An inventory of reasons for sperm donation in formal versus informal settings

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.

Are UK Policies and Practices for Regulated Donor Insemination Forcing Women to Find Unregulated Sperm Donors Online? A Perspective on the Available Evidence

In recent years, there has been an increase in women obtaining donor sperm via unregulated websites and social media. In this article, we bring together the disparate evidence in this emerging field to consider whether restrictive UK policies and practices for regulated clinical donor insemination (DI) are a potential explanation for the growing use of the currently unregulated, online route to donor insemination. To this end, we examine the nature of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, recent data provided by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), and prior research on who uses online sperm donation and their reasons for doing so. In addition, we highlight why this issue is important by outlining some of the benefits and drawbacks of the unregulated route. We argue that, whilst there are many factors driving the unregulated route to DI, restrictive UK policies and practices for regulated DI might be one of these. We conclude that turning our attention to structural barriers, such as regulated DI policies and practices, is necessary to produce more definitive evidence of this potential issue, and that adopting a Reproductive Justice framework could lead to more equitable provision of regulated DI services.

Maintaining an adequate sperm donor pool: modifying the medical criteria for sperm donor selection

The shortage of donor sperm will increase due to greater access by lesbian couples and single women and due to extra rules imposed on sperm donation. Two steps should be distinguished in donor recruitment: an ethical phase where candidates are self-selecting on the basis of ethical rules, and a medical phase where criteria related to quality and safety of the sperm are imposed. The first phase functions as a bottle neck. Candidate donors who reject the ethical rules will not present themselves for donation in clinics and sperm banks. If the ethical rules remain unchanged, the medical rules that apply after the bottle neck should become less stringent if a sufficient number of donors are to be maintained. Lowering the sperm quality standards will lead to more IVF. Although this is regrettable, it will become unavoidable if the scarcity of donors increases.

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.

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.

Using an introduction website to start a family: implications for users and health practitioners

Donor insemination treatment offered in licensed clinics protects the donor, recipient and offspring both medically and legally. The Internet has opened up novel, unregulated ways of donating sperm through 'introduction websites' and social media forums. Broadly, three categories of women use introduction websites: those who want to have a child with no further involvement of the donor; those who wish to know the identity of the donor from the start; and those who intend to electively co-parent, that is, to bring up the child together with the donor/father. Donors may choose to donate through introduction websites for altruistic reasons and/or in order to have greater involvement with the child. There are some donors who are motivated by the prospect of a sexual encounter, advertising their preference for 'natural insemination' - i.e. via sexual intercourse or partial intercourse. When people make their own arrangements online, they may do so in the absence of clear, accurate information. This article, sets out some of the issues that recipients and donors ought to consider before embarking on unregulated sperm donation.

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.

What motivates men to offer sperm donation via the internet?

To investigate why men offer sperm donation via the internet, a questionnaire was disseminated via 39 Dutch-language websites thought to be visited by potential sperm donors. Nine internet donors completed the survey, men who typically knew the women they were donating to. Their responses were compared with those of a control group of 35 general sperm bank donors who were recruited using flyers in Dutch sperm banks, and who were typically unaware of the identity of the eventual recipients. The findings shed light on the motives and attitudes of internet donors. Both groups of donors indicated that their primary motivation for donating was altruism (>80% of all respondents). However, internet donors had a more pronounced desire to procreate than sperm bank donors (6 out of 9, i.e. 66 vs. 22%, respectively) and more often felt that they had good genes they wished to pass on (5 out of 9, i.e. 55 vs. 31%, respectively). The main reason internet donors gave for donating via the internet was that they wanted to know the prospective parents and be kept up to date on the progress of the offspring conceived from their donations. This distinguishes them significantly from sperm bank donors. A further finding was that they were not prompted to avoid the formal donation circuit for which, by law in the Netherlands, pregnancies resulting from donations have to be registered in a central database. This study is subject to several, in some cases inevitable, limitations, but it provides an interesting starting point that future studies can seek to confirm and extend.