Sperm donor limits that control for the 'relative' risk associated with the use of open-identity donors

Sawyer, Neroli

doi:10.1093/humrep/deq038

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In all cases, these numbers are ever-increasing as more matches are established. This picture confirms the concerns that have been raised previously about the psycho-social implications of multiple use of sperm donors (Sawyer, 2010;Scheib and Ruby, 2009) …”

Section: Meeting Donors and Half-siblingssupporting

confidence: 88%

A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa

Sawyer

Blyth

Kramer³

et al. 2013

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the results of an online survey of 1700 recipients of donor spermatozoa conducted by the Donor Sibling Registry, aiming to understand the perspectives of respondents who had used donor spermatozoa. The survey examined: choice of sperm bank and donor; reporting of births and genetic disorders; disclosure; contact with donor and half-siblings; regulation of sperm donor activity and genetic testing; and access to medical information. The respondents formed three groups: single women; women in a same-sex relationship; and women in a heterosexual relationship. Some differences between the three cohorts were observed: preinsemination counselling; acceptance of donors without medical records or with chronic or late-onset diseases; awareness of choice of bank and type of donor; and views on the right of offspring to know their genetic origins. However, important areas of common ground were identified: the wish by those who had used an anonymous donor that they had used an open-identity donor; support for, and willingness to pay for, comprehensive genetic testing of donors; and desire for access to their donor's family health information. The implications of these results for policies concerning the use and management of donor spermatozoa will be discussed.

show abstract

Section: Meeting Donors and Half-siblingssupporting

confidence: 88%

A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa

Sawyer

Blyth

Kramer³

et al. 2013

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, these implications of genetic testing refer to the psychosocial impact and implications of genetic testing. The opinion of the working group was in agreement with the conclusions of others (Sawyer, 2010;Scheib and Ruby, 2009;Sydsjö et al, 2014) that risks for consanguinity and propagation of genetic diseases or traits are in themselves not a compelling reason for low donor quota, except in instances where small or selective (ethnic) populations are involved. Considerations other than those related to genetics seem to be more important in determining the acceptable offspring number per donor.…”

Section: Propagation Of Genetic Diseasessupporting

confidence: 70%

“…In anonymous systems, the expectation is that donors, offspring and 'donor siblings, will normally never have contact, suggesting that the contact argument counts differently in each system. It is doubtful, however, whether it is wise to preserve the distinction between anonymous and open-identity systems in view of the modern developments in information and communication systems (the Internet) and in DNA-technology and matching techniques (Sawyer, 2010). In the long run, parents in anonymous systems may not be able to keep secret their chosen method of conception, and donors may find their privacy breached by donor offspring using increasingly sophisticated methods to trace them.…”

Section: Psychosocial Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

Janssens

Thorn²,

Castilla

et al. 2015

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations.

show abstract

“…These limits vary considerably from country to country, and there is a lack of data to support them. 9 Considerations in establishing these limits include the size of the country's population and its density and mobility. Published mathematical models used to determine sperm donor limits are outdated and inadequate for present-day use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sperm donation and its application in China: a 7-year multicenter retrospective study

Ping

Zhu²,

Zhang³

et al. 2011

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sperm donation in China is different from that in other countries due to cultural, social and political factors. This research presents the current status of sperm donation in Mainland China and highlights some problems. Between January 2003 and December 2009, 19 471 sperm donors were screened totally and 6467 donors (33.2%) were recruited. The primary reasons for non-recruitment were either inadequate semen parameters (55.0%) or positive results for sexually transmitted diseases (7.9%). There were 327 (1.7%) qualified donors who withdrew from the program because of frustration related to failed semen parameters, participation merely for free medical tests or job transfer. A questionnaire investigating donor intention, as well as other concerns associated with sperm donation, was distributed to 516 potential donors. All potential donors indicated their primary motivation as altruism, while 90.9% mentioned monetary reward as a second motivating factor. Approximately 93.4% of donors expressed some apprehension about the risk of consanguineous mating and the protection of their identity. Over the past 7 years, 488 389 vials of donors' semen have been cryopreserved. In 36 438 artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID) cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate was 23.9% and the live birth rate was 16.6%. In 7148 in vitro fertilization cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate was 45.8% and the live birth rate was 35.2%. Human sperm banks have been strictly monitored to ensure that each sperm donor can only impregnate five women nationwide. There is still a large gap between the supply and demand for sperm donation which may be solved by updated guidelines.

show abstract

Sperm donor limits that control for the 'relative' risk associated with the use of open-identity donors

Cited by 23 publications

References 38 publications

A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa

A survey of 1700 women who formed their families using donor spermatozoa

Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota

Sperm donation and its application in China: a 7-year multicenter retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About