Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

If the well-being of the child is predicated on contacting the donor we are abdicating our responsibilities as a State in the architecture we are providing around DAHR. While some eggs may come from India, most come from Ukraine. How will the information be updated if it relates to a student living in Kiev or Donetsk?That student living in accommodation can be screened at the age of 18 to 24. There may be no indication in the screening of any risk of this particular disease. However, like most of these diseases - and this disease in particular - what triggers the concern and what would give rise to constant monitoring of the health of a child born from the donor egg would be a clear indication that this had occurred in the child's mother at a certain stage. That may well be, and it is probably very likely to be, after the age at which the egg donation was made. It could be ten years or 15 years. By the time the person reaches 18 or 20, that is when that information might just become available and would be crucial. I do not see why we cannot impose an onus. Implicit in the Minister's reply is that when the child reaches the age of 18 he or she will be able to contact the donor. The donor will obviously have moved address many times. How will that contact be available to the child? If it is available as readily as the Minister says, why would there not be an onus on the donor to keep the register updated? That would be the authority in Ukraine - if the donor is from Ukraine - where the donation would have been made in the first instance. This information would then be available to the facility here. The Minister is taking an absolutely minimalist approach to the information, which in my opinion puts the child or the donor at risk. That is irresponsible, to be quite honest.

This is a simple, straightforward amendment which, logically, I do not think the Minister can argue against. It provides that there would be a requirement for the person giving the egg or the sperm to sign an agreement that if he or she contracts a life-threatening disease, he or she will provide that information. In my opinion, the minimalist approach being taken by the Minister shows a lot of flaws. I think it should be addressed in this legislation. The Minister may reply by saying that it will be addressed in a more substantive Bill which may come at some stage in the future, but it may not be addressed there and we cannot be sure. We are legislating for now and deciding on what is before us. The lacuna in this area is of a very serious nature.