Mary Barton (obstetrician)
Mary Barton (1 March 1905 – 1990) was a British obstetrician who, in the 1930s, founded one of the first fertility clinics in England to offer donor insemination.
Her pioneering research and practice were inspired by experience as a medical missionary in India, where she saw the harsh treatment of childless women.
Both the identification of the male as an infertile partner and the introduction of treatments that used "instrumental insemination"[2]: 10 met with strong social disapproval.
[7][8]: 213–214 He and a small number of other donors may have provided the majority of the sperm used, resulting in the birth of hundreds of half-siblings, most of whom had no knowledge of their conception.
The Barton clinic has been the subject of the documentaries Offspring (2001) and Bio-Dad (2009) by Barry Stevens[9][10][11] and of a play by Maud Dromgoole.
[14][full citation needed] She married Douglas Barton, a doctor who was based in Dera Ismail Khan, a city in what was then British India's Northwest Frontier Province, and is now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan.
[citation needed] At the time, it was taboo to suggest that it might be the husband, and not the wife, who was infertile - not only on the Indian subcontinent but also in the United Kingdom.
As early as 16 October 1943, she was the lead author on an article in The British Medical Journal, discussing "Sterility and Impaired Fertility" in both men and women.
[citation needed] Barton's second husband, biologist and physiologist Bertold Wiesner, was associated with the Royal Northern Hospital, as was genito-urinary surgeon Kenneth Walker.
[5] Given both social taboos around the subject of infertility and the lack of legal regulation for such work at the time, Barton advised secrecy about the service she offered, telling the parents they should never let their children find out how they had been conceived or identify the donors.
While successful artificial insemination births were documented late in the 19th century, the practice was not widely accepted as ethical in Britain, even when used for the breeding of farm animals.
[25] In response to Barton's article, Geoffrey Fisher, then Archbishop of Canterbury established a religious commission on artificial human insemination in December 1945.
Its purpose was "To consider the practice of human artificial insemination with special reference to its theological, moral, social, psychological, and legal implications.
[20]: 28 [28] Artificial human insemination was seen as posing social and legal threats to the institution of marriage and the status of children, not least due to secrecy and deception around a child's paternity.
He also opposed the commission's interpretation of AID as adulterous, arguing that the "spiritual elements which constitute the sin of adultery are absent".
[1] At the time that the Feversham Committee surveyed the field, only six doctors in Britain regularly provided artificial insemination by donor, all in England: Bernard Sandler (Manchester), Margaret Jackson (Exeter), Mary Barton, Philip Bloom, Reynold Boyd, and Eleanor Mears (all in London).
[20]: 49 The Feversham Committee's proceedings provide valuable indicators of how infertility and artificial insemination were viewed in Britain, by people holding a wide range of perspectives.
[2]: 18 Blackford had moved to make artificial insemination by donor illegal, as being a form of adultery, but in the end he withdrew his motion.
[2]: 19 In this context, Lord Blackford's comments on Mary Barton, who he identified as "a leading exponent in this field",[30] are of particular interest.
She is a most co-operative individual, who answered all questions with frank directness, or with vigorous rebuttal if she did not agree with me (which was often the case); she is devoted to her practice and utterly convinced that she confers a great benefit and happiness on all her patients.
—Lord Blackford, 26 February 1958[30] Others who read the Feversham Committee's report considered that, far from reflecting a full debate, it was lacking in necessary factual background,[29]: 203 "vague",[29]: 212 "superficial", "totally inadequate",[29]: 225 and in the end "inconclusive".
At the same time, they did not consider regulation practical, and feared to increase AID's visibility by giving it any form of official recognition.
Barton emphasized that donors should be free of disease (transmissible or hereditary) and "characteristics of possible genetic significance" (which included both alcoholism and criminality).
While emphasizing that there was no guarantee of a child's appearance, it was hoped that a resemblance would occur and make it easier for the family to connect emotionally.
[8]: 132 The Wand Report worried that donors might have "absurd and inflated opinions of [their] own worth and ability", and be attracted by pride, personal power, and freedom from responsibility for progeny.
[20]: 55–57 In contrast, obstetrician Margaret Jackson argued that a sperm donor was likely preferable genetically to a random sexual encounter or "fling" with a "fancy man".
[20]: 55–57 An unfortunate result of such secrecy, pointed out by the Wand and Feversham reports, was a lack of research on the impact on families, either positive or negative.
[20]: 58–59 In their 1945 paper in the British Medical Journal, Barton and fellow authors Walker and Wiesner explained that they used a "small panel of donors" that they considered of "intelligent stock".
Documentary filmmaker Barry Stevens[34][35] has stated "it's possible he [Bertold Wiesner] didn't tell his wife and she believed the donations were coming from a lot of different men".
