Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Sir
I was delighted to see printed in this week's edition my
letter in response to the article from an anonymous
donor offspring. Unfortunately I think a very important
word has been changed from my original letter. The
text currently reads, 'and like the young woman who
wrote the personal view, will never know the identity of
their fathers or be able to get further information about
them.'
I would be extremely surprised if I wrote the word,
'fathers' in this context. In law (HFE Act 1990) and in
everyday practice the social father is the father of
children conceived with the assistance of donated
sperm and this is so in my family. The donor played a
very important part, but in only the genetic sense of the
word could he possibly be referred to as the father.
My children are very clear that they have a donor and a
dad. They do not confuse the two - I would be grateful if
through the publication of this letter you would allow me
to make this point clear.
Yours sincerely
Olivia Montuschi
A question of terminology
Dear Sir
I was delighted to see printed in this week's edition my
letter in response to the article from an anonymous
donor offspring. Unfortunately I think a very important
word has been changed from my original letter. The
text currently reads, 'and like the young woman who
wrote the personal view, will never know the identity of
their fathers or be able to get further information about
them.'
I would be extremely surprised if I wrote the word,
'fathers' in this context. In law (HFE Act 1990) and in
everyday practice the social father is the father of
children conceived with the assistance of donated
sperm and this is so in my family. The donor played a
very important part, but in only the genetic sense of the
word could he possibly be referred to as the father.
My children are very clear that they have a donor and a
dad. They do not confuse the two - I would be grateful if
through the publication of this letter you would allow me
to make this point clear.
Yours sincerely
Olivia Montuschi
Competing interests: No competing interests