Category Archives: 3PR

Buy my new book!

The second volume of Anonymous Us is finally available! It’s over 100 stories from the front lines of third party reproduction—a satisfying due diligence for anyone considering using a sperm or egg donor or surrogate. It’s also a great introduction to assisted reproduction for anyone who wants to know more about the subject.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Rather than plugging holes in a sinking ship, let’s learn to float.

As a subscriber to Wendy Kramer’s Donor Sibling Registry blog (which I really like—I think Wendy does great work), I recently came across her most recent post about major discrepancies in egg donor reporting—describing the egregious way in which egg banks and fertility clinics underreport OHSS (Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome) as well as infertility after egg donation and other serious health consequences resulting from egg harvesting. Agencies report about a 1% risk of OHSS, but the real number appears to be closer to 30% (I myself experienced OHSS when I sold my eggs). And it appears at least 9.6% of donors become infertile after the procedure.

People who are invested in keeping third party reproduction legal often tout regulation as the solution to all of the annoying health and psychological risks/consequences that arise from these procedures. For egg donors it might be we need to lower the dosages. For surrogates they say we need to properly screen them. For sperm donors we just need to limit the number of offspring and make sure we do genetic testing to prevent the spread of inheritable diseases. And so on and so forth.

When a generation emerged and complained about being lied to about their status as donor-conceived, the authorities said we just need to be open and honest with our kids and tell them the truth from the beginning. Then those of us (like me) who were told from the very beginning still grew up and complained loudly that anonymity is despicable—we deserve to know the identities of our biological parents. And so now the authorities are saying OK as long as you choose an open ID donor you’ll be fine. And we are starting to see the complications, the custody battles, legal battles, the pure chaos of those “solutions” now too.

Everyone is trying to find an artificial, legalistic, technological solution to the long list of problems that come along with third party reproduction and alternative families in all their forms. But they are plugging holes on a sinking ship. The ship was our understanding of love and sex as God and nature intended. The bomb that blew up the ship was the Sexual Revolution.

The solution to OHSS and premature infertility from egg harvesting is not more regulation. It is the abolishment of the egg trade and third party reproduction in general. The solution is encouraging women to get married and have kids when they’re 25, and get their PhD’s at 40, rather than the other way around. The solution is to financially incentivize actual cures to infertility rather than allowing a marketplace in pre-born children. The solution is for us all to learn how to cooperate with nature again, rather than try to dominate it.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Rotten Root of an Infertile Culture

My latest piece for Ethika Politika:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that sin includes any activity that brings death to the body, or death to the soul.

Increased utilization of third party reproductive technologies and our current infertility epidemic are deeply tied to sin. The birth dearth is primarily a result of the marriage decline. The marriage decline is a result of a profound absence in virtues and character development—resulting in a culture in which people can’t trust themselves and can’t trust the opposite sex to meet the basic demands of a marriage: commitment, fidelity, and cooperation. We don’t need more sexual education, we need more virtues education.

I recently was confronted about my Catholic conversion by a teenager whom I’ve known for years. “You’re not going to force your religion on your kids, are you?” he chided. I responded defensively, “I plan on at least giving my children the gift of a moral education—which the Church expertly provides.” From there began a conversation about whether there was an absolute truth or not. My teenage friend announced that there is no such thing: “morality is arbitrary … Good and bad means different things for different people in different circumstances.” Later in the conversation, the topic of children came up. I asked him, “How old do you think you’re going to be when you get married and have kids?” “I’m not sure I want to have kids,” he said.

I’m not sure I want to have kids.

His response shocked me greatly, because I’ve known him for years and I know that he is great with kids and since early childhood he has regularly declared his desire to eventually be a dad. Were his first remarks regarding truth related to this change in desire for children? I think they are.

David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a column in 2011addressing a researched study that found that young Americans lack categories and vocabulary on matters of “right and wrong, moral dilemmas, and the meaning of life”:

Read more…

Tagged , , , , , ,

An Adoptee’s Review of MTV’s Generation Cryo

By Kristi Blazi Lado

I’ll admit that that my ignorance on donor conception was somewhat willful. The human rights abuses in adoption has occupied so much of my psychological space that I just haven’t been open to learning about something that had so much potential to be worse.
When I first saw the promos for MTV’s Generation Cryo, my first thought was for the love of all-that-is-holy, no doorstep ambushes, Jersey Shore behavior, or anything that would make people who are searching for biological relatives look like lunatics. I’m glad I gave it a chance because not only was the subject was treated respectfully but I was able to fully appreciate the parallels between adoptees and the donor-conceived.
Generation Cryo is a documentary series following sperm donor-conceived Breeanna Speicher in her journey to find her biological father. Bree tours the country to meet some of her 15 half-siblings that she discovered through the Donor Sibling Registry, a non-profit organization created to help siblings connect with each other and possibly their donors. A few agree to travel to California to support Bree in her search.
In watching this show, I observed family dynamics that were glaringly similar, if not identical to closed adoption situations.
Parental Pressure
Many of the young adults in this show were very worried about hurting their parents, particularly their fathers, and in the worst cases were saddled with managing their parents’ feelings of insecurity.  Some seemed to accept this as being their responsibility and (much like in-the-fog adoptees) modeled their parents’ attitudes toward the donor. In the worst cases, meeting the donor was seen as an act of disrespect to the parents.
It was very sad to witness Jonah and Hilit’s dad, Eric, struggle with not being their genetic father and the effect it had on his family. He admits that he was hesitant to tell his children how they were conceived because he wanted them to be “his” kids. He remarked, “Adding donor… adding siblings is not my definition of family.” Eric’s wife, Terri, is the only one in their family that expresses interest in meeting the donor. I love what she says in response to Eric’s disapproval: “I would want to know where they came from because that would help me know my children better.” Exactly. Isn’t that why adoptees search? We want to know ourselves better.
Eric wasn’t the only parent with unresolved issues. When Paige and Molly inform their mother of the donor’s name she looked less-than-pleased remarking, “This is going to hurt him [their father] a lot… more than you know,” and “You are mine. I don’t want to share you with him.”
Luckily for Breeanna, her two mothers were very supportive of her search. I couldn’t help but notice that the three siblings expressing the most interest in meeting the donor – Breeanna, Jesse, and Jayme – were the three that didn’t grow up with a father figure. I don’t feel this is a coincidence. It seemed easier for these families to deal with the idea of having the donor in their lives because there was no perceived threat to an existing father’s role.
The parents’ approval of the siblings’ relationships, while being a great thing, also (in my opinion) exposes the hypocrisy of those who disapproved of their children finding the donor. In other words, relationships with biological relatives are considered healthy & ok as long as nobody feels as if they are being replaced. It was obvious to me that the ease of which the siblings relate to one another was likely due to the fact that their parents were not threatened by these relationships.
This show has strengthened my conviction that the degree to which the parents have come to grips with their infertility and accepted the truth of their child’s origins will have a significant impact on the level of anxiety that child will feel about searching for his roots.

Black Friday. Designer Babies.

Great post over at acculturated. And I always appreciated when my quotes are recycled.

Our collective back-patting about anti-consumerist self-criticism is in fact classist condescension.  Our society has no qualms about consumerism, provided it is genteel consumerism.  But when some people have the bad manners to be indiscreet about their appetite for consumption, our defense mechanisms spring into action.

McGinley continues:

In a New York Times column that cements Michio Kaku’s status as the Joel Osteen of science, the celebrity physicist and irrational optimist happily predicts that “in a few decades, parents may be able to choose many genetic characteristics of their children.”  (His one sentence throwaway about a “vigorous ethical debate” hardly inspires confidence.)  Of course just as assisted reproduction is today a procedure available only to the affluent, we can expect that designer children will only be available to affluent consumers of the products of conception.


Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The Delivery Man


This month is a busy one for donor-conception. The delivery man premiered this weekend and is hitting movie theaters across the country, introducing America to a man who fathers 533+ children and must come to terms with his responsibilities.

Reaching Out

We wrote up some fliers and hit the movie theaters as people were leaving. We wanted to let them know that this industry effects real people and its not serving public health, physically or mentally in positive ways.


Writing these fliers and handing them to strangers in person is terrifying. Every time I do something like this I have to swallow all feelings of pride. I become numb to some of the humiliating elements of putting your personal story out there. But I know that that’s how every other donor-conceived person who wants to do something about this practice feels too. We can’t all be scared, stay at home and never do the dirty work of questioning this industry.


People kindly took the fliers. Between showtimes I headed over to Starbucks and coincidentally sat next to a young couple who were planning on going to see the movie themselves. They were sitting with an older gentleman, the young woman’s father. The father had said that he read somewhere that it was scientifically impossible to father 500+ children through sperm donation. I introduced myself and mentioned that in fact it is not only possible, but I know people with over 500 half-siblings. He was shocked. They thanked me for the fliers and said they’d let me know what they thought about the movie.


Tagged , , , , ,

Introduction to Harms of Donor-Conception

Today there is an epidemic in use of Artificial Reproductive Technologies, which includes, most troublingly, 3rd Party Reproduction (3PR)– the use of donated or sold sperm and eggs, and surrogate wombs. There are several causes of this epidemic, some related to social structure, some related to environmental phenomena, and yet others related to technology and new consumer products. My intent is to offer a brief overview of little explored motivations in use of 3PR, then share my concerns on how this will affect men, women, and the children of these arrangements differently, and finally offer some ideas on solving these issues.

Third Party Reproduction and The Quest for Immortality

The desire for children is a natural inclination, often compared to the deep desire for delicious food, or safety, or love. People often describe their need to reproduce as their purpose in life. In fact many arachnids, bees, and ants die immediately after mating. Nothing lasts forever, including ourselves, but at least half of our genes can be born again through our children. Our need to breed could be defined within a larger, more sci-fi quest for immortality.

 We pursue immortality in two ways: genetic & memetic.

Genetic immortality is the preservation and/or reproduction of genes. Genghis Khan’s Y chromosome is well-preserved in the bodies of some 16 million men today, or 1 out of 200 males on earth, which he achieved through raping and pillaging.

Wealthy individuals like Larry King and Simon Cowell are buying nitrogen chambers to cryogenically suspend their frozen bodies after death in hopes of preserving themselves into the future, where the promise is that technology will be able to rescue and reanimate them.

Memetic immortality  has much less to do with physical matter, but rather the mental content and “cultural units” we carry– such as ideas, beliefs, recipes, songs, rituals, etc. Memes can be reproduced from mind to mind– as people influence each other and adopt new preferences or ways of thinking.

Children are unique pursuits in that they are capable of carrying on both our genes and our memes.  This makes them attractive vessels for total immortality, second only to cloning and/or preservation.

Cloning is more attractive than sexual reproduction of children because 100% of one’s genes are passed on. Genetic preservation is more attractive than cloning because precious energy need not be expended on tending to the metabolic, educational, and emotional needs of helpless children. But currently, having children is our only clear path toward achieving both genetic and memetic immortality.

Infertility Epidemic
Male sperm count has declined 50% in the last fifty years. Endocrine disrupting chemicals found in pesticides, plastics, cosmetics and cleaning supplies, as well as synthetic estrogens like the birth control pill are harmful to reproductive health and normal sexual development.

The gender of fish is determined by hormone levels in the aquatic environment. Today, 75% of the fish population is female. Also, scientists are reporting remarkable increases in the percentage of intersex animals of all species, including humans. [1]

The results of our polluting consumption habits have caused an infertility epidemic. Those who suffer from infertility are often deeply embarrassed to speak publicly due to the general taboo nature of sex, genitalia, and body part referencing. Infertility can often be seen as undermining to one’s self worth or sense of masculinity or femininity.

Additionally, careerism and birth control have influenced and increased the age in which the average person attempts to start their family. Marriage and children have become toppings on a life of other achievements, rather than foundational relationships common among young adults. Women, with our much more limited window of fertility, have especially false expectations regarding family/career balance and put too much hope in technology to fulfill our desires and fix our bodies.


Technology proliferated infertility. Technology perceived as the solution.
Reproductive technologies have become a multi-billion dollar industry because there are hundreds of millions of people who experience some type of barrier to reproduction–clinical or social–and are willing to pay money to overcome or work around that barrier. Billion dollar industries stem from the human desire to mate: cosmetics for example, and dating sites like help people find mating partners. But some obstacles to dating and reproduction are harder to control, including clinical barriers like: low sperm count, a missing or deformed uterus, low quality or lack of eggs– and social barriers like: lack of attraction to the opposite sex, or inability to attract/maintain a mate of the opposite sex.

A conflict arises when these new technologies that purport to overcome these barriers end up denying human rights to the very people these technologies create, and the people “biological resources” are harvested from. This most absurdly occurs during 3rd Party Reproduction, with use of donor sperm and eggs, and surrogate mothers.

The hormones women inject in the process of egg harvesting are known to be associated with cancer development[2]. Surrogate mothers have died “on the job” proving pregnancy and childbirth is still dangerous in the 21st century. [3] An American surrogate recently reported being stuck with over $200,000 in medical bills after nearly dying due to complications from her surrogate pregnancy. The couple took the two children, but are not paying for the woman’s incurred expenses.[4]

Besides the risk of physical harm to women who act as egg donors or surrogates, mental health and emotional well-being are real threats to children conceived via 3rd Party Reproduction.

The 2009 report titled, My Daddy’s Name Is Donor found that:

Donor offspring are significantly more likely than those raised by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative outcomes such as delinquency, substance abuse, and depression, even when controlling for socio-economic and other factors.

Donor offspring and those who were adopted are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25.

Donor offspring are about 1.5 times more likely than those raised by their biological parents to report mental health problems, with the adopted being closer to twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report the same thing.

Donor offspring are more than twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report substance abuse problems (with the adopted falling between the two groups). See Figure 1. (p. 115)

Civil Rights leader Malcolm X successfully argued that African Americans were denied basic human rights when they were separated from their family members, denied knowledge of their heritage, and forced to live as the property of their masters–treated like chattel with dollar values placed on them.[5] Alex Haley began a movement with his unforgettable 1970’s saga Roots–which took America on a journey through the corruption of slavery, and made a clear point as to the importance of familial ties and cultural belonging.

Today, we are doing it all again.

We are denying people their identities, removing them from their natural families and heritage and literally selling them. Only today we do so before official personhood through the loophole of sperm and egg donation. We deny we are selling our children because we write the contracts and exchange money before the baby is conceived and born.

Grow your own victim.
The act of denying a person their heritage and identity is wrong enough in itself, but because of the huge profit margins involved with third party reproduction–upwards of $100k per pregnancy, we’re also failing to screen “intending parents” and committing gross acts of negligence. We are threatening children’s safety. Fertility industry entrepreneurs put their heads in the sand and commission pregnancies for anyone and everyone willing to pay, even pedophiles and child pimps.[6]

All legal adoptions in the US require home studies. Potential caretakers who have criminal backgrounds, unsuitable living arrangements, or recorded mental health problems are prevented from acquiring children. There are no such home studies for children conceived through third party reproduction. Also, there are age restrictions on potential adoptive parents. Most adoption agencies will not put a child in the care of adults who are over the age of 45 because they have learned through experience that the identity struggles with adoption are difficult enough, adoptees are better served when their adoptive parents are healthy and alive. The risk of being orphaned multiple times is decreased when a child is placed in a home with caretakers of an appropriately young age. This is in contrast to egg donation and IVF procedures that create new children to be raised by caretakers as old as sixty-nine.[7] In fact, many customers of commercial sperm and eggs are infertile precisely because they have developed cancer of some type already.[8]

The Road to Disposable Mothers
The sperm bank industry ballooned due to our unspoken epidemic in low sperm count and overuse of synthetic estrogens in a range of products. Thus, heterosexual couples began quietly using donated sperm. After a while, they began being open about using donated sperm and insisted that biology didn’t make a difference for the child’s wellbeing. Then lesbian couples began using sperm donors. They argued, if biology doesn’t matter for a child’s wellbeing, then why should a parent’s gender? They declared parenting is a set of tasks and obligations and women can fulfill those tasks just as well as men can. Single-moms-by-choice followed, demanding that we trust women to be able to judge for themselves if they’re capable of raising children on their own.

Gender equality language was used successfully in the normalization of third party reproduction. Naturally then, gay male couples saw lesbian couples being accepted after use of donor sperm and began arguing that they had a right to create children of their own through use of egg donation and surrogacy. Then single-dads-by-choice began using egg donors and surrogates.

The fertility industry welcomed gay couples and single men whole-heartedly because one pregnancy could generate over $100,000 in profit for doctors, lawyers, brokers, et al. Women as a group have little rallied against surrogacy or egg donation because so many powerful women have themselves used surrogacy and egg donation (Sarah Jessica Parker, Giuliana Rancic, Nicole Kidman).

And so we’ve arrived at a time and place where mothers are being disposed of and declared unnecessary luxuries. These sentiments in opposition to motherhood (and fatherhood) do not remain private and isolated in practice because high-profile 3PR clients typically generate a lot of press when they create children this way and will typically work hard to justify their decisions to an uninformed public. Additionally, the fertility industry itself is a multi-billion dollar industry that spends a lot of money marketing these services and framing their business in a positive light.

The Plight of The Fatherless
Much research has already been conducted on the negative effects of fatherlessness on children. We know that 80% of rapists come from fatherless homes and most likely act out of displaced anger. We know 75% of adolescents in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes. We know that girls who grow up without their father are 711% more likely to become teen moms and 92% more likely to divorce. And we know that 90% of all homeless and runaway youth are from fatherless homes.[9]

There is no evidence that children conceived via sperm donation fare differently. In fact a new study out of Canada shows that children raised by lesbian parents are 15% as likely to graduate high school as compared to their peers raised by opposite sex parents.[10]

May I suggest that there could perhaps be additional barriers to the success and wellbeing of donor-conceived people such as loss of identity, medical alienation, kin alienation and threat of accidental incest, disenfranchised grief, and confusion over the sacred vs. commercial.


Next Steps
Restoring the value and dignity of fathers and mothers and protecting the right of children to be born free and raised in their natural families with full access to their heritage will require an international movement similar to The Green Movement or Abolitionist Movement. Just as health advocates have argued for clean air and water, safe chemicals and whole foods over processed foods, and just as African Americans had to fight for their right to work where they wanted and not be traded as property– Advocates for human dignity must ferociously conquer big business (the fertility industry) and its rich allies to protect public health and children’s rights for today’s and future generations.



[1] Colborn, Theo. Dumanoski, Dianne. Meyers, John Peter. Our Stolen Future. The United States of America. Penguin Group, 1996, 1997.

[2] Elton, Catherine. “As Egg Donations Mount, So Do Health Concerns”. 03/31/2009. 10/09/2013

[3] Desai, Kishwar. “India’s surrogate mothers are risking their lives. They urgently need protection”. 06/05/2012. 10/09/2013

[4] Taylor, Rebecca. “Surrogate Mother Nearly Dies, Left with $200k in Medical Bills”. 11/01/2011. 10/09/2013

[5] Haley, Alex. The Autobiography of Malcolm X: As Told to Alex Haley. The United States of America: Ballantine Publishing Group, 1964

[6] Meldrum-Hanna, Caro. “Disturbing child abuse case links Australians to paedophile ring”. 02/07/2013. 10/09/2013

[7] Daily Mail Reporter. “World’s Oldest Mother, 74, says giving birth to her daughter, now 5, has kept her living longer…” 07/18/2013. 10/12/2013

[8] Spencer, Amy. “Giuliana Rancic: How I Got Through The Tough Stuff”. 2013. 10/12/2013.

[9] “Statistics.” n.d. Web. 10/13/2013

[10] Regnerus, Mark. “A Married Mom and Dad Really Do Matter”. 10/08/2013. 10/13/2013

Going The Distance for Children

Over at The Public DiscourseI had a piece published regarding a baby boy born after being frozen as an embryo for 19 years.

liamExperts estimate there are over 400,000 frozen embryos waiting for their summons in cryo-banks across the country. Many people rightly hold these embryos in high regard, recognizing them as more than tissue—they are human beings in early development, complete with unique DNA sequences, and the active potential, if given a suitable environment, to develop to adulthood. So when these embryos are “adopted,” taken out of storage, implanted into a womb somewhere and allowed to become fully grown people, should we celebrate?

To kidnap is to transport a person, against his will, and confine or falsely imprison him. A remarkable number of child kidnappings are motivated by custody disputes. Divorces and separations inspire some adults to take children across state lines, or often enough overseas, to avoid interference from and interaction with the other parent or guardian.

Using distance as a tool and taking a child elsewhere is helpful when your objective is to prevent kin from coming and finding the child you’ve taken, or if you’d rather not have your grown child go looking for their kin.

These adults try to increase the feeling of impossibility, to make the child and other parent or guardian feel like the chances of finding each other are slim to none. The more daunting the task, the more likely the kidnapped child will accept their circumstances and the more likely the other parent will stop looking or become defeated.

Distance often works to break the connection, but we still hear stories from those who speak up and declare that they’ve been robbed of family and identity.

Jane Jeong Trenka, author of Fugitive Visions: An Adoptee’s Return to Koreaand The Language of Bloodwas recently featured in the New York Times for her bold return to Korea. At 23, she put her trip “home” on a credit card and communicated with her mother through a translator. Five years after her birth mother’s death, she moved to Korea for good, divorcing her American husband and leaving her job and American family behind. She’s not the only one. The majority of Korean adoptees return to the land of the birth, at least to visit.

Trenka’s reconnection was successful only because she didn’t face the usual obstacles. Her birth mother had provided letters and gifts. Most international adoptees’ origins are shrouded in anonymity. In order to succeed at finding a birth parent, they must enlist the help of a private investigator, a translator, and an international travel agent. Then, once they arrive, the language and cultural barriers are steep—intimacy is blocked until they have learned each other’s language. And by then the parent(s) may be elderly or dead.

I know this from firsthand experience. Not only was my sister a Korean adoptee, but for my entire childhood I only knew three facts about my own biological father. He was blond, had blue eyes, and a college degree. I was born when there was no internet. No DNA tests. To find him seemed impossible.And so I never entertained the idea that I’d be able to find or know him.

But then miracles happened. I received a one-page tear sheet with a few fill-in-the-blank answers that suddenly gave my anonymous sperm donor father a personality. He was Polish. He was a scuba-diving instructor. He studied respiratory medicine. The internet bloomed and sites like FTDNA and 23andMe emerged. Suddenly, it didn’t seem impossible that I might be able to find him.

And I’ve been searching for eight years, with the help of DNA tests and a private investigator. The man we suspect could be my father unfortunately died several years ago of lung cancer, right around the time when I started looking.

For caretakers who don’t wish their children to long for their genetic kin, stories like Trenka’s and mine are annoying. There are only two options from here. One, adoptive parents or those using sperm or egg donors must concede that genetic ties are important and find some way of cooperating with the child’s genetic parents—which can be messy and inconvenient for the caretakers. Or two, the caretaker can make it even more difficult for the child to find his genetic kin. The caretaker will reign supreme with a hermetic title as Mother or Father.

Distance or Dungeon. Or both.

Today, adults can separate children from their genetic kin not just by traveling geological distance, but by bending time and space. They can bring a child into the world who is wildly younger than his natural parents or siblings by cryogenically freezing them as embryos.

This happened recently in an “embryo adoption” case. A child was born after living as an embryo for 19 years in a freezer. Read more…


Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Chantele shares her story of Toxic Shame regarding being donor-conceived. She cries when explaining the rejection she felt from her biological father, and his wife, and his children. Chantele has trouble recovering from feeling ashamed at the core of who she is. I would say to her, when your parents have committed a crime against you (and donor-conception is a crime against you) you need not feel ashamed about who you are. You never did anything wrong. But your father’s choice in abandoning you to strangers was wrong. And your mother’s choice in using your father like a tool was wrong. And both of their decisions to create a child with someone they don’t know nor love was wrong. And the fact that your parents don’t love each other is the source of your feelings of dissonance.

The solution is not to ask the entire world to accept donor-conception as normal.
The solution is to demand that people not abandon their children, not create children they’re not prepared to love, with other people they’re not prepared to love.

More videos can be found here:

My Next Book: “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”

Following text taken from MercatorNet:

Henrietta Lacks was an African-American woman who was 31 when she died of cervical cancer in 1951. Cells from her tumour became the first human cells cultured continuously for use in research. HeLa cells have helped to make possible some of the most important medical advances of the past 60 years, including modern vaccines, cancer treatments, and IVF techniques. They are the most widely used human cell lines in existence. More than 300 scientific papers are published every month using HeLa cells.

There is no question about their usefulness – but were they obtained ethically? Is it ethical to continue using them?

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks raises disturbing questions which transcend “usefulness”. Henrietta Lacks was poor and black. Her children, it seems, are even poorer. A doctor at Johns Hopkins removed her cells without asking her. He cultivated the cells without informing her. He distributed the cells without asking permission of her family. Companies became rich by using her cells without paying royalties. Her family only learned that their mother’s cells had been scattered around the world in 1973. Their complaints were ignored for many years – after all, they were only poor, uneducated black folks.

No one cared about the woman called Henrietta Lacks who was overdosed with radium, who died leaving five children behind, one of them an epileptic housed in a filthy, chaotic institution called The Hospital for the Negro Insane. Some people even thought that HeLa cells originated with a woman named Helen Lane. Her daughter wrote in a diary, “When that day came, and my mother died, she was Robbed of her cells and John Hopkins Hospital learned of those cells and kept it to themselfs, and gave them to who they wanted and even changed the name to HeLa cell and kept it from us for 20+ years. They say Donated. No No No Robbed Self.”

– See more at:

Tagged , ,