Oops -- Well -- Sorry About That!

"All of us at Monash IVF are devastated and we apologize to everyone involved."

"We will continue to support the patients through this extremely distressing time."

"[The] human error [was made] despite strict laboratory safety protocols being in place."

Monash IVF CEO Michael Knaap 

"[Australia's states and territories] need to see if their regulations are up to scratch."

"Confidence needs to be brought back and it's imperative that happens."

Australian Minister for Social Services Amanda Rishworth

 

"There are presumptions in Australia about the birth parents being the legal parents of the child."

"But whether the genetic parents want to come forward and start a discussion about that, then we'll have to wait and see."

Family creation lawyer Sarah Jefford 

 

"[It was a] terrible, sad situation all round [that was unlikely to have been tested before in Australia]."

"While this is life-altering for the couples involved, the next person who will be most shattered is the scientist responsible for this mistake."

"I've got no idea what the legal situation in Australia would decide; I don't think it's been tested before."

"I don't think there's much more that can be done; we just have to accept that human beings make mistakes."

Professor Gab Kovacs, IVF pioneer, former director of Monash IVF

A woman in Australia, who had been implanted with an embryo belonging to another patient during an in vitro fertilization process, gave birth in February to a baby not her own, but that of a stranger, resulting from "human error", according to the clinic involved, Monash IVF. The unfortunate error that took place in the city of Brisbane was investigated and the discovery made that the birth parents' embryo storage happened to have one too many. 

 

Staff then discovered another patient's embryo had erroneously been thawed and transferred to the birth mother. The baby was born in 2024. There has been no confirmation from Monash IVF as to how old the child actually is. An initial investigation, according to Monash IVF -- Australia's largest IVF provider -- shed no light on why the error occurred, nor did the investigation identify the involved patients, much less divulge any details regarding the custody of the child.

 

Getty Images

In operation since 1971, Monash IVF operates in dozens of locations throughout Australia. The company settled a class-action lawsuit, representing over 700 patients last year when claims that its clinics destroyed potentially viable embryos had surfaced. The company paid out a settlement of 56 million Australian dollars, while making no admission of liability. A reputational inconvenience that begged to be handled discreetly so it would just go away.

 

Their error in this instance, albeit rare, has occurred to other clinics throughout the world: the United States, Britain, Israel and Europe. In Georgia, U.S.A., a woman filed a lawsuit in February against a fertility clinic when she too gave birth to a stranger's baby. The error was made clear to Krystena Murray following the baby's birth since both she and her sperm donor were white, while the child was Black.

 

And although the birth mother meant to raise the baby, she surrendered the-then-five-month-old to its biological parents after being advised she would not win a legal custody battle. Laws regulating the in vitro fertilization sector came into practise only in 2024 through Queensland's parliament, to establish a registry for all those conceived at a clinic, with the destruction of donors' medical histories made illegal.

 

An official report that criticized the storage of frozen sperm donations in Queensland was the impetus for such legal regulation, when it was discovered through an investigation that close to half of the samples checked were at medium or high risk of misidentification -- as a result of which it was recommended that thousands of the samples be destroyed.

This image from video shows an exterior view of the Monash IVF clinic in Brisbane, Australia, Friday, April 11, 2025. (AuBC, CHANNEL 9 via AP)

Biological Inheritance ... Genetic Survival

"I will never know for sure how many children I have."

"It was hard to look my biological daughter in the eye and tell her I wasn’t her dad."

"Am I a parent? Maybe sometimes from the child’s perspective? I don’t know."

"It’s not for me to say, but it certainly feels like parenting every once in a while."

Dylan Stone-Miller, 32, software engineer, sperm donor, Atlanta, Georgia

 

"There are moments when it feels intrusive with Dylan. It’s about us figuring out what boundaries are, as well as him figuring out his boundaries." 

"I don’t want Harper [her daughter] to feel like she can call him anything. He is not her dad. Period. If she were to say that in front of us, we would straight up say, 'Dylan is not your dad. He will never be your dad. You don’t have a dad. You have a donor'." 

"We came on the scene when he was going through hard times. Being with the children gave him a renewed sense of purpose."  

"As we get to know him more, we all feel more comfortable. But my sense is he is going to feel more entitled, which can be problematic. We need to keep enough walls up to protect our girls and our family, but to make them permeable enough that he can come in." 

Alicia Bowes, mother of toddler born of Stone-Miller's sperm

Featured Image Credit: @‌DonorDylan/Instagram

 There is no national limit in the United States on the number of children a sperm donor can father. A limit of 25 children per donor in a population of 800,000 is a guideline offered by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Rules are similar in Canada; a maximum of 25 offspring per 800,000 population from a single donor. The difference between Canada and the U.S., however, is that in the U.S. donors are financially compensated.

Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, in Canada buying or selling reproductive materials, inclusive of sperm, is illegal. Donors can be compensated for any expenses they may rack up in the process, however. Canada's official position of not paying for sperm is cited as the reason low sperm donations are the norm in Canada; thus the need to buy donated sperm from American sperm banks.

In Canada, the cost of a single IVF cycle can range from $7,000 to over $15,000; with no guarantee of success. Infertility, defined as an inability to conceive after a year, affects roughly eight percent of the population in Canada, according to The Royal Commission for New Reproductive Technology. There are those who argue Canada should legally restrict the number of children born from a single donor.

The obvious reason is genetic concentration which could lead to potential health issues. Critically, the risk of inadvertent incest between biological siblings. Spain and Belgium have a limit of six pregnancies per donor, leading some experts to recommend that Canada follow suit. Limiting the number of children born of a single donor is also linked to privacy of donors' identity protection.

In Atlanta-resident Stone-Miller's case Xytex, the sperm donor company he dealt with was given permission by him for his identity to be revealed to any of his biological children once they reached 18 years of age. Stone-Miller was a college student when he first began donating his sperm in exchange for $100 each visit with sperm bank Xytex. Initially he needed money to pay his lawyer when he was charged with underage consumption of alcohol.

He has met 25 of his biological children so far. Credit: Instagram/@donordylan

For the next six years he continued to donate his sperm. At age 32 he decided to leave his job and travel. The purpose was to meet with as many of his 96 biological offspring as might be possible. To the present, he has met 25 of those children. In 2020 he received a Facebook message from one of two mothers to a toddler, one of Stone-Miller's biological children: "I really hope you don't feel violated in any way, but it's Canadian Thanksgiving and I wanted to tell you how grateful my family is to you."

That contact began his journey of discovery and introduction to some of the astounding number of children he had fathered. It was at this time that his marriage dissolved. And he asked Bowes whether he might join a Facebook group she started that was named after his sperm bank ID. It was his donor file details that enabled Bowes to track him down to begin with. He had informed Bowes of his interest in meeting his biological children, mostly American, and 20 parents responded.

To this point he has visited with Bowes and her family twice in Edmonton, seeing her two daughters who are his biological children. He actually maintains a spreadsheet with the names of his biological children along with their birthdays and when he had last seen or spoken with them. His quest to see and know something of his biological children has not been without its complications, with boundaries having to be set reflecting the unusual nature of the situation.

But he planned a road trip for the specific purpose of meeting as many of his 96 biological children as circumstances would allow him to. And he's on his journey of discovery.

The process of artificial insemination of an egg in an IVF clinic. Photo by Getty

Delaying Pregnancies, Freezing Fertile Eggs

"[As a result of the global pandemic with social and dating lives upended], a lot of people feel they lost three years of their reproductive life."

"In ceetain provinces or territories you cannot even see a fertility specialist, because they don't exist [there]. So, freezing your eggs and flying to a city that does it, isn't attainable."

"Not everyone is going to do this. But, certainly, for younger people who have chosen to do this, they have felt it to be a great option for them." 

"If someone is freezing their eggs at age 30 or younger, and we have 20 eggs, then we can guesstimate that in the future there's probably about a 55 percent chance of a pregnancy there."

Dr. Sony Sierra, president, Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society 

"Society is sort of telling us, dictating, especially to women, what they should do -- get your education, travel, get a job, buy your house, meet a partner, and follow that path. But of course, our reproductive anatomy hasn't caught up."

"[Egg freezing can alleviate pressure], that sort of societal pressure, even the pressure a woman feels for herself on her future family-building plans. This is something they can do in their early to mid-20s, even their early 30s."

Carolynn Dube, executive director, patient group Fertility Matters Canada

"[Women may feel pressured to freeze their eggs] especially where this is a 'benefit' paid for by the employer."

"First and foremost, it really fails to address some of these bigger systemic questions we have about caregiving issues in the workplace, and whether we should be thinking about creating policies that accommodate caregiving as opposed to just delaying fertility."

Dr. Vanessa Gruben, professor, department of law, University of Ottawa

Today, postponing pregnancy is the norm. As infertility rates rise, egg-freezing is a back-up plan. Photo by Getty Images

Among businesses who offered employees the opportunity to take advantage of egg freezing for female staff, Apple and Facebook were among the initiators, and other major tech companies and big banks did the same; the bonus of employer-paid egg preservation. Fertility clinics take to hosting virtual webinars for those curious about "all things egg freezing".

Fertility specialists and patient advocates feel it is important that young women be aware of age-related changes affecting both quantity and quality of their fertile eggs. And though freezing eggs for future use when women are prepared to conceive, is an expensive procedure, there is no guarantee of a pregnancy outcome or live birth in the final analysis. A recent study found egg-freezing workplace perks can appear to be a type of social pressure hinging on the belief that women should focus on work, not babies.

There are others who argue the primary reason women elect to place their eggs in deep freeze for future use, is that their current situation is one absent of stable reproductive partners. Women at birth possess roughly one to two million immature egg cells (oocytes); egg reserves that decrease with age. A woman will have 25,000 oocytes left by age 37, and by age 51, the average age of menopause, a woman will have about 1,000 egg cells left, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists.

If eggs are frozen when the woman is young, there will be a higher opportunity for successful pregnancy, and lower incidence of miscarriage once they're ready to be used. The process consists of a woman injecting herself with hormonal drugs daily for a two-week period. The injection goes into the belly or upper thighs, meant to stimulate her ovaries to produce some ten to 15 mature eggs rather than the usual one egg monthly. The more eggs frozen, the greater likelihood one will be fertilized with sperm to develop into an embryo, leading to pregnancy.

Eggs a e retrieved from the ovaries once the optimal size and number are present, via an ultrasound-guided needle, then flash-frozen to a solid, glasslike state within seconds and stored in liquid nitrogen tanks. According to fertility doctors, the optimal freeze time for eggs is in the woman's 20s or early 30s years, when ovarian reserves are high. Age at cryopreservation and the number of eggs frozen both affect success rates.

Based on fifteen years of real-life "frozen-egg outcomes", one U.S. study at a New York University-affiliated fertility clinic found overall, 39 percent of women had at least one child from their frozen eggs; 51 percent if the woman was younger than 38 when her eggs were frozen, and 70 percent if the under-38 woman thawed at least 20 eggs.

"We can manipulate the uterus to be able to accept an embryo at any age, really but] we don't transfer embryos over age 49", said Dr. Sierra. Birthrates are not affected by the length of time in cold storage, nor does the age of the woman at the time an embryo created with a thawed egg is transferred to her womb. There are potential risks from egg freezing that can include bleeding, infection and internal injury, according to a Mount Sinai Fertility video.

Ovarian hyperstimulaton syndrome can occur when a woman's ovaries swell and leak fluid into the body. The published risk is about one in 200. One in ten women on hormones will experience hot flashes, mood changes and some abdominal discomfort, but there does not appear to be increased risk of breast or ovarian cancer. 

 

More than one egg-freezing cycle is often undertaken to produce the optimal number of eggs. The cost of which is up to $10,000 each cycle. Medication comes in at $6,000 to $8,000. Plus an annual storage fee of $300. Topped up by the cost involved of in vitro fertilization.

A vessel containing a women’s frozen egg cells.

No Scruples, Big Price, It's All Yours

"IVF clinics have had pretty free rein, and some would look at their pathway as being a bit free and easy in terms of new developments. [U.S. clinics have] a bit of a reputation of being cowboys."
"They help a lot of people ... and that's largely a good thing. But one might wonder if there is a need for more oversight than we currently have."
National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins

New Hope Fertility Center

Through a process known as preimplantation, genetic diagnosis, or PGD, gender selection has become a possible choice where clinicians remove a single cell or a few cells from an embryo to use DNA probes for the purpose of examining its genetic makeup. PGD typically is used to screen embryos for the presence of inherited diseases, but the procedure can be used as well to identify embryos with desirable characteristics. PGD assists parents-to-be in selecting which embryos to transfer to the womb, which to discard, without altering the embryo.

This new science of expendable embryos failed to impress religious conservatives believing that conception equals new life's beginning. A panel in Britain to study assisted reproduction suggested that a public body be established to oversee human embryo research, regulate fertility clinics and lead debates revolving about new technologies, to which Britain's Parliament concurred, establishing the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, the first such of its kind -- that other countries eventually emulated.

In the United States, instead of supporting research and government regulation a 1995 provision to an appropriations bill prohibited the expenditure of federal funds for any research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos so lawmakers whose ethics and politics preferred to skirt the issue could vote against public funding for such research at the same time that the private sphere picked up the embryo research ball. While in Britain a practical approach was taken to the inevitable ensuring that government would have the last word in protecting the public interest.

In the U.S. the Food and Drug Administration sent a warning letter in 2017 to Dr. John Zhang who experimented with mitochondria technology whose purpose was to aid older women with degraded eggs. That warning from the FDA chilled any such research for which Britain in the same year formally licensed the process for women with heritable diseases. India last year banned commercial surrogacy and Ireland is preparing to join the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand and others to prohibit anonymous sperm donation.

Other countries like China, Canada and Australia ban gender selection other than in rare instances of medical need, a situation where, ten years earlier the U.S. was also seized with the moral aspect of such procedures. Currently as many countries impose boundaries on assisted reproduction, no such hesitation exists in the U.S. fertility industry which remains for the most part unregulated, routinely offering services elsewhere outlawed. Making the U.S. a popular destination for IVF patients from all corners of the world.

Commercial surrogacy, anonymous sperm donation and screening for physical characteristics, along with sex selection are freely available, with the fertility industry in the United States valued at $5.8 billion in 2018. The Chinese researcher who created the world's first gene-edited infants which last month caused a stir worldwide, had his training in the United States. NIH Director Collins was clear in condemning the gene-editing as an "epic scientific misadventure". It seem the Chinese government may agree if for no other reason than embarrassment, since Dr. He has since been placed under investigation.

Fertility specialist Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg in Encino California was accused of practising eugenics, offering parents the choice of gender, eye, skin and hair colour. He added gender screening to his IVF clinic at a time when it simply wasn't done. In the years since, IVF clinics across the U.S. routinely now offer such screening as a standard service. Close to 73 percent of U.S. fertility clinics offer gender selection, according to a survey published in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.

Couples without fertility problems but who choose IVF to enable them to control the outcome of their pregnancies are offered gender selection. Thousands of patients yearly are sent to IVF clinics in the U.S. from Australia where such interventions are illegal. Dr. Steinberg speaks of parents now requesting even greater access to 'designing' outcomes. Eye colour is a popular choice with a 60 percent success rate, where most prospective parents want a blue-eyed or green-eyed baby.

"People call up asking for all kinds of things: vocal ability, athletic ability. Height is a big one. I have a lot of patients who want tall children", he remarked. "If  you do what I do, you can't have a strong ethical opinion [other than when parents ask for] something that is going to be harmful."

World Leading Gender Selection Program

• World leading 100%* Gender Selection with PGD
• Lowest base price of any U.S. PGD program
• Affiliate clinics in over 42 countries
• Screening for over 400 hereditary diseases
• Now combinable with Microsort sperm sorting
• Critical procedures performed by MDs and PhDs
• Full assistance with travel discounts and visas
• Financing available

Ultra-Commercializing Motherhood -- Darwin Spinning in his Grave

"We hope to begin cases [in Canada] within the next few weeks.This technique is a new platform. How far it  can go, I really cannot imagine."
"When the world's first heart transplant occurred in South Africa, the community was afraid the doctor had transferred the soul of one person into another."
"[The first babies born from IVF (in vitro fertilization) in 1978 were considered] an unnatural abomination."
"We have the world's first successful [three parent] birth. Of course there is need for long-term study of that baby, and other cases. [However], we had twenty years of research before moving to the first case study."
Dr. John Zhang, New Hope Fertility Clinic, Manhattan

Dr John Zhang with the world’s first baby born using DNA from three people. The baby is reported to be healthy. Photograph: New Hope Fertility Center

"This is unethical, irresponsible and exploitative."
"The chance of failure with IVF for women over the age of 45 is 98 percent. At best (and this is unlikely), this experimental intervention might reduce the chance of failure to 70 percent."
"This is about selling false hope."
Dr. Francoise Baylis, bioethicist, Dalhousie University

"We know that we're very close [medical science] to being able to make a gamete out of any type of body cell."
"Right now we make gametes naturally -- men make sperm, women make eggs. We put them together, magic happens, and you have a baby."
"Here we're starting to understand reproduction at a cellular level. The next step is to say, well, if I can do this in an egg cell, why can't I make an egg cell? Why can't I make a sperm cell? Why do you have to be female to make an egg?"
"There are big-picture questions, and what Zhang's done is give us another step on the ladder to attacking those big-picture questions."
"We fixed this person's infertility -- we change their microcellular structure, and that child goes off and reproduces. What is it they pass on? And what is it their children pass on?"
"It's accelerating our evolutionary process in a completely unprecedented way."
Dr. Roger Pierson, infertility expert, University of Saskatchewan

Mitochondrial diseases can be passed from mothers to their children in DNA.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

The technique is described as a spindle nuclear transfer. The first baby conceived through this new technique was born last September. The baby's mother had lost two other children; she was a carrier of a progressive neurological disorder led by a mutation in her mitochondrial DNA; a lethal-to-survival condition for a newborn. Dr. Zhang performed a mitochondrial replacement using the mother's egg in a laboratory in the United States. The embryo transfer took place in Mexico to evade U.S. laws where the procedure is banned.

The process proceeds with the removal of the nucleus of the mother's egg containing the maternal DNA, then injecting it into the egg of a young donor. The donor egg which has been stripped of its own nucleus possesses a younger mitochondria. And since this is the mechanism whereby energy is provided to every living body cell, the mitochondria of older women have a decreased energy-output, less able to fuel cell division post-fertilization to achieve pregnancy.

The new egg, 'reconstituted' is then ready to be fertilized with the sperm of the male partner at which time the embryo that results is transferred to the older mother's womb. And in the best-case scenario, which is what the procedure aims for, in due time a healthy baby results. Dr. Zhang's creative new methodology exchanges nuclear contents to turn the donor egg into a 98.9 percent genetic match to the mother, leaving a less-than-significant DNA contribution of 1.1 from the donor.

The mitochondrial transfer technique is aimed at those with a high risk of passing on debilitating diseases. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

This startling new direction in altering a would-be mother's egg to expunge the reality of a devastating mitochondrial disease being transmitted to children while still retaining the gross bulk of the mother's DNA to distinguish her children as her very own is understandably viewed with suspicion if not downright alarm by many in the medical community. Yet another addition to the already-lucrative fertility industry, Dr. Zhang's method boasts a capacity to "reverse the effect of age" on human eggs.

Among those viewing this technique with alarm are those who speak of the hubris in medical science out-running nature's formula for reproduction resulting in fears of deliberately designed genetic enhancement; "designer babies", with the technology utilized to 'edit' eggs and sperm of their less-favoured traits and substitute them with more elegant versions. Apart from which the long-range effects of how these genetic manipulations will eventually play out in the future through following generations represents a worrisome potential into the unknown.

A Revision Whose Time Has Time

"There is an altruistic element to it, but I've honestly in my career never met someone who is willing to do that for free for a stranger."
"But there may be a sizeable number willing to do it if at least they're compensated for wages and some of their time."
Dr. Jeff Roberts, president, Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society

"It sounds like the [society] would like to open the door to a sort of fee-for-service system, where money is promised and people line up to sell their eggs or sperm or gestational capacity."
"People who find themselves in difficult financial circumstances will do this ... for the purpose of defraying their debt or paying for university tuition."
Juliet Guichon, professor, University of Calgary

"The fact they're being paid under the table makes them feel guilty, makes them feel part of something clandestine and hidden."
"They may not feel free to claim their rights and receive the health care they may need."
Vardit Ravitsky, professor, University of Montreal

An employee at a clinic prepares a sample of sperm and an egg for the process of fertilization under the microscope on May 25, 2016 in Barcelona. LUIS GENE/AFP/Getty Images

Canada enacted a law in 2004 allowing surrogates and donors of eggs and sperm reimbursement for expenses related to their cooperation with people anxious for parenthood acting as surrogates or egg or sperm donors. It is, however, illegal for anyone to directly charge for these services; they must be voluntarily given without recompense. A Royal Commission had studied the complex issues involved and extensive debate in Parliament concluded that Canadians remained opposed to the "commodification" of human sperm, eggs and wombs.

Now, the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society is interested in spurring the federal government to overtime that ban of compensating people for their contribution to the parenthood of others. Their contention is that at the time the law was passed, this was an emerging technology, one that people were uncertain of, and insisted on precautionary measures  being put in place. Since that time, women in Canada have gone to great lengths inconveniencing themselves by charitably carrying someone else's baby to term.

These women can legitimately claim expenses related to their voluntary pregnancies, but they may not receive payment for that service. But although it remains a criminal act to pay a fee for the acquisition of eggs or sperm, fertility brokers and others in the system beak the rules with a measure of impunity. That being the case, since it is illegal, donors and surrogates have no real self-interested incentive to become involved -- other than those rare individuals who charitably offer themselves regardless.

Many Canadians who are anxious to become parents, but cannot themselves through natural means acknowledge the indefinite wait that is imposed upon them by the criminalization of the means. And many visit other countries to hasten the process where it is not illegal to acquire sperm and eggs, and to rent out a womb, as it were. Sherry Levitan, a member of the society's board suggests that maximum allowable payments could be set by the government, reasonable rates that are not outrageous.

She points out the unfairness of Canadians' disadvantage "in terms of managing their own fertility care". One bio0ethicist who has studied the situation extensively and is viewed as an expert is in support of permitting payments to be made; but her perspective is that it should be done in a manner that is seen to be fair to the donors, the surrogates and the children that result; not particularly for the purpose of benefiting the parents per se.

As Professor Ravitsky points out, the criminal ban has led those transactions to take place within the atmosphere of a grey market. She points out how unfair it is that women are expected to provide eggs or to become surrogates out of a sense of charity for others, while lawyers and brokers and owners of clinics profit from the situation. The Assisted Human Reproduction Act which makes it a crime to buy the services of surrogates or donors remains in effect for the time being, administered by Health Canada.

In agitating for change, the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society, while standing to gain if it does proceed, has failed to address one additional issue. And that is, quite simply, when pregnancies ensue the universal health care system in the country picks up the medical costs. At the present time there are Canadian women offering, at no charge to foreign prospective parents, to lend themselves to the enterprise of surrogacy. Those foreign parents-to-be get quite a bargain. They pay the surrogate mother only her expenses related to the pregnancy in recognition that this is the law in Canada.

The surrogate mother uses the universal health care system to look after all the medical requirements involved. And this is a medical cost that the Canadian taxpayer picks up. There should be a provision distinctly addressing this situation; that should foreign parents-to-be use the services of a Canadian surrogate, they should be financially liable for the health services given that surrogate during the course of her pregnancy, and the baby's delivery.

The Perils and Pitfalls of Donor Sperm

"Nobody on this planet would ever want a child who could potentially be sick. Nobody in their right mind would ever wish that on their child."
"Everybody wants their child to be healthy, so you are not going to pick a [semen] donor who has cancer or comes from a family with big health problems."
Diane [last name withheld], northern Ontario resident

"This is the third non-compliant rating that Health Canada has issued to Outreach Health Services for its importation activities related to donor semen processed by the European Sperm Bank since 2009."
"Even with all the corrective actions implemented by the [Denmark-based] European Sperm Bank, donor semen is still being supplied to the Canadian market that is not compliant with the semen regulations."
"Certain health and behaviour criteria such as drug use, exposure to foreign blood or body fluids were not adequately assessed [through Newmarket-based Outreach Health Services' importation of donor semen from the U.S.-based Seattle Sperm Bank] as part of the donor screening process."
Rebecca Gilman, spokesperson, Health Canada

Three Ontario families have launched lawsuits against a U.S.-based sperm bank and its Canadian distributor alleging they were misled about their sperm donor's medical and social history.

There are twenty-six mothers, women who became pregnant through In Vitro Fertilization techniques, using donor sperm from an American man identified as Xytex Donor 9623, who was presented on the data available to prospective mothers as an intellectually brilliant man possessing multiple university degrees, whose photograph for the women to scrutinize was that of a fit-appearing, handsome young man.

This man sold his sperm between the years 2000 to 2014, later distributed and used to enable women to give birth to an estimated thirty-six children; 17 girls and 19 boys. A problem has since surfaced, identifying the 40-year-old as Chris Aggeles of Georgia. And he happened really to be a college dropout, not the brilliant academic scholar he was purported to be. Moreover, he is anchored to a criminal past, and perhaps much worse, is the host of a medley of serious mental illnesses.

Collins, pictured above with her son, said she chose 'donor 9623' because he was 'the male version of my partner'. The mothers who used donor 9623's sperm learned of the man's real identity in 2014 when Xytex released information inadvertently and 'in a breach of confidentiality'.

Now, three women from Ontario who became mothers through this amazingly insufficiently-regulated donor process are suing the importer of the sperm as well as the American sperm bank for what they now view as an agonizingly fraught decision to trust those sources. They understand that their trust was also misplaced in the fertility clinics who used the unregulated sperm to impregnate them. Sperm bank Xytex Corp. and Outreach Health Services have been implicated in other Ontario births with the very same vexing concern; their children's genetic predisposition to mental illness.

The donor was diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is inherited by ten percent of children with a parent suffering from the malady, according to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health. Xytex itself had inadvertently identified the identity of the donor when emailing a few women who had trustingly made use of his sperm to become pregnant and later had questions they wanted answered. When women researched the name Chris Aggeles online they discovered a posting that he himself had written discussing his own struggles with schizophrenia.

A Georgia court was in possession of documents revealing that Aggeles had pleaded guilty in 2005 to a charge of burglary, receiving a sentence of eight months in prison. Medical records listed as evidence indicate he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. He had, as well, described himself for court records as having schizoaffective disorder. This is a man who has been anything but a success in life, experiencing great difficulty holding down jobs.

The lawsuits lodged against Xytex and Outreach on behalf of the three Ontario mothers cite failure to investigate, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. One of the plaintiffs described in her claim that "She was advised by Outreach that Xytex Corp. was the largest and most reliable sperm bank." She found, studying the catalogue, that Donor 9623 had two university degrees with a third in the works, a clean medical history and apparently robust sperm. Her suit states that "A client specialist with Outreach told the plaintiff that Donor 9623 was one of Xytex's most popular donors and that he already had [sired] ten offspring."

Perhaps most infuriating of all was that this client had been attempting to once again become pregnant. Her lawsuit states that at the very time she had become aware of Aggeles' health problems, the two companies had attempted to sell her additional units of this very same man's frozen semen six months after they had become aware of his falsified records after having been informed by other mothers of their discovery of his mental health problems.