The attitude of female students towards sperm donation by their partner

'It's like donating blood': Ghanaian university students' knowledge and attitudes towards egg and sperm donation

There is anecdotal evidence that third-party reproduction, in particular gamete donation, is on the rise in Ghana. This is not surprising, considering the country has adopted assisted conception through the use of reproductive technologies for the past three decades. These technologies primarily aid infertile couples in Ghana in fulfilling their procreative responsibilities within the Ghanaian family and society. Potential donors' opinions regarding gamete donation have received minimal attention in the Ghanaian discourse on assisted reproductive technology (ART) usage. This study explores the knowledge and attitudes of undergraduate university students regarding gamete donation. The study utilized a qualitative methodology, which included 21 in-depth telephone interviews with students who were potential gamete donors. The data were thematically analyzed. The results of the study show that the participants knew that gamete donation was performed in Ghana. Positive sentiments about the technique were motivated by altruism, whereas negative attitudes were motivated by the urge to adhere to cultural norms that stigmatize incest and children conceived by artificial means. The decision to donate or decline egg or sperm donation was significantly influenced by one's religious convictions.

Experiences and attitudes of Danish men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago; a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

More knowledge about the long-term impact of sperm donation is essential as the donor's attitude towards donation may change over time. Personal and social developments may prompt a rethinking of previous actions and decisions, or even regret. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the experiences and attitudes of men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago.

METHODS

From May to September 2021, semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted with 23 former donors (> 10 years since last donation) from Cryos International sperm bank. Two participants were non-anonymous donors and 21 were anonymous. The interviews were conducted by phone or via video (mean 24 minutes). All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and rendered anonymous. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis showed that most men had been donors for monetary and altruistic purposes, and now considered sperm donation as a closed chapter that was 'unproblematic and in the past'. Most men valued anonymity and emphasized the non-relatedness between donor and donor conceived offspring. Knowledge about recipients and donor offspring was seen as 'damaging' as it could create unwanted feelings of relatedness and responsibility towards them. All men acknowledged donor conceived persons' potential interests in knowing about their genetic heritage in order to understand appearance and personal traits, but also emphasized the donors' rights to anonymity. Potential breach of anonymity was generally considered 'highly problematic' as it was expected to disturb their families and force a relationship on them.

CONCLUSION

This study reports on former donors who might not have volunteered for research due to lack of interest or protection of privacy. The majority of men valued anonymity and clearly demarcated a line between sperm donation and fatherhood, which was enforced by not knowing about the donor offspring or recipients.

The dangers of being a sperm donor

This article argues that that there are two important reasons why many potential donors refrain from donating and why many donors value not being outed as a sperm donor. The first reason is the stigma attached to sperm donation. The second is the attribution of fatherhood to the donor. Attributional fatherhood is based on the rejection of the basic rule underlying the practice of sperm donation, i.e. the donor is not the father of the offspring. Attributional fatherhood ascribes the status of father exclusively on the basis of the genetic connection between the donor and the offspring. The violation of the 'responsible father' rule generates moral blame and may result in conflicts, disapproval and rejection. The presence of this view in different groups is demonstrated. Possible solutions for this issue are briefly presented. Given the geneticization of relationships in society in general, this phenomenon may increase in the future, thus putting pressure on the practice of sperm donation.

Decisional authority of gamete donors over embryos created with their gametes

In the ongoing discussion on the rights and obligations of gamete donors, scant attention has been paid to the decisional authority of gamete donors over the disposition of the embryos created with their gametes. This paper analyses four different positions: three cases relate to the disposition options for surplus or unused embryos by the first recipients, and one case relates to the use of the embryos stored by the first recipients for procreation.We conclude that the gamete donor causally contributes to the creation of the embryos and thus becomes indirectly responsible. To avoid that donors would become accomplices to an activity to which they morally object, a qualified generic consent mentioning types of research should be obtained. No consent from the donor is required for the destruction of the embryos.The cancellation of the agreement by anonymous or identifiable gamete donors should not be possible for embryos in storage for reproduction by the recipients. The interests in not becoming a genetic parent against one's wishes do not outweigh the damage done to recipients who would no longer be able to use their embryos. Known donors, on the contrary, should be able to withdraw their consent up to the moment of transfer of the embryos based on the greater harm caused to them as a consequence of attributional parenthood. They should also be able to veto transfer of the embryos to other people than the original recipients.