What motivates men to offer sperm donation via the internet?

Acceptance and rejection of "morally challenging" behaviour in online sperm donation communities: narrative interviews with recipients and donors

Introduction

Online sperm donation allows those hoping to conceive a baby ("recipients") to meet prospective sperm donors online, via "connection" websites or social media. These sites offer some advantages to clinical donation (including lower costs and greater choice over donation arrangements) but previous research has suggested that these sites may also pose risks and challenges to those who use them. Therefore, the aim of this exploratory research was to better understand online sperm donation communities and the experiences of both recipients and donors, particularly with respect to situations that could be "morally challenging" or involve harm.

Methods

Three prolific donors and five recipients were interviewed using an in-depth narrative approach. Carol Gilligan's Listening Guide was employed to analyse the data.

Results

The findings demonstrated that the donors sought to find ways to maintain autonomy in their donating practices and were concerned about the character and parenting abilities of recipients, as well as the potential for recipients to make unwarranted complaints. The recipients were concerned about their safety and finding a donor they could trust, discussing issues relating to donor "dishonesty", online abuse, and a lack of support from connection sites and related authorities. Both donors and recipients identified "morally challenging" behaviour relating to donor anonymity (donor use of fake online profiles or aliases) and the sexual motivations or (mis)conduct of some donors. The participants each discussed the ways in which they managed perceived risks.

Discussion

The degree to which the participants voiced their acceptance or rejection of challenging behaviour in online sperm donation communities varied across and within participants, highlighting the complexity of the way in which people interact in this environment. Further research is required to understand how this form of sperm donation can be as safe and supportive as possible, while also respecting the importance to donors and recipients of autonomy and choice when making donation arrangements.

Understanding the Reasons Why Men and Women Do Not Donate Gametes

The global under-supply of sperm and oocyte donors is a serious concern for assisted reproductive medicine. Research has explored self-selected populations of gamete donors and their ex-post rationalisations of why they chose to donate. However, such studies may not provide the necessary insight into why the majority of people do not donate. Utilising the unique open form responses of a large sample (n = 1035) of online survey respondents, we examine the reasons participants cite when asked: “Why haven’t you donated your sperm/eggs?.” We categorise these responses into four core themes (conditional willingness, barriers, unconsidered, and conscientious objector) and eleven lower-order themes. We find that, on average, women are more conditionally willing (8.2% difference; p = 0.008) to participate in gamete donation than men. We also find that women are more likely than men to justify their non-donation based on their reproductive history (21.3% difference; p = 0.000) or kin selection and inclusive fitness (5.7% difference; p = 0.008). However, compared to women, men are more likely to validate their non-donation based on sociocultural or social norms (6% difference; p = 0.000) or religion (1.7% difference; p = 0.030). That so many of our study participants report in-principal willingness for future participation in gamete donation speaks to the need for increased research on understanding non-donor population preferences, motivations, and behaviours.

Human Rights and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART): A Contractarian Approach

What are human rights? Do they exist? I propose to answer these questions by advancing a contractarian account of human rights. I focus on the human right to found a family and have children. I also show how the contractarian approach to human rights can explain the current relevance of reproductive rights in the human rights discourse, and how the emergence of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) has contributed to this shift. The contractarian account of human rights asks, firstly, the following question: which basic needs and desires can be ascribed to any human being regardless of gender, nationality, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity etc.? Having an interest, for instance, in preserving one’s own bodily integrity, freedom, and private property qualifies as a basic human need or basic desire. But a basic human need or desire does not constitute in itself a human right. Secondly, the contractarian account of human rights asks, then, which basic human needs or basic desires individuals and states representatives would consider so important that they would agree to create institutional frameworks, both at the domestic and international level, in such a way as to enable individuals to pursue the fulfilment of their basic needs or desires without state interference. Human rights exist and can only be claimed in the context of these normative frameworks.

A comparison of the characteristics, motivations, preferences and expectations of men donating sperm online or through a sperm bank

STUDY QUESTION

How do the demographic characteristics, motivations, experiences and expectations of unregulated sperm donors (men donating sperm online through a connection website) compare to sperm donors in the regulated sector (men donating through a registered UK sperm bank)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Online donors were more likely to be older, married and have children of their own than sperm bank donors, were more varied in their preferences and expectations of sperm donation, and had more concerns about being a sperm donor.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

While studies have examined motivations and experiences of both regulated sperm bank, and unregulated online sperm donors, no study has directly compared these two groups of donors.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An email was sent to the 576 men who were registered sperm donors at the London Sperm Bank, the UK’s largest sperm bank regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), who had commenced donation between January 2010 and December 2016, and had consented to be contacted for research. The online survey, which contained multiple choice and open-ended questions, was completed by 168 men over a 7-week period. The responses were compared to those of sperm donors registered on Pride Angel, a large UK-based connection website for donors and recipients of sperm: our research team had already collected these data. In total, 5299 sperm donors were on Pride Angel at time of data capture and 400 men had completed a similar survey. The responses of 70 actual online sperm donors (i.e. those whose sperm had been used to conceive at least one child) were used for comparison with the sperm bank donors.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The survey obtained data on the sperm donors’ demographic characteristics, motivations, experiences and expectations of sperm donation. Data from sperm bank donors were compared to online donors to examine differences between the two groups. The study compared online and clinic donors who had all been accepted as sperm donors: online donors who had been ‘vetted’ by recipients and sperm bank donors who had passed the rigorous screening criteria set by the clinic.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A response rate of 29% was obtained from the sperm bank donors. Online donors were significantly older than sperm bank donors (mean ± SD: 38.7 ± 8.4 versus 32.9 ± 6.8 years, respectively) and were more likely to have their own children (p < 0.001 for both characteristics). Both groups rated the motivation ‘I want to help others’ as very important. Online donors rated ‘I don’t want to have children myself’, ‘to have children/procreate’ and ‘to enable others to enjoy parenting as I have myself’ as more important than sperm bank donors, whereas sperm bank donors rated financial payment as more important than online donors, as well as confirmation of own fertility. Most (93.9%) online donors had donated their sperm elsewhere, through other connection sites, fertility clinics, sperm banks or friends and family, compared to only 2.4% of sperm bank donors (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in how donors viewed their relationship to the child, with online donors much less likely than sperm bank donors to see their relationship as a ‘genetic relationship only’. Online donors had more concerns about being a donor (p < 0.001), for example, being concerned about ‘legal uncertainty and child financial support’ and ‘future contact and uncertainty about relationship with donor-conceived child’.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Findings may not be representative of all sperm donors as only one online connection site and one HFEA registered sperm bank were used for recruitment.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Despite concern regarding shortages of sperm donors in licensed clinics and unease regarding the growing popularity of unregulated connection websites, this is the first study to directly compare online and sperm bank donors. It highlights the importance of considering ways to incorporate unregulated online sperm donors into the regulated sector. With many online donors well aware of the legal risks they undertake when donating in the unregulated online market, this would both increase the number of sperm donors available at clinics but also provide legal protection and support for donors.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust Grants 104 385/Z/14/Z and 097857/Z/11/Z. The authors have no conflicts of interest.

The Ethics of Genetic Cognitive Enhancement: Gene Editing or Embryo Selection?

Recent research with human embryos, in different parts of the world, has sparked a new debate on the ethics of genetic human enhancement. This debate, however, has mainly focused on gene-editing technologies, especially CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). Less attention has been given to the prospect of pursuing genetic human enhancement by means of IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) in conjunction with in vitro gametogenesis, genome-wide association studies, and embryo selection. This article examines the different ethical implications of the quest for cognitive enhancement by means of gene-editing on the one hand, and embryo selection on the other. The article focuses on the ethics of cognitive enhancement by means of embryo selection, as this technology is more likely to become commercially available before cognitive enhancement by means of gene-editing. This article argues that the philosophical debate on the ethics of enhancement should take into consideration public attitudes to research on human genomics and human enhancement technologies. The article discusses, then, some of the recent findings of the SIENNA Project, which in 2019 conducted a survey on public attitudes to human genomics and human enhancement technologies in 11 countries (France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, and United States).

Clinical vs. exclusively online sperm donors: what's the difference?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

As the growth of the internet and commercial connection websites increasingly facilitates sperm donation outside of clinical (formal) settings, studies looking into informal (online) donor psychology and behaviour are both extremely warranted and currently under-researched. This study's aim was to identify key differences between informal donor males with a history of clinical donation, and those who exclusively participate in the informal market.

METHODS

The study utilises (N = 112) current informal sperm donors' demographics and personality traits taken from registered members of the connection website PrideAngel (Nov-Dec 2016). This study conducts probit multivariate and interaction analysis of socioeconomic and personality factors to explore key differences in males who have chosen to exclusively donate through connection websites and those with a clinical history.

RESULTS

Results from this sample show that exclusively informal donors are more likely to be in some form of committed relationship. Exclusively informal males are also more likely to identify as a sexuality other than heterosexual (e.g. gay, bisexual or asexual). Also, exclusively informal participants exhibit higher average scores for the personality trait agreeableness.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study demonstrates key differences in the relationship status, sexuality and personality traits of a new and burgeoning group of males and their reproductive psychology and behaviour.

Why search for a sperm donor online? The experiences of women searching for and contacting sperm donors on the internet

Whilst studies have examined the experiences of women who use clinic donors, to date there has been limited research investigating women’s motivations and experiences of searching for a sperm donor online. A total of 429 women looking for a sperm donor on Pride Angel (a website that facilitates contact between donors and recipients) completed an online survey. Fifty-eight percent (249) saw advantages of obtaining donated sperm online with the most common advantage reported as being able to connect with and meet the donor (n = 50 (24%)). A third (n = 157 (37%)) of the participants gave disadvantages, the most common reported was encountering ‘dishonest donors’ (n = 63 (40%)). Most recipients (n = 181 (61%)) wanted the donor to be ‘just a donor’ (i.e. to provide sperm and have no further contact). Whilst it was important for recipients to know the identity of the donor, some did not see this as important for the child and thus the level of information that parents have about the donor, and that which the child has, can differ. Finding a donor online blurs the distinction between categories of ‘anonymous’, ‘known’ and ‘identity release’ donations. Whilst the survey had a large sample size, the representativeness of the sample is not known.

Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website

STUDY QUESTION

What are the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of heterosexual, gay and bisexual sperm donors on a connection website (i.e. a website that facilitates direct contact between donors and recipients of gametes)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This demographically diverse group of men was donating for altruistic reasons and perceived the website as providing greater choice over donation arrangements: approximately one third favoured anonymous donation, most of whom were heterosexual, whilst gay and bisexual donors were more likely to be in contact with children conceived with their sperm.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Despite substantially more sperm donors being registered on connection websites than with clinics, there has been very little research on this population. Current understanding of the impact of sexual orientation on donors' attitudes is also limited.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An online survey was conducted over 7 weeks with 383 men registered as sperm donors with Pride Angel, a large UK-based connection website for donors and recipients of sperm.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The survey obtained data on participants' demographic characteristics and their motivations, preferences and experiences regarding online sperm donation, including attitudes towards contact with offspring. Differences according to participants' sexual orientation were examined.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Most participants (80.4%, 308) were heterosexual, 10.5% (40) were gay and 9.1% (35) were bisexual; ages ranged from 18 to 69 years (median = 36, mean = 37.3, SD = 9.7). A greater proportion of gay and bisexual men desired open-identity donation (P < 0.005) and contact with offspring (P <0.005) than heterosexual men. Approximately one third (28.7%, 110) had donated sperm; 18.3% (70) had conceived at least one child, of whom a minority (25.7%, 18) were currently in contact with the child, comprising significantly more gay and bisexual than heterosexual men (P = 0.001). Heterosexual men were most likely to state a preference for natural insemination, although the large majority (94.3%, 66) of donors who had conceived children had used artificial insemination.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Findings may not be representative of all sperm donors using connection websites because members of only one website participated and participants were, by necessity, a self-selected sample.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first comprehensive study of donors who connect with recipients via the internet, including a substantial number who have donated and conceived children. The findings indicate that sexual orientation may influence men's donation preferences and raise policy issues concerning donor recruitment and the incorporation of online sperm donation into clinical practice.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust (097857/Z/11/Z). E.T. is the co-founder of Pride Angel; the remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.