The man who had initiated the research was born in 1986 after an artificial insemination that his parents had carried out by Geert V., a now retired gynecologist at the former Sint-Rembert Hospital in Torhout (today the AZ Delta in Roeselare, ed.). “Based on, among other things, comparisons in online DNA databases, the man has a scientifically substantiated suspicion of paternity of the gynecologist himself,” reads a press release from the Bruges court. “Instead of using the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor, the gynecologist would have used his own sperm.”
Based on his suspicions, the man requested a comparative DNA test to obtain a definitive answer. The gynecologist opposed this by referring to the anonymity that donors must enjoy.
READ ALSO. What drives a doctor to artificially fertilize women with his own sperm? “Playing God”
When assessing the file, the court took various elements into account. In this way, a trade-off was made between the right to certainty about biological descent on the one hand and the right of a sperm donor to privacy and anonymity on the other. In addition, it was noted that the sperm donor knew it could lead to a biological descendant. Moreover, although the plaintiff’s parents had an agreement with the fertility clinic, their son was obviously not involved in those agreements. According to the judge, genetic anonymity has also become an illusion due to the arrival of DNA databases.
“Anonymity violated”
It was then established that anonymity is in principle a two-way street, as the sperm donor and the intended parents normally do not know each other. In this specific case, however, the gynecologist may have broken that principle by inseminating his patient with his own sperm. He therefore knows whether or not he is the biological father, while the plaintiff remains uncertain. The judge therefore calls it striking that the gynecologist is so clinging to the anonymity of donors.
“Now that a strong suspicion can be derived from the claimant’s investigation that the gynecologist himself violated this anonymity when inseminating the claimant’s mother,” it said. “The legitimate expectation he invoked to remain anonymous cannot prevail as through his own actions he apparently violated the legitimate expectation of the plaintiff’s mother that she would be inseminated with sperm from an anonymous donor.”
1,500 euros per day
However, the judge ruled that in this specific file the right to certainty about biological parentage takes precedence over the gynecologist’s right to conceal his biological paternity. That is why an expert was appointed who will have to carry out the comparative DNA test to find out whether the gynecologist is the biological father. If the gynecologist does not cooperate, he will face a penalty of 1,500 euros for each day of delay. The gynecologist can still appeal against the verdict. Pending this, the sentence cannot be executed for the time being.
In addition, the court expressly states that the gynecologist’s DNA profile may not be used for any other purpose. It may therefore not be passed on to other people or included in databases.
