There is an interesting lawsuit against a US sperm bank Xytex and its Ontario distributor, Outreach Health. At the center of the case is Donor 9623, James Christian Aggeles of Georgia, who claimed an IQ of 160, an undergraduate degree in neuroscience and a master’s degree in artificial intelligence. He also claimed that he was pursuing a PhD in neuroscience engineering. In reality, he was a formal mental patient with a felony conviction. His sperm was used to conceive at least 36 children in Canada, the US and Britain. The result is a $12 million lawsuit against the companies.
The truth about Aggeles was discovered in 2014 after an inadvertent disclosure by Xytex that included his email. The later Google search revealed the true identity and his past diagnosis for schizophrenia, narcissistic personality disorder, drug-induced psychotic disorder and significant grandiose delusions. It also revealed a conviction for a 2005 residential burglary resulting in eight months in jail.
Xytex’s President Kevin M. O’Brien insisted: “In this case, the donor underwent a standard medical exam and provided extensive personal and health information. He reported a good health history and stated in his application that he had no physical or medical impairments.”
However, the families insist that Xytex and Outreach Health continued to promote and sell the donor’s sperm even after the sperm bank was informed of the disclosures.
This is a horrific situation for these women and liability could produce a needed incentive for these companies to better screen donors. It hardly seems reasonable to rely on the representations of donors without further investigation. This is not eHarmony from a sperm bank with lasting implications for women.
What do you think?
73 thoughts on “Sperm Bank Sued After Disclosure That Donor Responsible for 36 Had An Undisclosed History of Schizophrenia”
Let’s get back to the topic at hand, so to speak.
The great Dick Cavett once quipped “A sperm back is the only one where you make a deposit and then lose interest.”
The question here seems to be whether or not the clients have a reasonable expectation that the company has done the due diligence it says it has. Obviously they did not. This isn’t about the motives or morals of the clients.
There are other blogs, but very few of them as good as this one. No, I’m done with making my point, the comments section will likely continue to disappoint but I’ll now just post/respond to things worthy of attention or go back to only reading the blog.
Meanwhile, those Republicans cannot, will not, govern. Will not do their job and hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee as directed by the Constitution.
What an embarrassing lot of morons.
I think I’ve made my point, judging by the posts in this thread, so I’m giving up my SLIGHTLY exaggerated fake-quote posts and hope anyone else who started joining in jumps of that train as well. Throwing feces from the left still leaves everything covered in…doody.
I guess that last bit doesn’t jibe with my call for a higher level of discourse…
Yep. Gotta protect those poor bakers. They might come down with a terrible case of the cooties by baking a cake.
What silly people.
Might be, not ‘mug’
Comments are closed.