A quibble with the Progress Educational Trust in London, which is hosting three upcoming events related to donor conception: the first is on the “donor” perspective, the second on the “recipient parent” perspective, and the third and final is on the donor conceived perspective.
Shouldn’t the persons conceived this way be featured first?
Categories: Reproductive Technologies, The Future of Parenthood
Perhaps, but I am encouraged that they are having all three perspectives. Who knows, maybe going last is the best position as you get to sum up everything?
Good positive outlook Diane. It certainly is progress, as far as I can tell.
But I still think it would be radical and right and is the way of the future to have the donor conceived persons speak first.
I think I’d rather speak last.
What troubles me more, is that I am not sure from the description of the panel that donor-conceived people are speaking. It talks more about the perspective and issues.
And, the issues raised are about anonymity, what’s the best practice for telling, how to support people in contacting biological parents, and what about contacting biological half-siblings. I think they should at least include an acknowledgement that there are some donor-conceived adults who oppose the practice entirely. They may not be in the majority, but it’s an important issue to raise.
So, I remembered reading a study of speaking orders in debates some time ago and the conclusion was that statistically speaking there was a WEAK effect that favored people in the middle of the speaking order and worked against people who were first or last. Anyway, the effect was so weak and the statistical effect of preparation time was so much stronger that they concluded by saying something along the lines that the time used to worry about speaking order was wasted and better spent preparing.
Sadly, it does appear that Jess Pearce is the only DC panelist. There really should be at least one on each panel regardless of the perspective they are exploring on that particular night. I’m not talking in terms of status like Elizabeth, but just in terms of making the exercise useful.
Since the events are on three different dates, its very possible that the order was determined by pragmatic issues (i.e., so-and-so is available on this date but not on that date).
With all respect to my pal Elizabeth, reading offense into the order of three events on three separate dates seems like taking offense unnecessary.
Well, Barry, that’s a very mature, reasonable point.