Developing a Sperm Banking Consent Process



In this chapter, we focus exclusively on informed consent in sperm banking only with respect to sperm freezing for autologous use. We consider the necessary legal and ethical elements and individuals to be included in this process. We begin by considering the legal and ethical underpinnings of informed consent. We then explore the elements of consent that are necessary for adults preserving sperm followed by a discussion of the unique components of informed consent when a minor’s sperm is being cryopreserved. The chapter concludes with a list of recommended elements to consider in developing an informed consent process for sperm banking for autologous use.


Sperm banking Informed consent Law Ethics Adults Minors 


  1. 1.
    Swanson KW. The birth of the sperm Bank. Ann Iowa. 2012;71:241–76. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quick Safety. Informed consent: more than getting a signature. The Joint Commission, Division of Health Care. Improvement. January 2016 (Issue 21). Scholar
  4. 4.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Making health care decisions. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1982:2–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (1914).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Illinois General Assembly, PUBLIC HEALTH (410 ILCS 210/1) Consent by Minors to Medical Procedures Act, Illinois Compiled Statues.
  7. 7.
    Missouri Revised Statutes. Chapter 431: General Provisions as to Contracts. Section 431.061.1. August 28, 2016.
  8. 8.
    Utah Code. 78B-3-406 failure to obtain informed consent -- proof required of patient—defenses—consent to health care. 2008. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Office for Human Research Protections. The Belmont Report. Office of the Secretary, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. April 18, 1979. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manchir, M. Lawsuits filed over malfunction at sperm bank. Chicago Tribune 2013;20. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stuhmcke A, Chandler E. Storage limits of gametes and embryos: regulation in search of policy justification. J Law Med. 2014;22:121–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robinson BE. Birds do it. Bees do it. So why not single women and lesbians? Bioethics. 1997;11:217–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basco D, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S. Insuring against infertility: expanding state infertility mandates to include fertility preservation technology for cancer patients. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38:832–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campo-Engelstein L. Addressing the three most frequently asked questions of a bioethicist in an Oncofertility setting. In: Woodruff TK, Gracia C, editors. Oncofertility medical practice. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 119–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brown H, Nurudeen S, Armstrong A, DeCherney A. Ethical and psychological considerations in fertility preservation counseling. Cancer J. 2008;14(5):340–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Sutter P. Gender reassignment and assisted reproduction: present and future reproductive options for transsexual people. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(4):612–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffman DI, et al. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(5):1063–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Association of Tissue Banks. STANDARDS FOR TISSUE BANKING-12th edition, 2008 Approved Updates to Consent-related Standards, as amended March 26, 2011. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis v. Davis, 180, 1990 WL 130807 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 13, 1990) aff'd, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992) on reh’g in part, 34, 1992 WL 341632 (Tenn. Nov. 23, 1992).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hecht v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. App.4th 1289, 59 Cal. Rptr. 222 (2d Dist. 1996).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Posthumous collection and use of reproductive tissue: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1842–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rhodes R, Holzman IR. Is the best interest standard good for pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2014;134(Suppl 2):S121–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quinn GP, Stearsman DN, Campo-Engelstein L, Murphy D. Preserving the right to future children: an ethical case analysis. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(6):38–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Campo-Engelstein L, Chen D. Ethical issues in pediatric and adolescent fertility preservation. In: Woodruff TK, Gosiengfiao YC, editors. Pediatric and adolescent oncofertility. Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 259–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):314–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weithorn LA. Children’s capacities to decide about participation in research. IRB. 1983;5(2):1–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palmer R, Gillespie G. Consent and capacity in children and young people. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2014;99(1):2–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCabe MA. Involving children and adolescents in medical decision making: developmental and clinical considerations. J Pediatr Psychol. 1996;21(4):505–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petropanagos A, Campo-Engelstein L. Tough talk: discussing fertility preservation with adolescents and young adults with cancer. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2015;4:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trost L, Brannigan R. Fertility preservation in males. In: Gracia C, Woodruff TK, editors. Oncofertility medical practice: clinical issues and implementation. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shnorhavorian M, et al. Responding to adolescents with cancer who refuse sperm banking: when “no” should not be the last word. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2011;1(3):114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stein DM, Victorson DE, Choy JT, Waimey KE, Pearman TP, Smith K, Dreyfuss J, Kinahan KE, Sadhwani D, Woodruff TK, Brannigan RE. Fertility preservation preferences and perspectives among adult male survivors of pediatric cancer and their parents. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2014;3(2):75–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fallat ME, Hutter J. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics. 2008;121(5):1461–9. A statement of reaffirmation for this policy was published At peds2012-1192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosoff PM, Kastsur ML. Preserving fertility in young cancer patients: a medical, ethical, and legal challenge. J Philos Sci Law. 2003;3(6):4–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meisel A, Kuczewski M. Legal and ethical myths about informed consent. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(22):2521–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alden March Bioethics Institute and Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAlbany Medical CollegeAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations