Assisted Reproduction in the Digital Age: Stories of Canadian Sperm Donors Offering Their Gametes Online via Introduction Websites

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe the phenomenon of sperm donation offered in informal settings and, more specifically, by contacts through the Internet. It documented the perceptions, experiences, and practices of a sample of Canadian donors and explored their motivations for becoming involved in the family projects of others. Eight semistructured interviews were conducted with men who had offered their sperm to couples or single women through one or more introduction websites. The results showed that the process leading to sperm donation outside fertility clinics is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the motives of those involved, logistics, and health concerns, as well as the possibility of having access to information on the genetic heritage of children conceived from these donations. The men applied different strategies to achieve their donations, engaging in a process of negotiation with the recipients, based on mutual trust and acceptance of the risks involved.

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

“…Nevertheless, the limited evidence on recipients' motivations for taking the unregulated route is corroborated by (the also limited evidence on) unregulated donors. In two interview studies on their experiences of online sperm donation, unregulated sperm donors mentioned the prohibitive sociolegal context for marginalized groups of women as a motivation for donating ( 15 , 45 ). For instance, one French donor described the recipients he donated to as “hard-working, non-affluent lesbian couples that were not able to access sperm through other channels due to unfavorable social and legal environments” [( 15 ), p. 7].…”

“…For instance, one French donor described the recipients he donated to as “hard-working, non-affluent lesbian couples that were not able to access sperm through other channels due to unfavorable social and legal environments” [( 15 ), p. 7]. In another study, a Canadian donor mentioned the substantial costs of regulated open-identity donation, which are not covered by state-funded programmes or private insurance, and the authors conclude that, “some single women or couples who want access to information about the donor turn to the Internet to meet this need” [( 45 ), p. 8]. This demonstrates that motivations for online sperm donation are tied up with inaccessible regulated practices.…”

“…As participants stated in the Jadva et al ( 41 ) study in the previous section, online sperm donation, as well as being much cheaper than private regulated treatment, offers recipients the opportunity to meet up with and get to know their donor if they wish, and find out much more detailed information about the donor than that which is provided by clinics ( 41 ). The unregulated route is also much less medicalized, and some recipients would rather not unnecessarily involve clinics, doctors, nurses, appointments, medication and tests in their conception journey when they do not have a diagnosis of infertility ( 45 ). In this way, some recipients report that unregulated sperm donation enables them to have more control over the process: everything can be undertaken in the comfort of their own home, and their partner can be involved in the insemination process ( 37 ).…”

“…For unmarried couples, single women and anyone who conceives via sexual intercourse, then, there is the possibility that the donor could make a claim for legal parenthood, which could later be established in court ( 52 ). Whilst for donors, there can be concerns that recipients will “come after them” for child support ( 45 ).…”

Отношение Жителей Мегаполиса К Репродуктивному Донорству (На Примере Екатеринбурга)

“…Что касается зарубежных исследований, то существуют массовые опросы, включающие в себя социально психологические характеристики, проблемы, способы донации и опыт самих доноров спермы (см., например, [Freeman et al, 2016;Lavoie, Côté, Montigny, 2018;Ernst et al, 2007]) и ооцитов [Pennings et al, 2014].…”