Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study is to assess the attitude of heterosexual female students towards sperm donation by their partners and towards sperm donation in general.
Methods
The method is an online anonymous survey of 1525 female students.
Results
The majority of the women had a positive attitude towards sperm donation in general, but only 37% would support their partner if he would want to donate. The highest barriers to accepting donation by their partner were the fact that he would have one or more children that she would not know (55.8%) and the chance that he would be traced by his donor offspring (58.9%). There was a significant difference between the general attitude towards sperm donation as a fertility treatment and the attitude towards sperm donation by the partner.
Conclusions
Men rightly worry about their partner or future partner when they donated or consider donating sperm. Only about one in three women would support their partner if he would want to donate. The majority of women perceived sperm donation by their partner as an act that also concerns them and believed that they should be heard in this decision. To promote full informed consent, the relational component should be included in counselling donors, not only regarding the present but also regarding the (possible) future partner.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Pennings G. Partner consent for sperm donation. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1132–7.
Johnson KM. My gametes, my right? The politics of involving donors’ partners in egg and sperm donation. J Law Med Ethics. 2017;45:621–33.
Pennings G. Gamete donation from couple to couple in the new French law. Med Law. 1997;16:795–804.
Provoost V, Van Rompuy F, Pennings G. Non-donors’ attitudes towards sperm donation and their willingness to donate. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;35:107–18.
Jadva V, Freeman T, Kramer W, Golombok S. Sperm and oocyte donors’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:638–45.
Lui SC, Weaver SM. Attitudes and motives of semen donors and non-donors. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2061–6.
Pennings G. The decision making authority of patients and fertility specialists in Belgian law. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;15:19–23.
Van den Broeck U, Vandermeeren M, Vanderschueren D, Enzlin P, Demyttenaere K, D’Hooghe T. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:37–51.
Ekerhovd E, Faurskov A, Werner C. Swedish sperm donors are driven by altruism, but shortage of sperm donors leads to reproductive travelling. Upsala J Med Sci. 2008;113:305–14.
Thijssen A, Provoost V, Vandormael E, Dhont N, Pennings G, Ombelet W. Motivations and attitudes of candidate sperm donors in Belgium. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:539–47.
Bay B, Larsen PB, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:252–7.
Daniels KR, Ericsson HL, Burn IP. Families and donor insemination: the views of semen donors. Scand J Soc Welfare. 1996;5:229–37.
Kalampalikis N, Haas V, Fieulaine N, Doumergue M, Deschamps G. Giving or giving back: new psychosocial insights from sperm donors in France. Psy Health Med. 2012;18:1–9.
Lalos A, Daniels K, Gottlieb C, Lalos O. Recruitment and motivation of semen providers in Sweden. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:212–6.
De Bruyn JK, Ter Harmsel JG, Van Voorst C, Van Den Bergh CG, Helmerhorst FM, Hendriks DJF, et al. The anonymity of sperm donors: what they themselves think about it. Med Contact. 1994;49:863–4.
Shukla U, Deval B, Jansa Perez M, Hamoda H, Savvas M, Narvekar N. Sperm donor recruitment, attitudes and provider practices’ 5 years after the removal of donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:676–82.
Isaksson S, Sydsjö G, Svanberg AS, Lampic C. Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish study on gamete donation. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:1160–6.
Erlich Y, Shor T, Pe’er I, Carmi S. Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science. 2018;362:690–4.
Alt EK. What’s yours is ours? Gamete donation in the marital context: why courts and legislatures should not interfere with an individual’s fundamental right to privacy. Univ Baltimore Law Rev. 2014;43:199–219.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Florence Van Rompuy for the help with the data collection and Marie Huysentruyt for assistance with the statistical analysis.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pennings, G., Provoost, V. The attitude of female students towards sperm donation by their partner. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 1431–1439 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01491-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01491-0