Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 107–118 | Cite as

Non-donors’ attitudes towards sperm donation and their willingness to donate

  • Veerle ProvoostEmail author
  • Florence Van Rompuy
  • Guido Pennings
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this article is to study attitudes about sperm donation and willingness to donate sperm in students who have never shown an interest in sperm donation.

Methods

The method used in this study is an electronic survey of 1012 male students.

Results

Only one third of the respondents (34.3%) would consider donating sperm. Overall, 85.7% indicated a positive attitude towards sperm donation while 14.3% indicated a neutral or negative attitude. The highest scored barriers to donating were the lack of practical information and the fear that the partner would not agree. Almost 40% of the respondents feared that the donation might have a negative impact on their current or future relationship. The majority (83.6%) of those who considered donating thought donors should receive a financial compensation. Money was also one of the main motivators.

Conclusions

About 85% of the students thought positively about sperm donation but several factors such as perceived negative views by the social environment, especially the partner, may deter students from donating. This study indicates that the effect of strong incentives, for instance in monetary terms, on a donor pool consisting of students could be limited and that relational factors and donor’s perceptions of the views of the wider social network should be taken into account when recruiting donors.

Keywords

Attitude Donor conception Intention Sperm donation Students 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The project was funded by the Research Fund of Ghent University, Belgium.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Hudson N, Culley L, Rapport F, Johnson M, Bharadwai A. “Public” perceptions of gamete donation: a research review. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18:61–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lampiao F. What do male students at the college of medicine of the university of Malawi say about semen donation? TAF Prev Med Bul. 2013;12:75–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedrih A, Hedrih V. Attitudes and motives of potential sperm donors in Serbia. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2012;69:49–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Onah HE, Agnbata TA, Obi SN. Attitude to sperm donation among medical students in Enugu, South-Eastern Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28:96–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ide L, Verheecke T, Decleer W, Osmanagaoglu K. Opinieonderzoek bij potentiële spermadonoren naar het mogelijk toekomstig gedrag van dergelijke donoren indien de Belgische wetgeving de anonimiteit van de donor zou opheffen. Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2015;71:1229–31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pennings G. Belgian law on medically assisted reproduction and the disposition of supernumerary embryos and gametes. Eur J Health Law. 2007;14:251–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook R, Golombok S. A survey of semen donation: phase II - the view of the donors. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:951–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heurckmans N, Pennings G, Sabbe K, Baetens P, Rigo A, Guldix E, et al. The attitude towards offspring by donor candidates and non-donors: the influence of payment, age, and fatherhood. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(suppl. 1):199.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lui SC, Weaver SM. Attitudes and motives of semen donors and non-donors. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2061–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fishburn Hedges/ICM, Donation of Eggs and Sperm UK Survey. 2004. Unpublished results.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lyall H, Gould GW, Cameron IT. Should sperm donor be paid? A survey of the attitudes of the general public. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:771–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies Canada. Proceed with care: final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing; 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eurobarometer Blood and cell and tissue donation. Special Eurobarometer 426/Wave EB82.2 – TNS Opinion & Social. Brussels: European Commission; 2015.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thijssen A, Dhont N, Vandormael E, Cox A, Klerkx E, Creemers E, et al. Artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID): heterogeneity in sperm banking facilities on a single country (Belgium). Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6:57–67.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emond M, Scheib JE. Why not donate sperm? A study of potential donors. Evol Hum Behav. 1998;19:313–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Reproductive MedicineAZ Jan Palfijn HospitalGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations