Controversial fertility doctor speaks: “We have to get rid of that woke song that wants to abolish the anonymity of donors” (Roeselare)

The man who has strong suspicions that Geert V. performed artificial inseminations on his mother with his own sperm in the 1980s previously filed a complaint with the court, but the file was dismissed because the facts were said to have expired. Through the mandatory DNA test that the Bruges court in the first instance imposed on Geert V., he may now be successful.

Geert V., at the time a gynecologist at the Sint-Rembert Hospital in Torhout (today the AZ Delta in Roeselare), sounds combative when we get on the phone: “We will definitely appeal,” says the now retired gynecologist. “All respect for the judge who decided this, but this raises the eyebrows of several lawyers. This statement is very woke. What’s more, the statement is not coin accordance with Belgian legislation. In our country you can only order mandatory DNA testing in the context of serious crimes such as murder or drug trafficking. Just because some person wants to know his identity does not mean that you can force someone to provide DNA.” For a good understanding: the judge ruled that in this specific file the right to biological descent takes precedence over the gynecologist’s right to conceal his biological paternity.

“There used to be much less fuss about sperm donation. In the hospital corridors or in the cafeteria you could easily approach interns and ask them to donate. Half of them agreed”

Geert V.

Fertility doctor

The donor child in question is a West Flemish man born in 1986 who wishes to remain anonymous. After years of research on, among other things, online DNA databases, he is convinced that Geert V. is his biological father. He contacted the gynecologist himself in 2015, but he said he responded negatively.

Dangerous precedent

“I don’t understand his motivation, which is almost destructive,” Geert V. continues our conversation. “He stalked me for over ten years. Once he even stood here in front of my door with a baseball bat. I now have a new relationship. I can tell you: my wife is not happy about that either.” Does he not understand that that man might just want to know his roots? “Oh, I really don’t know what gets into him, but I think there is another agenda behind it.”

“I am not looking for an inheritance, but I have the right to know where I come from,” the man previously said about his motivations.

“This opens the door to lifting the anonymity of donors. Belgium scores very high in the field of donor insemination, precisely because of the guaranteed anonymity.”

According to the fertility doctor, the decision of the Bruges judge is a dangerous precedent. “This opens the door to lifting the anonymity of donors. Belgium scores very high in the field of donor insemination, precisely because of the guaranteed anonymity. The biggest demand comes from lesbian couples and single women. They travel from the Netherlands, France and England to our country. They swear by anonymous donors and are certainly not looking forward to the day that someone shows up at their door asking: ‘Can I see my child?’”

“We have to get rid of that woke song that wants to abolish anonymity,” says Geert V. “Belgium is currently following a mixed track as a guideline: both the donor and the intended parent must agree if they want to be known. The anonymity also works both ways.”

Olympic seed

Did he not violate the guidelines at the time by possibly donating his own sperm and thus breaking anonymity? After all, he knew that he was a donor, the intended parent did not. “Look, whether I used my own sperm or that of a donor, as a doctor I had to know who the sperm came from. For example, I once had a donor who was extremely fertile. That man really had Olympic seed. That was always a prize the first time. When he had already fathered five children, I contacted him to say that he was no longer allowed to donate. At the time, this was an unwritten law to prevent donors from fathering dozens of children. That data was kept for such reasons. When I retired, I destroyed all those documents.”

In the cafeteria

In an earlier interview with our newspaper, Geert V. described the use of own sperm by fertility doctors as a somewhat common phenomenon. Even now he frames everything within a certain spirit of the times. “We’re talking about the eighties, right? At that time there were no fertility centers with advanced techniques for freezing sperm. A ‘fresh sample’ was necessary. There used to be much less fuss about sperm donation. In the hospital corridors or in the cafeteria you could easily approach interns and ask them to donate. Half of them agreed. In those days it was much easier to find donors than today. Now you no longer have to risk asking that question to, say, students.”

The doctor never admitted that he inseminated women with his own sperm. Even now he reacts evasively. “I can neither confirm nor deny that,” he said. “As a student I often donated sperm. Furthermore, I do not wish to comment on that.”