Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes

Recipients' views on payment of sperm donors

“…Results regarding the importance of payment are conflicting. Several studies have shown that altruism is the major motive, whereas others (Bay et al, 2014;Cook and Golombok, 1995;Ernst et al, 2007) have reported that few (potential) donors would continue if they did not receive any financial compensation. The focus on financial reward is probably dependent on the type of donor recruited (with evidence that older donors with children of their own are more motivated by altruism (Daniels et al, 1996;Van den Broeck et al, 2013), cultural notions of citizenship and voluntary communal contributions (Lalos et al, 2003), and the country of residence's policy regarding commercialisation of gametes (Van den Broeck et al, 2013).…”

Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation

“…Irrespective of the type of donation, donors who are older, married, and have own biological children seem to be more open to contact with a donation offspring (7,24,26). As expected, identityrelease donors tend to be more open to contact with an offspring compared with anonymous donors (7,12,18,22,26), but there is limited knowledge concerning donors' and offspring's preferences regarding how such contact should be initiated. In a study by Scheib et al (27), offspring from identity-release sperm donation were hesitant to contact the donor and expressed a need for reassurance that the donor was positive toward contact.…”

“…Research on gamete donors can be categorized according to the relation between the donor and the recipient/offspring into: [1] known or personal donors who donate to a couple known to them or are recruited by an infertile couple (7,8), [2] anonymous donors (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15), [3] donors who donated anonymously but later actively made themselves identifiable to the offspring, for example, through a voluntary contact register such as the Donor Sibling Registry (DSR) (16,17), and [4] identifiable donors who chose to donate through identity-release arrangements despite the option to donate anonymously (18) or who donate under identity-release jurisdictions (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). Studies have investigated donors' demographic characteristics (9,15,25), motives for donation (9, 12, 14-18, 20, 23, 25), attitudes toward anonymity/information-sharing (9,12,15,18), and views concerning the offspring (9,14).…”

“…Studies have investigated donors' demographic characteristics (9,15,25), motives for donation (9, 12, 14-18, 20, 23, 25), attitudes toward anonymity/information-sharing (9,12,15,18), and views concerning the offspring (9,14). Irrespective of the type of donation, donors who are older, married, and have own biological children seem to be more open to contact with a donation offspring (7,24,26).…”

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

“…These figures suggest that many donors consider rather high limits acceptable, but taken into account should be the fact that these data are from men that are interested in the outcome of their donation, which may lead to higher limits. Also, in a study among Danish sperm donors, 71% of the respondents said the offspring number did not matter; it might even be higher than 100 (Bay et al, 2014). A survey among 47 donors in the Netherlands reports that donors on average choose for 20 offspring per donor, whereas almost one-half accepted the 25 offspring allowed according to the professional Dutch directive (Winter et al, 2012).…”