He was known only as donor number 3168, a laboratory identity with flesh-and-blood consequences.
Three years ago, Trudy Moore found that her daughter, Samantha, conceived using her husband’s sperm and her sister as a surrogate, was not a genetic match to her husband. Frantic for answers, she confronted her doctor, who suggested in e-mails to Ms. Moore that he may have contaminated her husband’s sample – possibly with 3168.
Determined to find out, Ms. Moore consulted an online registry which connects donor-conceived children with others conceived using the same donor. There she found Jacqueline Slinn, a patient of the same doctor and a single mother whose daughter Bridget was supposed to have been conceived using donor 3168. Ms. Moore asked to test Samantha against Bridget to see whether their DNA matched.
The results stunned both of them: The two girls are not related – nor is either a match to 3168.
And the only federal regulatory body with the power to investigate what happened is paralyzed by a court challenge, leaving the thousands of Canadians who use assisted reproductive technologies each year without an effective watchdog.
“We love our daughter, don’t get me wrong,” said Ms. Moore, 37. “We would have loved her if she came from Mars. [But] we don’t know whose sperm was put into my sister… I can’t even tell you how guilty and how rotten and awful you feel about that.”
Assisted Human Reproduction Canada is the federal regulatory body responsible for overseeing the fertility industry. Authorized by the Assisted Human Reproduction Act of 2004, the agency came into existence two years later with a mandate to license clinics, inspect them to ensure they comply with the act, and develop a registry of donor-conceived children.
However, in 2008 the Province of Quebec challenged the federal government’s jurisdiction over fertility treatments. The Supreme Court has yet to return its ruling and, in turn, Health Canada has said it is not able to move forward with developing regulations.
AHRC does not even keep track of exactly how many thousands of Canadians use assisted reproductive technologies annually. Nor does it require doctors who do certain types of fertility treatments, like the ones Ms. Moore and Ms. Slinn received, to have special training.
Part of AHRC’s mandate is to catalogue a list of complaints from patients who report violations of the act. Information obtained through an Access to Information request reveals that in its four-year history, AHRC only has four complaints on record – none about Bernard Norman Barwin, the general practitioner who inseminated Ms. Moore and Ms. Slinn.
“I do this every day of my life for over 30 years,” Dr. Barwin, founder of the Broadview Fertility Clinic in Ottawa, said in an interview about the Moore case. “This happened … not because of malice or any other reason. It is just one of those things. The last thing I wanted to happen has happened.”
Jacqueline Slinn and her daughter Bridget (5) are pictured mowing their grass outside of their home in Ottawa, Ontario on September 22, 2010. Bridget was conceived using the wrong sperm donor through a mistake that the doctor has since announced.— Ben Nelms for The Globe and Mail
In April, 2009, Ms. Moore and her husband, Matthew Guest, launched a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Barwin, seeking more than $1-million in damages. Last month, Ms. Slinn also filed suit, seeking over $1-million and an order to identify daughter Bridget’s sperm donor.
“It is not about the money,” said Mr. Guest. “We have certain issues that we have to make sure we figure out for Samantha’s future and for our future.”
