The Right of Identity

The one resolution originating from the Diocese of Albany to go before the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church will be the one titled "A Right to Human Identity" sponsored by the Rev. Mark Diebel.

As reported in this blog when it came before the 2009 diocesan convention in Albany, the resolution aims to address the loss of history for both adoptees and persons born through artificial reproductive technology, including surrogacy parenting.  The proposal was passed in Albany and referred to the 76th General Convention.  There it was taken up by the Commission on Social Justice and Public Policy.  That commission referred it, without change, for consideration by General Convention in 2012.  The 77th General Convention will meet in Indianapolis this June.

The author, Mark Diebel, sees room for expansion of the resolution.  He would like to see GC “undertake a study of the implications of artificial reproductive technologies for human identity and report their findings”.  In fact, an amendment to that effect was proposed at the 2009 Albany diocesan convention, but was defeated before the main resolution was passed.  Now Diebel says that the resolution "needs exposure and discussion in order to get understanding of it."  Here is the resolution that will be considered at 77th General Convention, and explanation:

RESOLVED, the House of ________ concurring, that the 77thGeneral Convention of the Episcopal Church urge all dioceses to adopt the following statement: Personal history is a fundamental human right and knowledge of one’s entire parentage should be assumed as part of a person’s natural property, and be it further;

RESOLVED, that the 77th General Convention urge all dioceses to adopt the following statement: That all state legislatures be urged to establish procedures that would enable adoptees (upon reaching legal age) to secure current information regarding their historical heritage, medical history, and genetic derivation without the necessity of court action.

EXPLANATION

The Episcopal Church has had little formal conversation on issues related to the advances in genetic engineering, and their impact upon our daily lives. At the 76th General Convention, such an opportunity was missed as a similar resolution to this one was submitted. Though the resolution passed for debate, it did not get out of legislative committee in time for consideration by General Convention. The Standing Commission on Social Justice and Public Policy believes that a general debate is timely and of increasing importance to the wider Church. It is of note that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, in its 2011 Church Wide Assembly received a social statement paper on Genetics.

Adoptees in the United States are not necessarily granted knowledge of their parentage because state law in forty eight states seals their original birth certificate. There are no laws that protect the identity history of children born using artificial reproductive technology. Sperm, egg, and/or embryo donations may not be disclosed to the children so conceived. Similar concerns exist for children born of surrogacy parenting.

Theological grounds for knowledge of one’s origins maybe seen in scripture: a) Old Testament scriptural testimony is structured around genealogical narratives; b) the theological concept of adoption witnessed by Paul incorporates knowledge of one’s origins; c) Jesus’ birth narratives incorporate genealogies; d) the concept of fatherhood is retained in the New Testament. Furthermore, Church history has testified to the importance of blood line in canon law. The theological concept that a person may become a “child of God” by the “will of God” does not negate other origin narratives, but fulfills them. Narrative theology emphasizes the importance of the human narrative on personal and social levels.

The Episcopal Church has already declared in GC 1982-D082: “Resolved, the House of Bishops Concurring” that state legislatures be urged to establish procedures that would enable adoptees (upon reaching legal age) to secure current information regarding their historical heritage, medical history and genetic derivation: 1) without the necessity of court action, and 2) with sufficient safeguards provided for the protection of all parties in the adoptive triangle – the adoptee, the adoptive parents, and the biological parents; and be it further resolved, That every Diocese and Parish be encouraged to support such action in every state.” GC 1982-D082, however, should be superseded in regard to section 2, which is too vague.

Comments

[Mark Diebel]

News from Australia about a right for donor conceived persons to know their genetic parentage today...

Concerning health...http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/health-concerns-spark-call-for-sperm-donor/3918868

Statement from the government

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/lawrefrom/iadcpiad/DCP_Final_Report.pdf

Press report on Tangledwebs

http://tangledwebsorg.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/press-release/

[Eric Bard]

Good idea Mark

[Mark Diebel]

@ Fr. Shank,

Record keeping is a problem for both adoptees and donor conceived. One reason for this is the multi-generational mixed feeling that personal information about adoption (or donor conception) does not need to be preserved or disclosed.

[Mark Diebel]

A longer comment got lost somewhere in cyberspace, hence the odd start to the short correction on the bottom note.

This resolution addresses the practice of donor conception in the United States which is lenient with respect to how names of genetic parent(s) are preserved and communicated to the donor conceived. Common estimates give between 30 and 60 thousand children per year are born using donor conception practice. No statistics are, however, kept so it is impossible to know how many of these persons will likely know their genetic roots or not. The aim of the resolution is to help effect a change in policy and practice so that it becomes more like common sense that descendants are seen to have both genetic and (so to speak) cultural parents. The resolution does not address the rightness or wrongness of donor conception practice itself.

Surrogacy parenting is also a practical question with respect to the disclosures to children born from gestational surrogates. As much as commissioning parents want to see themselves as the sole parent of a child, gestational surrogacy provides a child with another "parent". This person is to be included in the notion of "entire parentage."

The preservation and disclosure of this information as a matter of right to the descendant has been hotly contested and remains so with respect to adoptions. The practice of open adoptions provides some children with the possibility (and sometimes reality) of relationships with the natal family. Open adoption practice is relatively small. In New York, access to the original birth certificate is still prohibited (except for a showing of good cause). "Good cause" is a term without standard interpretation so it's application varies widely.

The fundamental point is that practice needs to think of this sort of information as a human right, a basic to the human being. Negotiating this sort of information away is not necessary nor right.

[Father Mike Waverly-Shank]

Just one question - how long are these records kept? A relative tried to track down the birth mother of an adopted child - tried to do it through the lawyer who had handled the adoption - He was retired and had shredded his paper work. Would this be an ongoing problem??

[Mark Diebel]

I should also correct the word "sponsored by The Rev'd Mark Diebel"...the resolution is actually sponsored or being sent to the Convention by the Commission on Social Justice and Public Policy.