A woman is suing a doctor after making a shocking discovery

In a shocking case that shakes the state IdahoIn the United States, Sharon Hayes, now 67, is suing her former gynecologist, David R. Claypool after she discovered that he used his sperm to impregnate her 34 years ago.

A woman is suing a doctor after making a shocking discovery

The devastating revelation came to light when Sharon’s daughter, Brianna Hayes, now 33, decided to take a DNA test to check her ancestry.

That’s when the examination revealed her relationship with David R. Claypool, the obstetrician-gynecologist who accompanied Sharon during her fertility treatment.

Fraud

At the time she underwent treatment, Sharon was married, and faced with the difficulty of conceiving naturally, she and her husband decided to resort to artificial insemination.

The woman requested a donation from an anonymous man, selected through a database, for which she paid a large sum.

But Sharon and her husband were deceived. The suspicion is that Dr. Claypool embezzled the money and used his sperm.

The treatment, which cost nearly $100,000 (about R$500,000) at the time, has now become a source of great discontent and revolt for the Hayes family.

How many women are victims?

This case raises even greater concern: Sharon was not the only victim. Brianna’s examination revealed that she had 16 half-brothers, fueling suspicions that the doctor had performed the same manipulation on other women. Claypool, who has been retired since 2005, has not yet commented on these accusations.

Sperm donation fraud: a recurring crime

Unfortunately, this type of crime is not uncommon in the field of assisted reproduction. A New York Times report last year showed that more than 50 fertility doctors in the United States have already been accused of sperm donation fraud.

It is also noteworthy that a Netflix documentary reveals the case of a fertility specialist from Indiana who gave birth to at least 94 children while inseminating his patients without a permit.

As home DNA tests have become popular, more similar cases have come to light, revealing the imminent need for stricter regulations in assisted reproduction.