is there any law broken?  Again, wrongful switch?  Fraudulent messing?  I would say it's a sticky topic, but I would be banned.

Here in the Bay Area we have some guy who openly advertises donation of his sperm.  Get's a phone call from a woman.  Has a petri-dish ready for her when she knocks.  Gives it to her.  He has been prosecuted for some law that says his sperm must be inspected or somehow processed by an accredited lab.  Who wrote the standards of acceptability?  And if he is guilty, what about a married couple?  Should they be inspected and detected by a lab before impregnation?  Kinda kills the romance.

But I digress...

He's guilty of causing fraud.   The couple were told it was the man's sperm, it wasn't.   I'm sure they would have had a contract for the IVF and you must know there are very stringent regulations for IVF.   They were not using sperm donation.

Sassy wrote:He's guilty of causing fraud.   The couple were told it was the man's sperm, it wasn't.   I'm sure they would have had a contract for the IVF and you must know there are very stringent regulations for IVF.   They were not using sperm donation.

You are right that fraud would the the law-of-choice.  But it seems like such a lightweight law for such a heavy crime. I mean, we're talking about a life here...kinda the inverse of wrongful death...wrongful life.

And, maybe they do have standards for the anonymous donor.  Should those standardized tests be extended to married couples.  If not, why not?

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:He's guilty of causing fraud.   The couple were told it was the man's sperm, it wasn't.   I'm sure they would have had a contract for the IVF and you must know there are very stringent regulations for IVF.   They were not using sperm donation.

You are right that fraud would the the law-of-choice.  And, maybe they do have standards for the anonymous donor.  Should those standardized tests be extended to married couples.  If not, why not?

What are you talking about? IVF is not the same as sperm donation.

Sassy wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are right that fraud would the the law-of-choice.  And, maybe they do have standards for the anonymous donor.  Should those standardized tests be extended to married couples.  If not, why not?

What are you talking about?   IVF is not the same as sperm donation.

You mean you can do it with no sperm donation.      I'm shocked.

Federal regulations in the United States include screening requirements and restrictions on donations.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:

What are you talking about?   IVF is not the same as sperm donation.

You mean you can do it with no sperm donation.      I'm shocked.

You silly man, there is no requirement for sperm donation when it is IVF being undertaken for a couple. The contract is to use the male partner's sperm and the female partner's eggs so that the child is biologically theirs.

Damn it, I thought I was clicking on a headline that read "Utah university investigates sperm witch." Would have been far more entertaining ...

We had a doctor who discovered amniocentesis but then went on to run a fertility clinic and used his own sperm (secretly) to get hundreds of women pregnant. The problem was that some of the kids grew up in the fairly small town and married other kids who came in to being from the same sperm.

Sassy wrote:Federal regulations in the United States include screening requirements and restrictions on donations.    

I'll take your word for it. But if it is necessary for an anonymous donor, why not for married couples? I mean, are there diseases that unmarried couples can contract, but married couples cannot?

Warren Moon wrote:We had a doctor who discovered amniocentesis but then went on to run a fertility clinic and used his own sperm (secretly) to get hundreds of women pregnant.  The problem was that some of the kids grew up in the fairly small town and married other kids who came in to being from the same sperm.

I heard about that. In fact, I was looking for the story on google, but you got it first.

Warren Moon wrote:We had a doctor who discovered amniocentesis but then went on to run a fertility clinic and used his own sperm (secretly) to get hundreds of women pregnant.  The problem was that some of the kids grew up in the fairly small town and married other kids who came in to being from the same sperm.

Remember that, terrible situation.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:Federal regulations in the United States include screening requirements and restrictions on donations.    

I'll take your word for it.  But if it is necessary for an anonymous donor, why not for married couples?  I mean, are there diseases that unmarried couples can contract, but married couples cannot?

What's that got to do with it? IVF means they look into the health background of the couple before they take them on and everything is checked before they go ahead. Which has nowt to do with this man swapping sperm does it, or you thinking that donation was involved. As for the Federal Regulations, you shouldn't need to take my word for it.

Original Quill wrote:

Sassy wrote:Federal regulations in the United States include screening requirements and restrictions on donations.    

I'll take your word for it.  But if it is necessary for an anonymous donor, why not for married couples?  I mean, are there diseases that unmarried couples can contract, but married couples cannot?

Hi Quill x

There are screening requirements in the UK for both potential parents. Lots of hoops to jump, many more than those who are able to conceive naturally, particularly if you are receiving any kind of help from the NHS.

No smoking, drinking, tests for any kind of diseases, how long you've been together/married, any other children you've had, weight, financial stability etc etc. I'm not saying it's wrong, sometimes bearing in mind how some children are treated it should be mandatory   

Uh guys....the dude is dead so his prosecution might be difficult.

Also the girl is 21 now.

Clinic is owning up so good for them but how they didn't spot he was a convicted felon is a different story.

15 families have called the hotline so far. He boasted to his widow that even though they didn't have kids, he had plenty out there. Nice.

Cass wrote:Uh guys....the dude is dead so his prosecution might be difficult.

Also the girl is 21 now.

Clinic is owning up so good for them but how they didn't spot he was a convicted felon is a different story.

15 families have called the hotline so far. He boasted to his widow that even though they didn't have kids, he had plenty out there. Nice.

OK Cass. But those are incidental facts...they don't answer the ethical questions we have been discussing just because they make the problems go away in this case.. So the guy is dead and the girl is 21. There are some serious questions out there.

We used to have a TV show back in the States called Whose line is it anyway, Whose sperm is it anyway might well be more apt.

Warren Moon wrote:We used to have a TV show back in the States called Whose line is it anyway, Whose sperm is it anyway might well be more apt.

Eeeewwwwwwwwwwwhhhhh!!!!!!!   

feelthelove wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'll take your word for it.  But if it is necessary for an anonymous donor, why not for married couples?  I mean, are there diseases that unmarried couples can contract, but married couples cannot?

Hi Quill x

There are screening requirements in the UK for both potential parents.  Lots of hoops to jump, many more than those who are able to conceive naturally, particularly if you are receiving any kind of help from the NHS.

No smoking, drinking, tests for any kind of diseases, how long you've been together/married, any other children you've had, weight, financial stability etc etc.  I'm not saying it's wrong, sometimes bearing in mind how some children are treated it should be mandatory   

See, in this country all they require is a simply blood test, to see if there is any incompatibility. And that's for a marriage license.

If you conceive in the backseat of a Chevrolet, there's no law.

Original Quill wrote:

feelthelove wrote:

Hi Quill x

There are screening requirements in the UK for both potential parents.  Lots of hoops to jump, many more than those who are able to conceive naturally, particularly if you are receiving any kind of help from the NHS.

No smoking, drinking, tests for any kind of diseases, how long you've been together/married, any other children you've had, weight, financial stability etc etc.  I'm not saying it's wrong, sometimes bearing in mind how some children are treated it should be mandatory   

See, in this country all they require is a simply blood test, to see if there is any incompatibility.  And that's for a marriage license.  

If you conceive in the backseat of a Chevrolet, there's no law.

Honestly Quill, you have to face so many hurdles in life and yet the majority are able to have a family with little thought or commitment   

I guess it's a necessity, to continue the human race   

feelthelove wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

See, in this country all they require is a simply blood test, to see if there is any incompatibility.  And that's for a marriage license.  

If you conceive in the backseat of a Chevrolet, there's no law.

Honestly Quill, you have to face so many hurdles in life and yet the majority are able to have a family with little thought or commitment   

I guess it's a necessity, to continue the human race   

Another argument against marriage. Fewer obstacles if you use the back seat of a Chevy.   

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:Uh guys....the dude is dead so his prosecution might be difficult.

Also the girl is 21 now.

Clinic is owning up so good for them but how they didn't spot he was a convicted felon is a different story.

15 families have called the hotline so far. He boasted to his widow that even though they didn't have kids, he had plenty out there. Nice.

OK Cass. But those are incidental facts...they don't answer the ethical questions we have been discussing just because they make the problems go away in this case.. So the guy is dead and the girl is 21. There are some serious questions out there.

Not saying there are not...have a nephew who was conceived with the help of a sperm bank - just saying as some of the earlier posters were not aware that the guy who did this was dead or that the girl was grown up and not a baby.
I was not aware that the discussion was only about ethics - my bad.

Right then .... if any of you lovely ladies would like a free deposit just pop me a PM and I will fill a pint bottle for you.

A pint?? A Pint?? We're expecting a petri-dish with a quarter teaspoon. Warren...

 

WOZZA probably has an elephant tied up in his backyard !!!