Hubbry Logo
Sperm donationSperm donationMain
Open search
Sperm donation
Community hub
Sperm donation
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Sperm donation
Sperm donation
from Wikipedia

Sperm donation is the provision by a male of their sperm with the intention that it be used in the artificial insemination or other "fertility treatment" of one or more females who are not their sexual partners in order that they may become pregnant. Where pregnancies go to full term, the sperm donor will be the biological father of every baby born from their donations. The male is known as a sperm donor and the sperm they provide is known as "donor sperm" because the intention is that the male will give up all legal rights to any child produced from the sperm, and will not be the legal father. Sperm donation may also be known as "semen donation".

Sperm donation should be distinguished from "shared parenthood" where the male who provides the sperm used to conceive a baby agrees to participate in the child's upbringing. Where a sperm donor provides their sperm in order for it to be used to father a child for a female with whom they have little or no further contact, it is a form of third party reproduction.

Sperm may be donated by the donor directly to the intended recipient or through a sperm bank or fertility clinic. Pregnancies are usually achieved by using donor sperm in assisted reproductive technology (ART) techniques which include artificial insemination (either by intracervical insemination (ICI) or intrauterine insemination (IUI) in a clinic, or intravaginal insemination at home). Less commonly, donor sperm may be used in in vitro fertilization (IVF). See also "natural insemination" below. The primary recipients of donor sperm are single women and lesbian couples, but the process may also be useful to heterosexual couples with male infertility.[1]

Donor sperm and "fertility treatments" using donor sperm may be obtained at a sperm bank or fertility clinic. Sperm banks or clinics may be subject to state or professional regulations, including restrictions on donor anonymity and the number of offspring that may be produced, and there may be other legal protections of the rights and responsibilities of both recipient and donor. Some sperm banks, either by choice or regulation, limit the amount of information available to potential recipients; a desire to obtain more information on donors is one reason why recipients may choose to use a known donor or private donation (i.e. a de-identified donor).[2]

Laws

[edit]

A sperm donor is generally not intended to be the legal or de jure father of a child produced from their sperm. The law may however, make implications in relation to legal fatherhood or the absence of a father. The law may also govern the fertility process through sperm donation in a fertility clinic. It may make provision as to whether a sperm donor may be anonymous or not, and it might give an adult donor conceived offspring the right to trace their biological father.

In the past, it was considered that the method of insemination was crucial to determining the legal responsibility of the male as the father. A recent case (see below 'Natural Insemination') has held that it is the purpose, rather than the method of insemination which will determine responsibility. Laws regulating sperm donation address issues such as permissible reimbursement or payment to sperm donors, rights and responsibilities of the donor towards their biological offspring, the child's right to know their father's identity, and procedural issues.[3] Laws vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In general, laws are more likely to disregard the sperm donor's biological link to the child, so that they will neither have child support obligations nor rights to the child. In the absence of specific legal protection, courts may order a sperm donor to pay child support or recognize their parental rights, and will invariably do so where the insemination is carried out by natural, as opposed to artificial means.[4][5][6]

Laws in many jurisdictions limit the number of offspring that a sperm donor can give rise to, and who may be a recipient of donor sperm.[7]

Lawsuit over donor qualification

[edit]

In 2017, a lawsuit was brought in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois regarding autism diagnoses among multiple offspring of Donor-H898.[8] The suit asserts that false information was presented regarding a donor who should not have been considered an appropriate candidate for a sperm donation program because of a diagnosis of ADHD. Reportedly, the situation is being studied by some of the world's foremost experts in the genetics of autism because of the numbers of his offspring being diagnosed with autism.

Uses

[edit]

The purpose of sperm donation is to provide pregnancies for women whose male partner is infertile or, more commonly, for women who do not have a male partner. The development of fertility medicine such as ICSI has enabled more and more heterosexual couples to produce their own children without the use of third-party gametes which has reduced the demand for sperm donation from this social group. However, at the same time, social attitudes and the social/legal framework has changed in that single women and LGBT+ women and couples can more easily have their own biological families and do so with the aid of sperm donation. Increasingly, single women and LGBT+ couples form the highest percentage of those using sperm donors in order to have a baby. Some fertility centers offering sperm donation do so exclusively for these two groups of women.

One of the intentions of sperm donation is generally that there should be no direct physical or genital contact between the parties. The sexual and physical integrity of both parties is preserved and in this sense the introduction of donor sperm into a female by artificial means may be seen as satisfying a social rather than a purely medical need. A female who becomes pregnant by a sperm donor will be the recipient of their genetic material but the two may never even meet. Artificial insemination, which is the normal method of introducing donor sperm into a female's body, thus becomes a substitute for sexual intercourse. If the female becomes pregnant, the resulting pregnancy will be no different from one achieved by intercourse, and the sperm donor will be the biological father of their child in the same way as if intimate sexual relations between the donor and the recipient had taken place. In this context, artificial insemination using donor sperm may also be referred to as 'assisted insemination' since the sperm is provided by a third party and is then transferred to the recipient by means other than bodily contact.

Donor sperm is prepared for use in artificial insemination in intrauterine insemination (IUI) or intra-cervical insemination (ICI). In most situations, the majority of people seeking sperm donation, being either single or women in a lesbian partnership, do not themselves have "fertility issues" in greater proportion to the rest of the female population although donor sperm is often prepared for use in other assisted reproductive techniques such as IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Sperm banks and fertility clinics often offer, for example, donor sperm for use in IVF to facilitate treatments in which one lesbian partner will produce an egg which is fertilised by sperm from a donor, and the egg is then inserted into the other partner. A variation of this is when each partner carries the fertilised egg of the other, usually fertilised by sperm from the same donor, and often where the pregnancies run simultaneously. Donor sperm may be used in surrogacy arrangements either by artificially inseminating the surrogate (known as traditional surrogacy) or by implanting in a surrogate embryos which have been created by using donor sperm together with eggs from a donor or from the 'commissioning female' (known as gestational surrogacy).[9] Spare embryos from this process may be donated to other women or surrogates. Donor sperm may also be used for producing embryos with donor eggs which are then donated to a female who is not genetically related to the child she produces.

Procedures of any kind (e.g., artificial insemination or IVF) using donor sperm to impregnate a female who is not the partner of, nor related to the male who provided the sperm, may be referred to as "donor treatments".[2]

The majority of sperm donors today are aware that their sperm will mainly be used to enable single women or coupled lesbians to have children by them.

Provision

[edit]

A sperm donor may donate sperm privately or through a sperm bank, sperm agency, or other brokerage arrangement. Donations from private donors are most commonly carried out using artificial insemination.

Generally, a male who provides sperm as a sperm donor gives up all legal and other rights over the biological children produced from his sperm.[10] Private arrangements may permit some degree of co-parenting, although this will not strictly be sperm donation, and the enforceability of those agreements varies by jurisdiction.

Donors may or may not be paid, according to local laws and agreed arrangements. Even in unpaid arrangements, expenses are often reimbursed. Depending on local law and on private arrangements, men may donate anonymously or agree to provide identifying information to their offspring in the future. Private donations facilitated by an agency often use a "directed" donor, when a male directs that his sperm is to be used by a specific person. Non-anonymous donors are also called "known donors", "open donors" or "identity disclosure donors".[2]

A review of surveys among donors came to the results that the media and advertising are most efficient in attracting donors, and that the internet is becoming increasingly important in this purpose.[11] Recruitment via couples with infertility problems in the social environment of the sperm donor does not seem to be important in recruitment overall.[11]

Sperm banks

[edit]

A sperm donor will usually donate sperm to a sperm bank under a contract, which typically specifies the period during which the donor will be required to produce sperm, which generally ranges from six to 24 months depending on the number of pregnancies which the sperm bank intends to produce from the donor. If a sperm bank has access to world markets by direct sales, or sales to clinics outside their own jurisdiction, a man may donate sperm for a longer period than two years, as the risk of consanguinity is substantially reduced and a sperm bank will have to adhere to local laws, although these may vary widely.[12]

The contract may also specify the place and hours for donation, a requirement to notify the sperm bank in the case of acquiring a sexual infection, and the requirement not to have intercourse or to masturbate for a period of usually two–three days before making a donation.[13]

Sperm provided by a sperm bank will be produced by a donor attending at the sperm bank's premises in order to ascertain the donor's identity on every occasion. The donor masturbates to provide ejaculate or by the use of an electrical stimulator, although a special condom, known as a collection condom, may be used to collect the semen during sexual intercourse. The ejaculate is collected in a small container, which is usually extended with chemicals in order to provide a number of vials, each of which would be used for separate inseminations. The sperm is frozen and quarantined, usually for a period of six months, and the donor is re-tested prior to the sperm being used for artificial insemination.[2]

The frozen vials will then be sold directly to a recipient or through a medical practitioner or fertility center and they will be used in fertility treatments. Where a woman becomes pregnant by a donor, that pregnancy and the subsequent birth must normally be reported to the sperm bank so that it may maintain a record of the number of pregnancies produced from each donor.

Sperm agencies

[edit]

In some jurisdictions, sperm may be donated through an agency. The agency may recruit donors, usually via the Internet. Donors may undergo the same kind of checks and tests required by a sperm bank, although clinics and agencies are not necessarily subject to the same regulatory regimes. In the case of an agency, the sperm will be supplied to the recipient female fresh rather than frozen.[14]

A female chooses a donor and notifies the agency when she requires donations. The agency notifies the donor who must supply his sperm on the appropriate days nominated by the recipient. The agency will usually provide the sperm donor with a male collection kit usually including a collection condom and a container for shipping the sperm. This is collected and delivered by courier and the female uses the donor's sperm to inseminate herself, typically without medical supervision. This process preserves anonymity and enables a donor to produce sperm in the privacy of his own home. A donor will generally produce samples once or twice during a recipient's fertile period, but a second sample each time may not have the same fecundity of the first sample because it is produced too soon after the first one. Pregnancy rates by this method vary more than those achieved by sperm banks or fertility clinics. Transit times may vary and these have a significant effect on sperm viability so that if a donor is not located near to a recipient female the sperm may deteriorate. However, the use of fresh, as opposed to frozen, semen will mean that a sample has a greater fecundity and can produce higher pregnancy rates.

Sperm agencies may impose limits on the number of pregnancies achieved from each donor, but in practice this is more difficult to achieve than for sperm banks where the whole process may be more regulated. Most sperm donors only donate for a limited period, however, and since sperm supplied by a sperm agency is not processed into a number of different vials, there is a practical limit on the number of pregnancies which are usually produced in this way. A sperm agency will, for the same reason, be less likely than a sperm bank to enable a female to have subsequent children by the same donor.

Sperm agencies are largely unregulated and, because the sperm is not quarantined, may carry sexually transmitted diseases. This lack of regulation has led to authorities in some jurisdictions bringing legal action against sperm agencies. Agencies typically insist on STI testing for donors, but such tests cannot detect recent infections. Donors providing sperm in this way may not be protected by laws which apply to donations through a sperm bank or fertility clinic and will, if traced, be regarded as the legal father of each child produced.[14]

Private or "directed" donations

[edit]

Couples or individuals who need insemination by a third-party may seek assistance privately and directly from a friend or family member, or may obtain a "private" or "directed" donation by advertising or through a broker. A number of web sites seek to link recipients with sperm donors, while advertisements in gay and lesbian publications are common.

Recipients may already know the donor, or if arranged through a broker, the donor may meet the recipients and become known to them. Some brokers facilitate contact that maintains semi-anonymous identities for legal reasons. Where a private or directed donation is used, sperm need not be frozen.

Private donations may be free of charge — avoiding the significant costs of a more medicalised insemination - and fresh rather than frozen semen is generally deemed to increase the chances of pregnancy. However, they also carry higher risks associated with unscreened sexual or body fluid contact. Legal treatment of donors varies across jurisdictions, and in most jurisdictions (e.g., Sweden)[15] personal and directed donors lack legal safeguards that may be available to anonymous donors. However, the laws of some countries (e.g., New Zealand) recognize written agreements between donors and recipients in a similar way to donations through a sperm bank.[14]

Kits are available, usually on-line, for artificial insemination for private donor use, and these kits generally include a collection pot, a syringe, ovulation tests and pregnancy tests. A vaginal speculum and a soft cup may also be used. STI testing kits are also available but these only produce a "snap-shot" result and, since sperm will not be frozen and quarantined, there will be risks associated with it.[citation needed]

Natural insemination

[edit]

Insemination through sexual intercourse is known as natural insemination (NI). Where natural insemination is carried out by a person who is not the woman's usual sexual partner, and in circumstances where the express intention is to secure a pregnancy, this may be referred to as "sperm donation by natural insemination".

Traditionally, a woman who becomes pregnant through natural insemination has always had a legal right to claim child support from the donor and the donor a legal right to the custody of the child. Conceiving through natural insemination is considered a natural process, so the biological father has also been seen as the legal and social father and was liable for child support and custody rights of the child.[16]

The law therefore made a fine distinction based on the method of conception: the biological relationship between the father and the child and the reason for the pregnancy having been achieved will be the same whether the child was conceived naturally or by artificial means, but the legal position has been different.[17] In some countries and in some situations, sperm donors may be legally liable for any child they produce, but with NI the legal risk of paternity for a donor has always been absolute. Natural insemination donors will therefore often donate without revealing their identity.

A case in 2019 in the Canadian province of Ontario held that where the parties agreed in advance of the conception that the resulting child would not be the legal responsibility of the man, the courts would uphold that agreement.[citation needed] The court held that the method of conception was irrelevant: it was the purpose of it which mattered. Where an artificial means of conception is used, the reproductive integrity of the recipient woman will not be preserved, and the purpose of preserving sexual integrity by employing artificial means of insemination will not over-ride this effect.

Many private sperm donors now offer both natural and artificial insemination, or they may offer natural insemination after attempts to achieve conception by artificial insemination have failed. Some sperm donors are influenced by the fact that a woman who is not the donor's usual sexual partner will carry his child whatever the means of conception, and that the actual method by which his sperm is introduced into the woman's body is of a lesser consideration than this fact. Women may seek natural insemination for various reasons including the desire by them for a "natural" conception.[18][19]

Natural insemination by a donor usually avoids the need for costly medical procedures that may require the intervention of third parties. It may lack some of the safety precautions and screenings usually built into the artificial insemination process[20] but proponents claim that it produces higher pregnancy rates.[14][21] A more 'natural' conception does not involve the intervention and intrusion of third parties. However, it has not been medically proved that natural insemination has an increased chance of pregnancy.

NI is generally only carried out at the female's fertile time, as with other methods of insemination, in order to achieve the best chances of a pregnancy.[22]

A variation of NI is PI, or partial intercourse, where penetration by the donor takes place immediately before ejaculation, thus avoiding prolonged physical contact between the parties.

Because NI is an essentially private matter, the extent of its popularity is unknown. However, private online advertisements and social media comments indicate that it is increasingly used as a means of sperm donation.

Sperm bank processes

[edit]

A sperm donor is usually advised not to ejaculate for two to three days before providing the sample, to increase sperm count. A sperm donor produces and collects sperm at a sperm bank or clinic by masturbation or during sexual intercourse with the use of a collection condom.[13]

Preparing the sperm

[edit]

Sperm banks and clinics may "wash" the sperm sample to extract sperm from the rest of the material in the semen. Unwashed semen may only be used for ICI (intra-cervical) inseminations, to avoid cramping, or for IVF/ICSI procedures. It may be washed after thawing for use in IUI procedures. A cryoprotectant semen extender is added if the sperm is to be placed in frozen storage in liquid nitrogen, and the sample is then frozen in a number of vials or straws. One sample will be divided into one–twenty vials or straws depending on the quantity of the ejaculate, whether the sample is washed or unwashed, or whether it is being prepared for IVF use. Following analysis of an individual donor's sperm, straws or vials may be prepared which contain differing amounts of motile sperm post-thaw. The number of sperm in a straw prepared for IVF use, for example, will be significantly less than the number of motile sperm in a straw prepared for ICI or IUI and there will therefore be more IVF straws per ejaculate. Following the necessary quarantine period, the samples are thawed and used to inseminate women through artificial insemination or other ART treatments.

Medical issues

[edit]

Screening

[edit]

Sperm banks typically screen potential donors for genetic diseases, chromosomal abnormalities and sexually transmitted infections that may be transmitted through sperm. The screening procedure generally also includes a quarantine period, in which the samples are frozen and stored for at least six months after which the donor will be re-tested for sexually transmitted diseases (STIs). This is to ensure no new infections have been acquired or have developed during the period of donation. Providing the result is negative, the sperm samples can be released from quarantine and used in treatments. Children conceived through sperm donation have a birth defect rate of almost a fifth compared to the general population.[23]

Samples required per donor offspring

[edit]

The number of donor samples (ejaculates) that is required to help give rise to a child varies substantially from donor to donor, as well as from clinic to clinic. However, the following equations generalize the main factors involved:

For intracervical insemination:

Approximate pregnancy rate (rs) varies with amount of sperm used in a cycle (nr). Values are for intrauterine insemination, with sperm number in total sperm count, which may be approximately twice the total motile sperm count. (Old data, rates are likely higher today.)
N is how many children a single sample can help give rise to.
Vs is the volume of a sample (ejaculate), usually between 1.0 mL and 6.5 mL [24]
c is the concentration of motile sperm in a sample after freezing and thawing, approximately 5-20 million per ml but varies substantially
rs is the pregnancy rate per cycle, between 10% and 35%[25]
nr is the total motile sperm count recommended for vaginal insemination (VI) or intra-cervical insemination (ICI), approximately 20 million pr. ml.

The pregnancy rate increases with increasing number of motile sperm used, but only up to a certain degree, when other factors become limiting instead.

With these numbers, one sample would on average help giving rise to 0.1–0.6 children, that is, it actually takes on average two to five samples to make a child.

For intrauterine insemination, a centrifugation fraction (fc) may be added to the equation:

fc is the fraction of the volume that remains after centrifugation of the sample, which may be about half (0.5) to a third (0.33).

Only five million motile sperm may be needed per cycle with IUI (nr=5 million)

Thus, only one to three samples may be needed for a child, if used for IUI.

Using ART treatments such as IVF can result in one donor sample (or ejaculate) producing on average considerably more than one birth. However, the actual number of births per sample will depend on the actual ART method used, the age and medical condition of the female bearing the child, and the quality of the embryos produced by fertilization. Donor sperm is less commonly used for IVF treatments than for artificial insemination. This is because IVF treatments are usually required only when there is a problem with the female conceiving, or where there is a 'male factor problem' involving the female's partner. Donor sperm is also used for IVF in surrogacy arrangements where an embryo may be created in an IVF procedure using donor sperm and this is then implanted in a surrogate. In a case where IVF treatments are employed using donor sperm, surplus embryos may be donated to other women or couples and used in embryo transfer procedures. When donor sperm is used for IVF treatments, there is a risk that large numbers of children will be born from a single donor since a single ejaculate may produce up to 20 straws for IVF use. A single straw can fertilise a number of eggs and these can have a 40% to 50% pregnancy rate. 'Spare' embryos from donor treatments are frequently donated to other women or couples. Many sperm banks therefore limit the amount of semen from each donor which is prepared for IVF use, or they may restrict the period of time for which such a donor donates his sperm to perhaps as little as three months (about nine or ten ejaculates).

Choosing donors

[edit]

Information about donor

[edit]

In the US, sperm banks maintain lists or catalogs of donors which provide basic information such as racial origin, skin color, height, weight, color of eyes, and blood group.[26] Some of these catalogs are available via the Internet, while others are only made available to patients when they apply for treatment. Some sperm banks make additional information about each donor available for an additional fee, and others make additional basic information known to children produced from donors when those children reach the age of eighteen. Some clinics offer "exclusive donors" whose sperm is only used to produce pregnancies for one recipient female. How accurate this is, or can be, is not known, and neither is it known whether the information produced by sperm banks, or by the donors themselves, is true. Many sperm banks will, however, carry out checks to verify the information requested, such as checking the identity of the donor and contacting his own doctor to verify medical details.

In the UK, most donors are anonymous at the point of donation and recipients can only see non-identifying information about their donor (e.g., height, weight, ethnicity, etc.). Donors need to provide identifying information to the clinic and clinics will usually ask the donor's GP to confirm any medical details they have been given. Donors are asked to provide a pen portrait of themselves which is held by the HFEA and can be obtained by the adult conceived from the donation at the age of 16, along with identifying information such as the donor's name and last known address at 18. Known donation is permitted and it is not uncommon for family or friends to donate to a recipient couple.

Qualities that potential recipients typically prefer in donors include the donors being tall, college educated, and with a consistently high sperm count.[27] A review came to the result that 68% of donors had given information to the clinical staff regarding physical characteristics and education but only 16% had provided additional information such as hereditary aptitudes and temperament or character.[11]

Other screening criteria

[edit]

Sexually active gay men are prohibited or discouraged from donating in some countries, including the US.[28] Sperm banks also screen out some potential donors based on height, baldness, and family medical history.[26]

Number of offspring

[edit]

Where a donor donates sperm through a sperm bank, the sperm bank will generally undertake a number of checks to ensure that the donor produces sperm of sufficient quantity and quality and that the donor is healthy and will not pass diseases through the use of his sperm. The donor's sperm must also withstand the freezing and thawing process necessary to store and quarantine the sperm. The cost to the sperm bank for such tests is considerable,[clarification needed] which normally means that clinics may use the same donor to produce a number of pregnancies in multiple women.[29] The number of children permitted from a single donor varies by law and practice. These laws are designed to protect the children produced by sperm donation as well as the donor's natural children from consanguinity in later life: they are not intended to protect the donor himself and those donating sperm will be aware that their donations may give rise to numerous pregnancies in different jurisdictions. Such laws, where they exist, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and a sperm bank may also impose its own limits. The latter will be based on the reports of pregnancies which the sperm bank receives, although this relies upon the accuracy of the returns and the actual number of pregnancies may therefore be somewhat higher. Nevertheless, sperm banks frequently impose a lower limit on geographical numbers than some jurisdictions and may also limit the overall number of pregnancies permitted from a single donor. The limitation on the number of children which a donor's sperm may give rise to is usually expressed in terms of 'families', on the expectation that children within the family are prohibited from sexual relations under incest laws. In effect, the term family means a "woman" and usually includes the donor's partner or ex-partner, so that multiple donations to the same woman are not counted in the limit. The limits usually apply within one jurisdiction, so that donor sperm may be used in other jurisdictions. Where a woman has had a child by a particular donor, there is usually no limit on the number of subsequent pregnancies which that woman may have by that same donor.

There is no limit to the number of offspring which may be produced from private donors.

Despite laws limiting the number of offspring, some donors may produce substantial numbers[30] of children, particularly where they donate through different clinics, where sperm is onsold or is exported to different jurisdictions, and where countries or jurisdictions do not have a central register of donors.

Sperm agencies, in contrast to sperm banks, rarely impose or enforce limits on the number of children which may be produced by a single donor partly because they are not empowered to demand a report of a pregnancy from recipients and are rarely, if ever, able to guarantee that a female may have a subsequent sibling by the donor who was the biological father of her first or earlier children.

In the media, there have been reports of some donors producing anywhere from over 40 offspring [31] to several hundred[32] or in one case, possibly over 1000.[33][34]

Siblings

[edit]

Where a female wishes to conceive additional children by sperm donation, she will often wish to use the same donor. The advantage of having subsequent children by the same donor is that these will be full biological siblings, having the same biological father and mother. Many sperm banks offer a service of storing sperm for future pregnancies, but few will otherwise guarantee that sperm from the original donor will be available.

Same sex couples looking to conceive with donor sperm also oftentimes use the same donor for multiple children in order to foster a greater biological connection between their children. In cases where both parents feel that pregnancy is appealing to them, they may decide to take turns getting pregnant in which case the siblings are only biologically related on the donor side.

Sperm banks rarely impose limits on the numbers of second or subsequent siblings. Even where there are limits on the use of sperm by a particular donor to a defined number of families (as in the UK) the actual number of children produced from each donor will often be far greater.

Since 2000, donor conceived people have been locating their biological siblings and even their donor through web services such as the Donor Sibling Registry as well as DNA testing services such as Ancestry.com and 23andMe. By using these services, donors can find offspring despite the fact that they may have donated anonymously.[35][36][29]

Donor payment

[edit]

The majority of donors who donate through a sperm bank receive some form of payment, although this is rarely a significant amount. A review including 29 studies from nine countries found that the amount of money donors received varied from $10 to €70 per donation or sample.[11] The payments vary from the situation in the United Kingdom where donors are only entitled to their expenses, to the situation with some US sperm banks where a donor receives a set fee for each donation plus an additional amount for each vial stored. At one prominent California sperm bank for example, TSBC, donors receive roughly $50 for each donation which has acceptable motility/survival rates both at donation and at a test-thaw a couple of days later. Because of the requirement for the two-day abstinence period before donation, and geographical factors which usually require the donor to travel, it is not a viable way to earn a significant income. Some private donors may seek remuneration although others donate for altruistic reasons. According to the EU Tissue Directive donors in EU may only receive compensation, which is strictly limited to making good the expenses and inconveniences related to the donation.

Equipment to collect, freeze and store sperm is available to the public notably through certain US outlets, and some donors process and store their own sperm which they then sell via the Internet.

The selling price of processed and stored sperm is considerably more than the sums received by donors. Treatments with donor sperm are generally expensive and are seldom available free of charge through national health services. Sperm banks often package treatments into three cycles, and in cases of IVF or other ART treatments, they may reduce the charge if a patient donates any spare embryos which are produced through the treatment. There is often more demand for fertility treatment with donor sperm than there is donor sperm available, and this has the effect of keeping the cost of such treatments reasonably high.

Onselling

[edit]

There is a market for vials of processed sperm and for various reasons a sperm bank may sell-on stocks of vials which it holds (known as "onselling"). Onselling enables a sperm bank to maximize the sale and disposal of sperm samples which it has processed. The reasons for onselling may be where part of, or even the main business of, a particular sperm bank is to process and store sperm rather than to use it in fertility treatments, or where a sperm bank is able to collect and store more sperm than it can use within nationally set limits. In the latter case, a sperm bank may sell on sperm from a particular donor for use in another jurisdiction after the number of pregnancies achieved from that donor has reached its national maximum.

Psychological issues

[edit]

Informing the child

[edit]

Many donees do not inform the child that they were conceived through sperm donation, or, when non-anonymous donor sperm has been used, they do not tell the child until they are old enough for the clinic to provide contact information about the donor. Some believe that it is a human right for a person to know who their biological mother and father are, and thus it should be illegal to conceal this information in any way and at any time. For donor conceived children who find out after a long period of secrecy, their main grief is usually not the fact that they are not the genetic child of the couple who have raised them, but the fact that the parent(s) has/have kept information from or lied to them, causing loss of trust.[37]

There are certain circumstances where the child very likely should be told:

  • When many relatives know about the insemination, so that the child might find it out from somebody else.[37]
  • When the adoptive father carries a significant genetic disease, relieving the child from fear of being a carrier.[37]

The parents' decision-making process of telling the child is influenced by many intrapersonal factors (such as personal confidence), interpersonal factors, as well as social and family life cycle factors.[38] For example, health care staff and support groups have been demonstrated to influence the decision to disclose the procedure.[38] The appropriate age of the child at disclosure is most commonly given at between seven and eleven years.[38]

Single mothers and lesbian couples are more likely to disclose from a young age. Donor conceived children in heterosexual coupled families are more likely to find out about their disclosure from a third party.[39]

Families sharing same donor

[edit]

Having contact and meeting among families sharing the same donor generally has positive effects.[40][41] It gives the child an extended family and helps give the child a sense of identity[41] by answering questions about the donor.[40] It is more common among open identity-families headed by single men/women.[40] Less than 1% of those seeking donor-siblings find it a negative experience, and in such cases it is mostly where the parents have disagreed with each other about how the relationship should proceed.[42]

Other family members

[edit]

Parents of donors, who are the grandparents of donor offspring and may therefore be the oldest surviving progenitors, may regard the donated genetic contribution as a family asset, and may regard the donor conceived people as their grandchildren.[43]

A review came to the result that a minority of actual donors involved their partner in the decision-making process of becoming a donor.[11] In one study, 25% of donors felt they needed permission from their partner.[11] In another study, however, 37% of donors with a partner did not approve of a consent form for partners and rather felt that donors should make their own decisions.[11] In a Swedish study, donors reported either enthusiastic or neutral responses from their partners concerning sperm donation.[11]

It is considered common for donors to not tell their spouses that they are or have been sperm donors.[44]

Within heterosexual couples, many men report resisting or having difficulty accepting sperm donation from another man, as it is often viewed as being akin to being cuckolded.[45][46]

Mother–child relation

[edit]

Studies have indicated that donor insemination mothers show greater emotional involvement with their child, and they enjoy motherhood more than mothers by natural conception and adoption. Compared to mothers by natural conception, donor insemination mothers tend to show higher levels of disciplinary aggression.[39]

Studies have indicated that donor insemination fathers express more warmth and emotional involvement than fathers by natural conception and adoption, enjoy fatherhood more, and are less involved in disciplining their adolescent. Some donor insemination parents become overly involved with their children.[39]

Adolescents born through sperm donation to lesbian mothers have reported themselves to be academically successful, with active friendship networks, strong family bonds, and overall high ratings of well-being. It is estimated that over 80% of adolescents feel they can confide in their mothers, and almost all regard their mothers to be good role models.[39]

Motivation vs reluctance to donate

[edit]

A systematic review came to the result that altruism and financial compensation are the main motivations to donate, and to a lesser degree procreation or genetic fatherhood and questions about the donor's own fertility.[11] Financial compensation is generally more prevalent than altruism as a motivation among donors in countries where the compensation is large, which is largely explained by a larger number of economically driven people becoming donors in such countries.[11] Among men who do not donate, the main reason thereof has been stated to be a lack of motivation rather than concerns about the donation.[11]

Reluctance to donate may be caused by a sense of ownership and responsibility for the well-being of the offspring.[47]

Support for donors

[edit]

In the UK, the National Gamete Donation Trust[48] is a charity which provides information, advice and support for people wishing to become egg, sperm or embryo donors. The Trust runs a national helpline and online discussion list for donors to talk to each other.

In one Danish study, 40% of donors felt happy thinking about possible offspring, but 40% of donors sometimes worried about the future of resulting offspring.[11]

A review came to the result that one in three actual donors would like counselling to address certain implications of their donation, expecting that counselling could help them to give their decision some thought and to look at all the involved parties in the donation.[11]

A systematic review in 2012 came to the conclusion that the psychosocial needs and experiences of the donors, and their follow-up and counselling are largely neglected in studies on sperm donation.[11]

[edit]

Anonymity

[edit]

Anonymous sperm donation occurs under the condition that recipients and offspring will never learn the identity of the donor. A non-anonymous donor, however, will disclose his identity to recipients. A donor who makes a non-anonymous sperm donation is termed a known donor, an open identity donor, or an identity release donor.

Non-anonymous sperm donors are, to a substantially higher degree, driven by altruistic motives for their donations.[49]

Even in the case of anonymous donation, some information about the donor may be released to recipients at the time of treatment. Limited donor information includes height, weight, eye, skin and hair colour. In Sweden, this is the extent of disclosed information. In the US, however, additional information may be given, such as a comprehensive biography and sound/video samples.

Several jurisdictions (e.g., Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Britain, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, etc.) only allow non-anonymous sperm donation. This is generally based on the principle that a child has a right to know his or her biological origins. In 2013, a German court precedent was set based on a case brought by a 21-year-old woman.[50] Generally, these jurisdictions require sperm banks to keep up-to-date records and to release identifying information about the donor to his offspring after they reach a certain age (15–18). See Sperm donation laws by country.

The popularity of personal DNA testing has brought into question the possibility of assuring a donor's anonymity. Even sperm donors who have chosen anonymity and not to contact their offspring through a registry are increasingly being traced by their children. It has become relatively easy to identify one's sperm donor using inexpensive testing services and their databases. Even DNA matches at a third or fourth cousin level can provide clues which enable one to identify their biological father. It has become common practice for people who were conceived via an anonymous sperm donor to ascertain who their biological father is via this method. For example, at least one child found his biological father using his own DNA test and internet research and was able to identify and contact his anonymous donor.[51]

Attitudes towards anonymity

[edit]

For most sperm recipients, anonymity of the donor is not of major importance at the obtainment or tryer-stage.[49] Anonymous sperm is often less expensive. Another reason that recipients choose anonymous donors is concern about the role that the donor or the child may want the donor to play in the child's life or potential legal claims to parenthood. These fears were especially strong for lesbian couples wishing to conceive using a sperm donor prior to legalization of gay marriage or second parent adoptions in their area, because they worried that the sperm donor would be legally viewed as having greater claim to parenthood than the non-biological "social parent" of the child, particularly in the cases of the death of the legal parent or in a separation.[52] Sperm recipients may prefer a non-anonymous donor if they anticipate disclosing donor conception to their child and anticipate the child's desire to seek more information about their donor in the future. A Dutch study found that lesbian couples are significantly more likely (98%) to choose non-anonymous donors than heterosexual couples (63%). Of the heterosexual couples that opted for anonymous donation, 83% intended never to inform their child of their conception via sperm donation.[53]

For children conceived by an anonymous donor, the impossibility of contacting a biological father or the inability to find information about him can potentially be psychologically burdensome.[54] One study estimated that approximately 67% of adolescent donor conceived children with an identity-release donor plan to contact him when they turn 18.[39]

Some people point out that parents who opt to use a sperm donor to conceive rather than adopting children do so because they value a biological connection to their children. At the same time, because the donation is anonymous they deny their children the opportunity to connect with half of their biological tree. This can be viewed as hypocritical of the parents, and is an argument against anonymity for donors.[55]

Among donors and potential donors
[edit]

Among donors, a systematic review of 29 studies from nine countries concluded that 20–50% of donors would still be willing to donate even if anonymity could not be guaranteed.[11] Between 40 and 97% of donors agree to release non-identifying information such as physical characteristics and level of education.[11] The proportion of actual donors wishing for contact with their offspring varies between 10 and 88%.[11] One study reported that most donors are not open to contact with offspring, although more open attitudes are observed among single and homosexual donors; conversely another anonymous study of American donors noted that 88% were open to contact with offspring.[11] About half of donors feel that degree of involvement should be decided by the intended parents.[11] Some of the donors prefer contact with offspring in a non-visible way, such as where the child can ask questions but the donor will not reveal his identity.[11] One study recruited donors through the Donor Sibling Registry who wanted contact with offspring or who had already made contact with offspring. It resulted that none of the donors said that there was "no relationship", a third of donors felt it was a special relationship, almost like a very good friend, and a quarter felt it was merely a genetic bond and nothing more. Fifteen percent of actual donors considered offspring to be "their own children".[11] On the whole, donors feel that the first step towards contact should come from offspring rather than parents or the donor himself.[11] Some even say that it is the moral responsibility of the donor not to seek contact with offspring.[11]

The same review indicated that up to 37% of donors reported changes in their attitude towards anonymity before and after donation, with one in four being prepared to be more open about themselves after the donation than before (as a "potential donor").[11] Among potential donors, 30–46% of potential donors would still be willing to donate even if anonymity could not be guaranteed.[11] Still, more than 75% of these potential donors felt positive towards releasing non-identifying information to offspring, such as physical characteristics and level of education.[11] Single or homosexual men are significantly more inclined to release their identity than married, heterosexual men.[11] Potential donors with children are less inclined to want to meet offspring than potential donors without children (9 versus 30% in the review).[11] Potential donors in a relationship are less inclined to consider contact with offspring than single potential donors (7 versus 28% in the review).[11] From US data, 20% would actively want to know and meet offspring and 40% would not object if the child wished to meet but would not solicit a meeting themselves.[11] From Swedish data, where only non-anonymous donation is permitted in clinics, 87% of potential donors had a positive attitude towards future contact with offspring, although 80% of these potential donors did not feel that the donor had any moral responsibilities for the child later in life.[11] Also from UK data, 80% of potential donors did not feel responsible for whatever happened with their sperm after the donation.[11] With variation between different studies, between 33% and 94% of potential donors want to know at least whether or not the donation resulted in offspring.[11] Some of these potential donors merely wanted to know if a pregnancy had been achieved but did not want to know any specific information about the offspring (e.g. sex, date of birth).[11] Other potential donors felt that knowing the outcome of the donation made the experience more meaningful.[11] In comparison, a German study came to the result that 11% of donors actually asked about the outcome in the clinic where they donated.[11]

An Australian study concluded that potential donors who would still be willing to donate without a guarantee of anonymity were not automatically more open to extended or intimate contact with offspring.[11]

Donor tracking

[edit]

Even when donors choose to be anonymous, offspring may still find ways to learn more about their biological origins. Registries and DNA databases have been developed for this purpose. Registries that help donor-conceived offspring identify half-siblings from other mothers also help avoid accidental incest in adulthood.[56][57]

Tracking by registries
[edit]

Offspring of anonymous donors may often have the ability to obtain their biological father's donor number from the fertility clinic or sperm bank used for their birth. They may then share their number on a registry. By finding shared donor numbers, offspring may find their genetic half-siblings. The donor may also find his number on a registry and choose to make contact with his offspring or otherwise reveal his identity.[56]

Fertility tourism and international sperm markets

[edit]

Different factors motivate individuals to seek sperm from outside their home state. For example, some jurisdictions do not allow unmarried women to receive donor sperm. Jurisdictional regulatory choices as well as cultural factors that discourage sperm donation have also led to international fertility tourism and sperm markets.

Sweden

[edit]

When Sweden banned anonymous sperm donation in 1980, the number of active sperm donors dropped from approximately 200 to 30.[58] Sweden now has an 18-month waiting list for donor sperm.[49] At least 250[49] Swedish sperm recipients travel to Denmark annually for insemination. Some of this is also due to the fact that Denmark also allows single women to be inseminated.[59]

United Kingdom

[edit]

After the United Kingdom ended anonymous sperm donation in 2005, the numbers of sperm donors went up, reversing a three-year decline.[60] However, there is still a shortage,[61][60] and some doctors have suggested raising the limit of children per donor.[62] Some UK clinics import sperm from Scandinavia.

Despite the shortage, sperm exports from the UK are legal and donors may remain anonymous in this context. However, the HFEA does impose safeguards on the export of sperm, such as that it must be exported to fertility clinics only and that the result of any treatment must be traceable. The number of pregnancies obtained from an individual donor in each country where his sperm is exported will be subject to any local or national rules which apply. In addition, UK sperm banks may apply their own global maximum for the number of pregnancies obtained in respect of each donor.

Since 2009, the import of sperm via registered clinics for use in the UK has been authorised by the HFEA. The sperm must have been processed, stored and quarantined in compliance with UK regulations. The donors have agreed to be identified when the children produced with their sperm reach the age of eighteen. The number of children produced from such donors in the UK will, of course, be subject to HFEA rules (i.e. currently a limit of ten families,) but the donors' sperm may be used worldwide in accordance with the clinic's own limit, subject to national or local limits which apply. By 2014 the UK was importing nearly 40% of its sperm requirements, up from 10% in 2005.[63] In 2018 it was reported that almost half of the imported sperm into Britain came from Denmark (3,000 units).[64]

Korea

[edit]

Korean Bioethics Law prohibits selling and buying of sperm between clinics, and each donor may only help giving rise to a child to one single couple.[65] It suffers from a shortage.

Canada

[edit]

Canada prohibits payment for gamete donation beyond the reimbursement of expenses.[66] Many Canadians import purchased sperm from the United States.[67]

United States

[edit]

The United States, which permits monetary compensation for sperm donors, has had an increase in sperm donors during the late 2000s recession.[68]

Social controversy

[edit]

The use of sperm donation is most common among single women and lesbians.[1] Some sperm banks and fertility clinics, particularly in the US, Denmark and the UK, have a predominance of women being treated with donor sperm who come within these groups with some recording over 85% of recipients from these backgrounds. Many sperm banks and fertility clinics direct their main advertising towards these groups. Many, but not all, of the single women or trans-gender people who choose sperm donation may be LGBT+. This produces many ethical issues around the ideals of conventional parenting and has wider issues for society as a whole, including the issues of the role of men as parents, family support for children, and financial support for women with children.[69]

The growth of sperm banks and fertility clinics, the use of sperm agencies and the availability of anonymous donor sperm have served to make sperm donation a more respectable, and therefore a more socially acceptable, procedure.[70] The intervention of doctors and others may be seen as making the whole process a respectable and merely a medical procedure which raises no moral issues, where donor inseminations may be referred to as "treatments" and donor children as "resulting from the use of a donor's sperm", or "born following donation" and subsequent children may be described as "born using the same donor" rather than as biological children of the same male.

A 2009 study has indicated that both men and women view the use of donor sperm with more skepticism compared with the use of donor eggs, suggesting a unique underlying perception regarding the use of male donor gametes.[71]

Some donor children grow up wishing to find out who their fathers were, but others may be wary of embarking on such a search since they fear they may find scores of half-siblings who have been produced from the same sperm donor. Even though local laws or rules may restrict the numbers of offspring from a single donor, there are no worldwide limitations or controls and most sperm banks will onsell and export all their remaining stocks of vials of sperm when local maxima have been attained (see 'onselling' above).

One item of research has suggested that donor children have a greater likelihood of substance abuse, mental illness and criminal behavior when grown.[72] However, its motivation and credibility have been questioned.[73]

Coming forward publicly with problems is difficult for donor-conceived people as these issues are very personal and a public statement may attract criticism. Additionally, it may upset their parents if they speak out. A website called Anonymous Us[74] has been set up where they can post details of their experiences anonymously, on which there are many accounts of problems.

Religious responses

[edit]

There are a wide range of religious responses to sperm donation, with some religious thinkers entirely in support of the use of donor sperm for pregnancy, some who support its use under certain conditions, and some entirely against.

Catholicism

[edit]

Catholicism officially opposes both the donation of sperm and the use of donor sperm on the basis that it compromises the sexual unity of the marital relationship and the idea "that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses."[75]

Eastern Orthodoxy

[edit]

The Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church allows for IUI using the husband's sperm, but does not accept IVF and other assisted reproductive techniques.[76]

Protestantism

[edit]

The Southern Baptist Convention holds that sperm donation from a third party violates the marital bond.[77] The United Methodist Church supports a variety of reproductive strategies including sperm donation.[78]

Latter-day Saints movement

[edit]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest sect within the movement, allows for artificial insemination. However, doing so with sperm from someone other than a wife's husband is officially discouraged, but not forbidden; leaving the matter up to individual judgement.[79][80][81]

Islam

[edit]

Gamete donation is still a controversial issue in Islam, scholars of Sunni and Shia have different fatwas about sperm donation. While Sunni scholars have forbidden the use of any third party in infertility treatment, Some Shia scholars have announced that it is halal under the mentioned prerequisites.[1]

Judaism

[edit]

Jewish thinkers hold a broad range of positions on sperm donation. Some Jewish communities are totally against sperm donation from donors that are not the husbands of the recipient, while others have approved the use of donor insemination in some form, while liberal communities accept it entirely.[82][83][84]

History

[edit]

In 1884, Professor William Pancoast of Philadelphia's Jefferson Medical College performed an insemination on the wife of a sterile Quaker merchant, which may be the first insemination procedure that resulted in the birth of a child. Instead of taking the sperm from the husband, the professor chloroformed the woman, then let his medical students vote which one of among them was "best looking", with that elected one providing the sperm that was then syringed into her cervix.[85][86] At the husband's request, his wife was never told how she became pregnant. As a result of this experiment, the merchant's wife gave birth to a son, who became the first known child by donor insemination. The case was not revealed until 1909, when a letter by Addison Davis Hard appeared in the American journal Medical World, highlighting the procedure.[87]

Since then, a few doctors began to perform private donor insemination. Such procedures were regarded as intensely private, if not secret, by the parties involved. Records were usually not maintained so that donors could not be identified for paternity proceedings. Technology permitted the use of fresh sperm only, and it is thought that sperm largely came from the doctors and their male staff, although occasionally they would engage private donors who were able to donate on short notice on a regular basis.[88]

In 1945, Mary Barton and others published an article in the British Medical Journal on sperm donation.[89] Barton, a gynecologist, founded a clinic in London which offered artificial insemination using donor sperm for women whose husbands were infertile. This clinic helped conceive 1,500 babies of which Mary Barton's husband, Bertold Weisner, probably fathered about 600.[90]

The first successful human pregnancy using frozen sperm was in 1953.[91][92]

"Donor insemination remained virtually unknown to the public until 1954".[93] In that year the first comprehensive account of the process was published in The British Medical Journal.[94]

Donor insemination provoked heated public debate. In the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury established the first in a long procession of commissions that, over the years, inquired into the practice. It was at first condemned by the Lambeth Conference, which recommended that it be made a criminal offence. A Parliamentary Commission agreed. In Italy, the Pope declared donor insemination a sin, and proposed that anyone using the procedure be sent to prison.[94]

Sperm donation gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s.[95]

In many western countries, sperm donation is now a largely accepted procedure. In the US and elsewhere, there are a large number of sperm banks. A sperm bank in the US pioneered the use of on-line search catalogues for donor sperm, and these facilities are now widely available on the websites of sperm banks and fertility clinics.[69]

Recent years have also seen sperm donation become relatively less popular among heterosexual couples, who now have access to more sophisticated fertility treatments, and more popular among single women and lesbian couples[1] — whose access to the procedure is relatively new and still prohibited in some jurisdictions.[96]

United States

[edit]

In 1954, the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois granted a husband a divorce because, regardless of the husband's consent, the woman's donor insemination constituted adultery, and that donor insemination was "contrary to public policy and good morals, and considered adultery on the mother's part." The ruling went on to say that, "A child so conceived, was born out of wedlock and therefore illegitimate. As such, it is the child of the mother, and the father has no rights or interest in said child."[97]

However, the following year, Georgia became the first state to pass a statute legitimizing children conceived by donor insemination, on the condition that both the husband and wife consented in advance in writing to the procedure.[98]

In 1973, the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and a year later, the American Bar Association, approved the Uniform Parentage Act. This act provides that if a wife is artificially inseminated with donor semen under a physician's supervision, and with her husband's consent, the husband is legally considered the natural father of the donor inseminated child. That law was followed by similar legislation in many states.[99]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, the Warnock Committee was formed in July 1982 to consider issues of sperm donation and assisted reproduction techniques.[100] Donor insemination was already available in the UK through unregulated clinics such as BPAS. Many of these clinics had started to offer sperm donation before the widespread use of freezing techniques. "Fresh sperm" was donated to order by donors at the fertile times of patients requiring treatments. Commonly, infertility of a male partner or sterilisation was a reason for treatment. Donations were anonymous and unregulated.

The Warnock Committee's report was published on July 18, 1984.[100] and led to the passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That act provided for a system of licensing for fertility clinics and procedures. It also provided that, where a male donates sperm at a licensed clinic in the UK and his sperm is used at a UK clinic to impregnate a female, the male is not legally responsible for the resulting child.

The 1990 Act also established a UK central register of donors and donor births to be maintained by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (the 'HFEA'), a supervisory body established by the Act. Following the Act, for any act of sperm donation through a licensed UK clinic that results in a living child, information on the child and the donor must be recorded on the register. This measure was intended to reduce the risk of consanguinity as well as to enforce the limit on the number of births permitted by each donor. The natural child of any donor has access to non-identifying information about their donor, starting at the child's eighteenth birthday.

The emphasis of the 1990 Act was on protecting the unborn child. However, a general shortage of donor sperm at the end of the 20th century, exacerbated by the announcement of the removal of anonymity in the UK, led to concerns about the excessive use of the sperm of some donors. These concerns centered on the export and exchange of donor sperm with overseas clinics, and also the interpretation of the term "sibling use" to include donated embryos produced from one sperm donor. Successive births by surrogates using eggs from different women but sperm from the same sperm donor were also counted as donations to a single recipient. Donors were informed that up to ten births could be produced from their sperm, but the words "other than in exceptional circumstances" in the consent form could potentially lead to many more pregnancies. These concerns led to the SEED Report[101] commissioned by the HFEA, which was in turn followed by new legislation and rules meant to protect the interests of donors. Subsequent changes to legislation are designed to protect donors and recipients so that where a man donates his sperm through a UK clinic, that sperm is not permitted to give rise to more than ten families in the UK, but the donor may give express consent for more families to be created worldwide. However, the export of donor sperm is subject to the European Tissues Directive or the application of the effects of the Directive where exports are outside the EU which relate to traceability and record-keeping.

International comparison

[edit]

On the global market, Denmark has a well-developed system of sperm export. This success mainly comes from the reputation of Danish sperm donors for being of high quality[102] and, in contrast with the law in the other Nordic countries, gives donors the choice of being either anonymous or non-anonymous to the receiving couple.[102] Furthermore, Nordic sperm donors tend to be tall, with rarer features like blond hair or different color eyes and a light complexion, and highly educated[103] and have altruistic motives for their donations,[103] partly due to the relatively low monetary compensation in Nordic countries. More than 50 countries worldwide are importers of Danish sperm, including Paraguay, Canada, Kenya, and Hong Kong.[102] Several UK clinics also export donor sperm. The use of the sperm outside the UK will also be subject to local rules. Within the EU there are now regulations governing the transfer of human tissue including sperm between member states to ensure that these take place between registered sperm banks. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the US has banned import of any sperm, motivated by a risk of mad cow disease, although such a risk is insignificant, since artificial insemination is very different from the route of transmission of mad cow disease.[104] The prevalence of mad cow disease is one in a million, probably less for donors. If prevalence was the case, the infectious proteins would then have to cross the blood-testis barrier to make transmission possible.[104] Transmission of the disease by an insemination is approximately equal to the risk of getting killed by lightning.[105]

Fictional representation

[edit]

Movie plots involving artificial insemination by donor are seen in Made in America, Road Trip, The Back-Up Plan, The Kids Are All Right, Starbuck, and Baby Mama, the latter also involving surrogacy.[106] In the journal Contexts, sociologist Margaret Nelson noted that big Hollywood movies represent sperm donation as a means of recreating the nuclear family rather than exploring increasingly complex family arrangements.[107]

Films and other fiction depicting emotional struggles of assisted reproductive technology have had an upswing first in the latter part of the 2000s (decade), although the techniques have been available for decades.[106] Yet, the number of people that can relate to it by personal experience in one way or another is ever growing, and the variety of trials and struggles is huge.[106]

A 2012 Bollywood comedy movie, Vicky Donor, was based on sperm donation. The film release saw an effect; the number of men donating sperm increased in India.[108]

A 2017 Kollywood movie Kutram 23 is also a movie based on sperm donation.

In the 2018 life simulator video game Bitlife, the player can donate sperm; however, they will never meet the child who is born as a result.[109]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Sperm donation is the provision of by healthy men to clinics or sperm banks, where it is processed, frozen, and used for assisted reproductive procedures such as intrauterine or fertilization to facilitate in recipients facing male-factor , , or other reproductive challenges, including single women and same-sex female couples. Donors typically relinquish all parental rights and responsibilities upon donation, with samples subjected to and testing for infectious diseases, genetic disorders, and under regulations treating them as human cells and tissues. The practice originated in the early 20th century with rudimentary artificial insemination techniques, gaining viability after the 1953 success of pregnancy from frozen-thawed sperm and expanding commercially with sperm banks in the 1970s, enabling widespread access to cryopreserved donor semen. In the United States, no federal law caps the number of offspring per donor, though the American Society for Reproductive Medicine advises limiting donations to 10-25 live births per 800,000 population to mitigate risks of unintended consanguinity among half-siblings. Success rates for donor insemination average 10-18% live births per cycle, varying by recipient age, insemination method, and sperm parameters, with cumulative probabilities exceeding 80% over multiple cycles for many cohorts. Key controversies include the erosion of donor anonymity—driven by genetic testing platforms revealing half-sibling networks and paternal origins—raising causal concerns over psychological distress in offspring, potential risks from large donor families (sometimes exceeding 100 children), and incomplete medical updates from donors. Empirical surveys of donor-conceived adults indicate widespread interest in genetic parentage disclosure, with over half opposing societal encouragement of gamete donation amid identity and relational strains, while unregulated informal donations amplify unvetted genetic and health transmission hazards. Regulations emphasize donor screening, yet persistent gaps in tracking and limits underscore tensions between reproductive autonomy and downstream familial complexities.

Overview and Uses

Definition and Biological Basis

Sperm donation entails the provision of semen containing spermatozoa by a healthy male donor for use in assisted reproductive procedures, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF), to enable pregnancy in recipients facing barriers like male-factor infertility, azoospermia, or non-traditional family structures. The donor contributes the paternal genetic material, rendering him the biological progenitor of any resulting offspring, though legal and social parenthood typically vests with the recipient(s). Semen samples are collected through masturbation in a clinical setting, processed to isolate motile spermatozoa, and either used fresh or cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen for later application. Biologically, spermatozoa—also termed sperm cells—are haploid gametes generated via in the seminiferous tubules of the testes, a process spanning approximately 64-74 days in humans and yielding cells with 23 chromosomes that carry half the diploid essential for embryonic development. Each spermatozoon features a streamlined structure optimized for reproduction: an oval head housing the compact nucleus with paternal and an cap containing hydrolytic enzymes for egg penetration; a mitochondrial-rich midpiece supplying ATP for flagellar ; and a principal piece tail forming the , which enables hyperactivated through dynein-powered sliding. Ejaculated typically contains 15-200 million spermatozoa per milliliter, with only a fraction exhibiting progressive (forward swimming at 25-50 micrometers per second) required to traverse the female tract. In donation-facilitated reproduction, post-thaw or fresh spermatozoa undergo in the reproductive environment—a membrane stabilization and hyperactivation process triggered by ions, calcium influx, and efflux—preparing them for fertilization. During IUI, washed spermatozoa (concentrated to 10-20 million motile cells) are deposited directly into the proximal to , bypassing cervical barriers to enhance encounter probability with the ovum in the . In IVF, spermatozoa are co-incubated with oocytes in culture media, where capacitated sperm bind to the , trigger the to release enzymes like acrosin for traversal, and ultimately fuse via the equatorial segment, injecting the haploid to restore diploidy and initiate zygotic cleavage. This process mirrors natural fertilization but circumvents gamete production deficits, with success hinging on sperm DNA integrity, as fragmentation exceeding 30% correlates with reduced implantation rates.

Primary Applications and Demographics

Sperm donation is principally applied in assisted reproductive technologies to facilitate conception via intrauterine insemination (IUI) or fertilization (IVF), addressing conditions such as severe male factor , including or , where a partner's is non-viable. It also enables biological parenthood for single women and female same-sex couples lacking male gametes, as well as cases involving diminished in the intended mother. In IUI procedures, thawed donor is directly introduced into the following , while IVF involves fertilizing oocytes with donor before . These applications account for the majority of donor usage, with cycles increasing from 3.8% of all U.S. assisted reproductive technology () procedures in 1996 to 6.2% by 2014. Demographically, recipients skew toward older maternal age, with 73.4% of donor cycles from 2010–2014 involving women aged 35 or older, compared to 55.2% in non-donor cycles; 30.0% were aged 41 or older versus 14.6% in non-donor cases. Among 374 recipients tracked from 2014–, 50.3% were in same-sex partnerships, 23.5% single women, and 26.2% heterosexual couples citing factor , with a mean age of 38.9 years and 69.8% nulliparous. Racial composition in this cohort was 51.6% Caucasian and 36.9% /African American, though broader U.S. donor recipients are 67.7% White, exceeding the general population proportion. Cycle volumes rose in this period, from 52 donor IUI/IVF cycles in 2014 to 189 in at one center, reflecting broader trends. Globally, donor sperm demand has surged, driven by rising infertility rates, delayed childbearing, and expanded access for single women and lesbian couples, with the sperm bank market valued at $5.03 billion in 2023 and projected to reach $6.51 billion by 2032. In and , single women and female same-sex couples constitute a growing share of recipients, often exceeding 70% in private donor networks, though heterosexual couples with remain significant. Estimates suggest nearly 500,000 U.S. women have used donor in recent decades, with live birth rates per cycle at 11% for IUI and 42% for IVF using donor . Disparities persist, including underrepresentation of non-White donors relative to diverse recipient needs.

Donor Recruitment and Processes

Eligibility and Screening Protocols

Eligibility criteria for sperm donors generally require candidates to be healthy males, typically between 18 and 40 years of age, to minimize risks associated with age-related declines in and genetic stability. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommends donors under 40 to reduce potential hazards from aging, while specific programs often narrow this to 21-34 or 19-39 years to ensure maturity and optimal reproductive parameters. Candidates must also demonstrate overall , with exclusions for chronic illnesses, , or lifestyles involving high-risk behaviors such as recent tattoos, piercings, or travel to areas with endemic diseases. Screening protocols begin with a detailed review of personal and family to identify hereditary conditions or risk factors, followed by a comprehensive . Genetic evaluation is mandatory, including karyotyping for chromosomal abnormalities and carrier screening for disorders such as , , and sickle cell anemia, with some programs testing for over 200 conditions to assess transmission risks. Infectious disease screening adheres to U.S. (FDA) regulations under 21 CFR Part 1271, requiring tests for HIV-1/2, and C, , HTLV-I/II, and other relevant communicable diseases via and testing (NAT). For anonymous donors, semen samples are quarantined for at least six months, with repeat testing to confirm negative status before release, ensuring no window-period infections are missed. verifies parameters like concentration (minimum 15 million/mL post-thaw), motility (>40%), and morphology (>4% normal forms) per standards, with multiple collections assessed for consistency. Directed donors (known to recipients) undergo similar testing but without the full , with samples tested within seven days of collection. International variations exist; for instance, European protocols emphasize NAT for , HBV, and HCV alongside serological tests, but enforcement and genetic panels may differ by jurisdiction. Psychological screening is recommended by ASRM to evaluate donor motivations and stability, though not universally mandated. All processes prioritize empirical risk reduction, with donor ineligibility determined if any criterion fails, safeguarding recipient and offspring health.

Collection and Medical Preparation

Donors undergo preparatory instructions to maximize , including from for 2 to 5 days, as longer periods may reduce while shorter ones limit volume and concentration. Additional guidelines recommend avoiding alcohol, recreational drugs, excessive , and exposure such as hot tubs or saunas, which can impair , alongside maintaining hydration, adequate sleep, and a balanced diet free of supplements unless medically advised. These measures stem from empirical observations that lifestyle factors causally influence parameters, with studies showing and toxins correlating to decreased and viability. Semen collection occurs in a designated private room, known as a masturbatorium, at the or clinic, where the donor produces the sample via into a sterile, wide-mouthed , typically within 30 to 60 minutes to preserve viability; home collection is rare for donors due to risks and is discouraged unless time is under one hour with . Lubricants, condoms, or other aids are prohibited except for sperm-friendly variants validated not to affect , as chemical interference can reduce fertilization potential. Multiple collections per session or week may follow for anonymous donors to build inventory, with each sample labeled and tracked individually. Post-collection, the liquefied semen—typically requiring 15 to 30 minutes at 37°C for natural enzymatic breakdown—is analyzed for volume (1.5–5 mL norm), concentration (≥15 million/mL), total motility (≥40%), and progressive motility (≥32%), per reference values adapted for donation to ensure viability. Preparation for or storage involves washing to isolate motile : the sample undergoes at 300–400g for 5–10 minutes, supernatant removal, resuspension in medium, and optional separation or swim-up to concentrate healthy spermatozoa while discarding seminal plasma, leukocytes, and debris that could provoke immune responses or reduce efficacy. This process, yielding a concentrated pellet of 0.5–1 mL, enhances fertilization rates by 10–20% in intrauterine contexts. For cryopreservation, standard in anonymous donation, the washed sperm is diluted 1:1 with a cryoprotectant medium containing 5–10% glycerol to prevent ice crystal damage to membranes, cooled stepwise to -80°C over 1–2 hours, then plunged into liquid nitrogen at -196°C for indefinite storage in labeled straws or vials. Post-thaw motility typically drops 20–50%, necessitating initial high-quality samples. All frozen units from a donor are quarantined for 180 days per FDA regulations, during which the donor is retested for HIV, hepatitis B/C, syphilis, and other pathogens to confirm seronegativity before release, minimizing transmission risk to below 1 in 1 million donations. Fresh use is restricted to known donors with intimate partners after shorter validation, due to elevated infectious risks without quarantine.

Banking, Storage, and Distribution

Semen samples from donors undergo immediately following collection and initial processing to preserve potential. The process involves mixing the semen with cryoprotectants, such as , to mitigate formation that could damage cells, followed by controlled-rate freezing to gradually lower temperatures before plunging into at -196°C. Samples are then sealed in sterile vials or straws and stored in dedicated cryogenic tanks, either fully submerged in or in the vapor phase above it, with the latter reducing contamination risks while maintaining temperatures below -130°C. In the United States, facilities must register with the (FDA) under regulations for human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps), ensuring compliance with Good Tissue Practices for processing and storage. Storage in liquid nitrogen halts metabolic activity, allowing sperm viability to persist indefinitely under optimal conditions, with documented pregnancies from samples frozen for over 20 years. Research indicates no significant decline in motility, viability, morphology, or DNA integrity for samples stored up to three months in vapor phase, though some studies report reduced post-thaw motility after five years or more, potentially due to cumulative cryoprotectant effects or storage inconsistencies. Banks conduct periodic inventories and viability checks, but long-term outcomes depend on initial sample quality and facility protocols; for instance, the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority permits storage up to 55 years with decennial consent renewals. Prior to distribution, anonymous donor semen undergoes a mandatory period of at least six months, during which the donor is retested for infectious diseases like and to confirm eligibility, per FDA guidelines. Distribution occurs via specialized dry shippers containing , which maintain cryogenic temperatures for up to seven days during transit to clinics or recipients, enabling both domestic and international shipment. In the , banks such as California Cryobank adhere to FDA Part 1271 rules prohibiting release of quarantined or ineligible tissue, while international transfers must navigate varying import regulations, including documentation of donor screening and sometimes additional testing. Fees for shipping and storage vary by provider, with quarantine adding costs for extended holding before release.

Offspring Limits and Genetic Management

Scientific Rationale for Restrictions

The primary scientific rationale for limiting the number of per donor is to minimize the of inadvertent consanguineous unions among half-siblings, which increases the incidence of genetic disorders in their potential progeny due to elevated homozygosity of recessive alleles. between first-degree relatives, such as half-siblings, raises the (F) and thereby the probability of expressing autosomal recessive conditions, with empirical data showing 2-3% excess of major birth defects and 3-4 times higher mortality in of first-cousin unions compared to non-consanguineous ones. In donation contexts, anonymous or unknown half-sibling relationships heighten this hazard, as geographic clustering of families using the same donor amplifies encounter probabilities; models estimate that without limits, the inadvertent consanguinity rate from donor could exceed natural false-paternity rates by factors of 4 or more in populations with high assisted usage. Quantitative assessments using and demographic data recommend donor caps to keep risks comparable to baseline population levels. For example, a probabilistic model derived from Swedish birth registries and patterns calculated that 10 per donor yields an annual consanguineous risk of 0.9%—or roughly one event per century in a of 10 million—while 25 aligns assisted reproduction risks with the 0.1-0.2% false-paternity consanguinity rate in unassisted conceptions. These thresholds assume uniform distribution and account for variables like donor export and recipient mobility, though real-world clustering (e.g., via clinics serving local areas) necessitates stricter enforcement to avoid localized spikes. Limits also address the amplified transmission of donor-specific genetic risks to a concentrated progeny pool, as standard screening detects only known, high- variants but misses novel, low-frequency, or late-onset mutations. A 2025 case documented a donor carrier of a rare TP53 variant linked to Li-Fraumeni —who himself remained healthy—fathering at least 67 children across , disseminating a 50% inheritance risk of multifactorial cancers (e.g., sarcomas, breast, brain) that screening protocols overlooked due to incomplete and absence from routine panels. Similar incidents, such as donors propagating or autosomal dominant conditions post-donation, underscore how unrestricted proliferation exacerbates cohort-wide morbidity when variants evade initial , with effective population size reductions mimicking pedigree bottlenecks that heighten fixation. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize that caps below 25-75 offspring per donor, adjusted for export, curb this by diluting any single donor's genomic footprint relative to natural reproduction's diversity.

Global Standards and Enforcement Challenges

No universally binding global standards exist for limiting the number of per sperm donor, though professional medical organizations have issued recommendations grounded in genetic risk assessments to minimize inadvertent . The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) advises restricting donations from any single donor to prevent future risks of among , without specifying a numerical cap but emphasizing ethical limits on proliferation. Similarly, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines, informed by models, recommend capping a donor at no more than 25 births within a of 800,000 to maintain risks comparable to natural conception rates of approximately 1 in 3,600 for first-cousin unions. A 2016 analysis reinforced this threshold, calculating that exceeding 25 elevates the probability of accidental close-kin pairings beyond baseline societal levels, based on donor-conceived individuals' potential geographic dispersion. National regulations vary widely, complicating harmonization; for instance, the United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority enforces a strict limit of 10 families per donor domestically, while countries like permit only three live births and others impose no enforced caps. In response to "super-donor" cases—where individuals have fathered dozens or hundreds of children—Nordic national ethics councils in March 2025 jointly urged an international quota on children per donor, citing untracked cross-border usage as a primary driver of excess progeny. health ministers echoed this in June 2025, proposing binding transnational limits amid evidence that some commercial banks voluntarily cap at 75 families worldwide, though others operate without restrictions, allowing proliferation beyond genetic safety margins. Enforcement faces structural barriers due to the absence of a centralized global registry for donor gametes, enabling circumvention through international exports and fragmented oversight. In the UK, for example, sperm from donors hitting the 10-family domestic limit has been exported to clinics abroad, resulting in additional offspring that violate intended caps and heighten inbreeding risks in interconnected populations, as documented in 2024 investigations. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) highlights related issues in its 2022 good practice recommendations, noting that without coordinated data-sharing on donor usage across borders, clinics rely on self-reported family outcomes, which private entities may under-enforce to maximize inventory. In jurisdictions like the United States, lacking federal mandates, enforcement devolves to voluntary bank policies, fostering "limitless" donations and retrospective discoveries via consumer DNA testing—such as 23andMe matches revealing donors with over 100 half-siblings—which expose non-compliance but occur post-conception. Further challenges include economic disincentives for strict quotas, as overly restrictive limits risk underutilizing donor material, prolonging wait times, or closing facilities in donor-scarce regions, per Nordic analyses. A 2025 case in involving a donor with an undetected cancer-predisposing genetic variant, affecting multiple offspring, underscored enforcement gaps, as variant screening protocols vary and post-donation tracking remains inconsistent globally, amplifying and health risks without unified verification systems. These issues persist despite calls for , as donor in many programs hinders real-time progeny monitoring, and cross-jurisdictional trade—estimated to involve millions of vials annually—evades national audits.

Cases of Non-Compliance and Oversights

In the , , a serial sperm donor, fathered at least 550 children through donations to multiple clinics and private arrangements across at least 13 countries, far exceeding national guidelines limiting donors to 25 offspring or 12 mothers. In April 2023, a Dutch court permanently banned Meijer from further donations, citing risks of among half-siblings and psychological harm to children discovering extensive sibling networks, with potential fines exceeding €100,000 for violations. Meijer's activities highlighted enforcement gaps, as he evaded limits by donating under aliases and via unregulated channels, including international shipments. Clinic-level oversights have also enabled non-compliance, as seen in the case of Dutch fertility doctor Jan Karbaat, who secretly inseminated patients with his own sperm at his Barendrecht clinic, resulting in at least 49 confirmed offspring via DNA testing after his 2017 death. The clinic, operational until 2009, lacked oversight mechanisms to prevent such substitutions, with Karbaat reportedly admitting to around 60 fatherings before closure amid suspicions. DNA evidence from donor-conceived individuals exposed the breach in 2019, underscoring failures in anonymous donation protocols and verification of donor samples. Broader systemic issues in the revealed that, between 2004 and 2018, at least 85 sperm donors produced 25 or more children each due to inadequate tracking across clinics, violating pre-2018 limits and contributing to a "medical calamity" with thousands potentially at risk of consanguineous relationships. Regulations tightened in 2018 to cap at 12 offspring, but historical data gaps persist, with DNA testing increasingly uncovering these clusters. In the United States, where no federal laws enforce offspring limits—only voluntary American Society for guidelines suggesting 25 children per donor in a population center—cases of excess have surfaced via . For instance, in 2019, a physician donor sued an clinic for allowing his sperm to produce at least 17 children, breaching a contractual limit of 10 families. Similarly, in 2024, donor-conceived individuals discovered over 200 half-siblings from one donor, facilitated by uncoordinated sperm banks failing to cap usage nationwide. Such oversights stem from decentralized banking without mandatory registries, amplifying risks without legal repercussions. Internationally, export practices have circumvented limits; in the UK, sperm donations are shipped abroad to exceed the 10-family cap, as clinics track only domestic usage, potentially creating large groups across borders. These cases illustrate persistent challenges in , including reliance on self-reported donor histories, fragmented systems, and the rise of unregulated private or donations bypassing screening. Consequences have included lawsuits, donor bans, and advocacy for global registries to mitigate inadvertent , estimated to require limits of at least 25 offspring for natural-risk equivalence.

National Regulations on Donation and Paternity

In the United States, sperm donation is not governed by a comprehensive federal statute but falls under state laws, often informed by the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), which typically severs donor paternity by designating the recipient's partner or intended parent as the legal father when conception occurs through licensed assisted reproduction, thereby exempting anonymous or known donors from parental rights or support obligations. However, private arrangements outside clinics can lead to contested paternity claims, as courts may apply standard parentage presumptions absent explicit waivers. protections vary by state; for instance, mandated disclosure of donor identity to at age 18 starting in 2025, though legislative efforts in 2025 sought to partially rollback these requirements for pre-existing anonymous donations to preserve donor . No nationwide limit exists, leaving enforcement to clinic policies, which often cap at 10-25 families to mitigate genetic risks.
Country/RegionDonor Anonymity StatusOffspring/Family LimitPaternity Severance for Donors
Varies by state; anonymity common but increasingly challenged via and disclosure lawsNone federally mandated; clinic-specific (e.g., 10-25 families)Generally yes via UPA for licensed procedures; exceptions in private donations
Non-anonymous since 2005; offspring access identifying information at age 18 via HFEA registry10 families maximum per donorDonors have no legal parenthood or financial responsibility if through licensed clinics
No federal anonymity mandate; practices allow anonymous or identity-release optionsNot strictly enforced nationally; guided by clinic protocolsDonors excluded from parentage under Assisted Human Reproduction Act for regulated donations; private arrangements risk claims
Non-anonymous; donor details releasable to offspring at 18 via state/territory registersVaries by jurisdiction, typically 5-10 familiesSevered for clinic-based donations under state laws; ruled donors may retain rights in informal arrangements (e.g., case)
In the , the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) enforces regulations under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, prohibiting donor parental rights and requiring non-anonymous status, with children able to request donor details at age 16 (non-identifying) or 18 (full identity), aiming to balance offspring rights against donor privacy. Compensation is limited to expenses, and unlicensed private donations default to donor liability as legal father. Across the , no unified directive exists for sperm donation, with member states varying under national laws influenced by Article 8, which courts have interpreted to undermine absolute due to offspring's right to identity (e.g., 2014 German Federal Court ruling). Countries like and ban or restrict anonymous donation, while permits it but faces challenges from direct-to-consumer genetic testing; offspring limits typically range from 6-25 families to prevent inadvertent , with 2025 proposals for cross-border caps to address export-driven exceedances. Donors generally forfeit paternity in regulated treatments, though enforcement relies on national registries. In , the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004) bans payment for sperm beyond reimbursement and mandates safety screening but does not impose anonymity rules or uniform offspring caps, deferring to provincial clinics; donors are statutorily non-parents for compliant procedures, though lax enforcement has prompted calls for stricter and disclosure protections for donor-conceived individuals. Australia's framework, governed by state/territory acts like ' Act 2007 alongside federal prohibitions on paid donation, mandates release of donor information to offspring at 18 and limits families per donor to reduce genetic clustering, with donors protected from paternity only in licensed settings—private or informal inseminations can invoke rulings establishing donor parentage, as affirmed by the in 2019. In , Ministry of Health regulations permit anonymous donation without a statutory offspring limit—despite recommendations for no more than 10 children per donor—prioritizing supply amid cultural preferences for non-anonymous imported sperm options; donors hold no legal paternity, aligned with halachic interpretations excluding from paternal lineage.

International Trade, Exports, and Liability

The international trade in donor sperm primarily involves the export of cryopreserved semen vials from regulated banks in high-supply countries, such as and the , to clinics and recipients in nations with domestic shortages or restrictive donation policies. 's Cryos International, the world's largest , exports to over 100 countries using nitrogen dewars or shippers compliant with international transport standards for biological materials, with delivery times ranging from 1-3 days in Europe to 2-5 days elsewhere. In the , the (FDA) classifies donor semen as a human cell, tissue, and cellular and tissue-based product (HCT/P) under 21 CFR Part 1271, requiring exporters to ensure infectious disease screening and registration, though specific export licenses are not mandated unless prohibited by destination countries. Trade volumes are substantial, with Danish exports alone supporting treatments that have resulted in tens of thousands of births globally, driven by fewer donor restrictions and advanced techniques. Regulatory frameworks for exports emphasize donor screening alignment but lack global harmonization, creating compliance challenges. The European Union's Directive 2004/23/EC sets minimum standards for tissues and cells, including gametes, mandating traceability, quality management, and accreditation for cross-border movements within member states to prevent disease transmission. Outside the EU, oversight varies: the UK's (HFEA) allows exports of sperm from licensed clinics with donor consent and prior notification, but without caps on foreign , enabling circumvention of the domestic 10-family limit per donor. Australia's Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority eliminated import/export approvals for donor material in 2025, except for suspended Ukrainian sources, reflecting a trend toward streamlined amid supply needs. Importing countries often impose additional quarantines or re-testing, as seen in U.S. requirements for foreign HCT/Ps to undergo FDA-reviewed equivalency assessments. Liability in cross-border transactions centers on in screening or storage, with exporters potentially accountable for harms like undisclosed infections or heritable conditions, though jurisdictional hurdles limit enforcement. Contracts between banks and importers typically include clauses and waivers, shifting risk to recipients, but U.S. cases illustrate viable claims under products liability or wrongful birth doctrines when banks fail protocols, as in instances of transmission suits dismissed on causation grounds. Internationally, the absence of reciprocal agreements complicates suits; for example, a European donor's genetic affecting multiple cross-border in 2025 prompted demands for unified liability standards, yet resolution often defaults to the exporting country's courts. Ethical analyses underscore that fragmented regulations exacerbate risks, with calls from Nordic bodies for binding international limits to address without impeding trade. In recent years, legal frameworks governing sperm donation have faced challenges primarily from advances in consumer genetic testing, which have undermined promises of donor anonymity and prompted demands for greater transparency and offspring limits. For instance, widespread use of services like 23andMe has enabled donor-conceived individuals to identify biological fathers and half-siblings, leading to lawsuits asserting rights to genetic origins information despite contractual anonymity clauses. These revelations have exposed risks of inadvertent incest among half-siblings and strained family structures, fueling advocacy for non-anonymous donation mandates. Colorado enacted the Donor-Conceived Persons and Families of Donor-Conceived Persons Protection Act in 2022, effective January 1, 2025, which prohibits anonymous and donations and requires fertility clinics to release donor-identifying information to offspring upon request at age 18 or older. The law also caps the number of families a single donor can assist at 10 within the state to mitigate genetic risks from large half-sibling groups, marking the first U.S. state-level offspring limit enforcement. However, in March 2025, state lawmakers considered amendments to roll back certain transparency requirements amid concerns from fertility providers about donor shortages and operational burdens. Paternity disputes have intensified scrutiny of informal or unregulated donations. In the UK, a February 2025 family court ruling publicly named serial donor "Joe Donor," who claimed to have fathered over 180 children through private arrangements, issuing a judicial warning on the perils of bypassing licensed clinics, including potential child welfare harms from oversized genetic clusters. Similarly, a May 2025 UK custody battle saw the same donor denied parental rights over a child conceived via his unregulated contributions, reinforcing courts' reluctance to extend legal parenthood absent formal agreements. In the U.S., a Minnesota appeals court in August 2024 upheld a lesbian couple's parental exclusivity against a known sperm donor's paternity claim, prioritizing pre-conception contracts under state law. These cases highlight enforcement gaps in private donations, where donors may seek involvement post-birth, challenging uniform anonymity and support waivers. Internationally, have imposed bans on prolific donors to enforce standards. A Dutch court in October 2025 prohibited a donor believed to have fathered up to 600 children from further contributions, citing violations of national guidelines limiting to 25 families, and established precedents for revoking donor privileges amid identity disclosure pressures. In December 2024, another European court mandated DNA testing for a donor, prioritizing the 's right to paternity details over the donor's , signaling a shift toward access rights in jurisdictions with residual provisions. Reforms like the UK's 2024 policy update permitting HIV-positive donors for known recipients reflect efforts to expand access while addressing health transmission risks through rigorous screening. Overall, these developments underscore tensions between donor , welfare, and regulatory oversight, with genetic technologies accelerating demands for retrospective reforms in legacy cases.

Ethical Debates

Anonymity Versus Identity Disclosure

The debate over in sperm donation centers on balancing donor with the interests of donor-conceived , who may seek knowledge of their genetic origins. Traditionally, has been the norm to protect donors from unwanted contact and to incentivize participation by minimizing personal risks, such as legal paternity claims or emotional entanglements. However, since the , ethical arguments have increasingly favored identity disclosure, positing that possess a fundamental interest in tracing biological parentage for , , and relational purposes. This shift reflects broader principles of transparency in assisted reproduction, though on psychological outcomes remains mixed, with some studies indicating comparable among donor-conceived individuals regardless of anonymity status. Proponents of argue that mandatory disclosure deters potential donors, potentially reducing supply and access to treatment. Surveys of prospective donors reveal that the majority—often over 90%—would decline participation if identity release were automatic upon request, citing fears of invasion, , or unintended familial obligations. From a first-principles perspective, donors contribute gametes as a contractual act akin to tissue donation, without assuming parental roles, and preserves this boundary, avoiding causal chains of psychological burden or relational disruption for donors who view their role as altruistic and detached. Critics of disclosure also note that it may impose non-reciprocal demands, as donors consent without foreseeing -initiated contacts that could span decades. Conversely, advocates for identity disclosure emphasize the offspring's right to origins, arguing that perpetuates , which can exacerbate identity challenges and hinder access to genetic . Ethical frameworks grounded in beneficence and nonmaleficence support this, as withholding identity may cause harm by denying individuals tools for -understanding or decision-making, such as tracing hereditary conditions. Studies of donor-conceived adults show that approximately 85% experience a shift in their sense of upon learning their conception method, with about 50% seeking counseling to process feelings of loss or curiosity about the donor; many report a desire for contact to resolve these. However, longitudinal research indicates no systematic psychological detriment from donor conception itself, with donor-conceived individuals often exhibiting equivalent or superior , , and family relationships compared to naturally conceived peers, suggesting that disclosure's benefits may stem more from cultural narratives of harm than inherent causality. Emerging practices among some prolific donors include "open-sourcing" their DNA by publicly releasing genetic data, enabling biological offspring to identify and connect with each other and potentially the donor via commercial genetic testing platforms; for example, Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who has fathered over 100 children through donations across 12 countries, has announced plans to do so. Legally, the trend has moved toward disclosure in many jurisdictions. prohibited anonymous donations in 1985, followed by , the (with identity release at age 18 since 2005), the (2004), , , and . ended donor anonymity effective April 2025, allowing access to donor identities at age 18, amid concerns over secrecy's long-term effects. In contrast, the permits anonymous donation in most states, though some clinics offer "identity-release" options where donors agree to future contact. These reforms have prompted hybrid models, such as non-contact registries, but enforcement varies, and bans have occasionally led to temporary donation declines before stabilization through adjusted incentives. Ongoing ethical questions whether disclosure fully resolves needs, given the rarity of donor responses to requests and the potential for half-sibling networks to complicate rather than clarify identity.

Commercialization and Donor Exploitation

The of donation has transformed it into a multi-billion-dollar industry, particularly in countries like the where paid donation is permitted, contrasting with altruistic models in places such as the and . Global revenues were estimated at approximately USD 5.92 billion in 2025, projected to reach USD 7.04 billion by 2030, driven by rising demand for assisted reproductive technologies amid declining fertility rates. In the U.S., clinics charge recipients $1,000 to $2,000 per of , while donors receive compensation typically ranging from $50 to $150 per , with prolific donors potentially earning $1,000 to $2,000 monthly through multiple weekly donations over a one- to two-year period. This pricing disparity enables substantial profit margins for intermediaries, as production costs per are low once donor screening is complete, fueling industry growth but raising questions about the of human gametes. Critics argue that this exploits donors, particularly young men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who comprise a significant portion of the pool, by offering modest payments for an irreversible genetic contribution that can result in dozens or hundreds of offspring without ongoing financial or . Ethical analyses highlight risks of undue inducement, where financial incentives may pressure donors into decisions without full appreciation of long-term consequences, such as psychological distress from discovering large genetic families or potential liabilities from undisclosed genetic conditions propagated widely. In unregulated or loosely supervised markets, such as parts of , inadequate screening and transparency exacerbate vulnerabilities, with reports of donors facing risks from repeated testing and clinics prioritizing volume over donor welfare, though empirical on widespread donor harm remains limited. Proponents counter that donors provide and benefit voluntarily, but regulatory bodies like the UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority have debated payment caps to mitigate exploitation concerns, citing evidence that higher compensation alters donor demographics and motivations toward short-term gain over . Empirical studies on donor outcomes are sparse, but surveys indicate some experience regret or identity conflicts upon learning of extensive progeny, amplified by commercial incentives that encourage high-volume without caps in many jurisdictions. This asymmetry—clinics retaining intellectual property-like control over donor profiles while donors forfeit paternal rights—mirrors broader critiques of bio-marketization, where the permanent severance of genetic ties for temporary may undervalue human reproductive material, potentially eroding donor agency in an informationally opaque process.

Implications for Family Structures and Child Welfare

Sperm donation facilitates the formation of structures that deviate from the traditional model of two biological parents, often involving single mothers by or same-sex couples, which can introduce complexities in parental roles and child-rearing dynamics. Empirical studies indicate that children conceived via donor sperm in such families exhibit physical and outcomes comparable to those in the general population, with no significant differences in overall observed across diverse family types including single-parent and same-sex households. However, donor-conceived individuals frequently report preoccupation with their origins, with 74% contemplating the nature of their conception regularly and 62% viewing exchange as commodifying, potentially straining family cohesion if disclosure is delayed or mishandled. Large half-sibling cohorts arising from prolific donors—sometimes exceeding 50 or even 200 offspring—pose risks, including identity dilution and challenges in forming stable relational boundaries within extended genetic networks. These expansive groups heighten the probability of inadvertent consanguineous unions among half-siblings, elevating risks of genetic disorders in potential offspring, alongside shared hereditary conditions documented in over 160 medical instances among donor siblings. Such dynamics can undermine child welfare by complicating paternal lineage clarity and fostering emotional distress from fragmented narratives, as evidenced by donor-conceived experiencing distinct peer emotions in 61.6% of cases related to and origins. While meta-analyses find no consistent evidence of diminished psychological adjustment in donor families compared to naturally conceived ones, subtle variances emerge in attachment security and disclosure impacts, with secure maternal bonds correlating to more positive donor perceptions but non-disclosure linked to potential long-term identity conflicts. Policymakers note the absence of uniform positive or negative outcomes, underscoring the need for limits on donor numbers to mitigate relative risks from half-sibling proliferation, as unrestricted donation historically enabled cohorts far beyond recommended caps of 10-25 per donor. Overall, these structures prioritize parental autonomy over biological continuity, with child welfare implications hinging on proactive identity disclosure and regulatory curbs on donor proliferation to avert unintended relational and genetic hazards.

Psychological and Social Dimensions

Impacts on Donor-Conceived Individuals

Donor-conceived individuals demonstrate psychological adjustment levels that are generally comparable to or superior to those of non-donor-conceived peers, with multiple studies reporting equivalent or higher scores in , , and relationship quality. Longitudinal on children conceived via donation, including and , finds no consistent evidence of elevated emotional or behavioral problems, even in families with early disclosure of origins. Identity formation represents a distinct area of impact, where donor-conceived adults frequently express challenges tied to incomplete genetic , particularly in cases of anonymous donation. Approximately 94% of surveyed donor-conceived individuals were conceived anonymously, and nearly 85% reported an altered sense of upon discovering their origins, often prompting questions about genetic heritage and personal continuity. surrounding conception has been linked to heightened identity and trust difficulties, with non-disclosure correlating to poorer intra-familial dynamics of sharing. Empirical surveys indicate variability in responses: about 40% of young adults conceived via viewed their origins as making them feel unique, while others remained neutral or indifferent, though a subset pursued donor or connections to resolve lingering uncertainties. Effective strategies for donor-conceived families to collaborate in identifying the sperm donor include pooling DNA tests from multiple half-siblings to build shared family trees and identify common genetic matches on the donor's side, using donor descriptions such as physical traits, background, and education to filter potential relatives, and registering in sibling registries with donor codes for additional connections. Families should consider emotional impacts and pace searches carefully, especially with young children. Social and relational outcomes show mixed patterns, with donor-conceived individuals often reporting stronger bonds but occasional strains from disclosure timing or half-sibling proliferation. Donor-conceived participants in comparative studies expressed lower levels of gratitude toward their conception circumstances compared to non-donor-conceived controls, potentially reflecting unresolved questions about agency in their origins. Identity-release systems, which permit access to donor information at maturity, mitigate some risks by fostering genetic linkage awareness, though long-term data remain limited and predominantly drawn from jurisdictions favoring openness, such as the and . These findings underscore that while aggregate adjustment is robust, individual variability—driven by disclosure practices and cultural norms—necessitates cautious interpretation, as much research originates from fertility-affiliated institutions potentially incentivized to emphasize positive outcomes.

Family Dynamics and Half-Sibling Connections

In donor-conceived families, interpersonal dynamics often reflect an inherent genetic disconnect between the non-biological parent and child, which can manifest in challenges related to physical resemblance and perceived parental investment. Empirical studies indicate that couples using sperm donation navigate an "imbalance" where the child may resemble the biological mother more closely, potentially straining relational bonds if not openly addressed. Heterosexual parents report varied experiences, with early disclosure sometimes fostering resilience but also introducing intra-familial tensions around knowledge management, where parents balance protecting family unity against the child's right to genetic origins. Non-disclosure, historically common, correlates with later discovery via DNA testing, leading to secrecy dynamics that undermine trust within the nuclear family. Half-sibling connections among donor-conceived offspring have proliferated due to genetic testing platforms, enabling individuals to identify and contact genetic relatives sharing the same donor. In jurisdictions with lax regulations, such as the —where the American Society for recommends but does not enforce a limit of 25 offspring per donor within populations of 800,000—some donors have fathered over 100 children, resulting in half-sibling groups exceeding 50 or even 250 members. In contrast, European countries impose stricter caps, such as the United Kingdom's limit of 10 families per donor or Denmark's restriction to 12 children, though exports and varying enforcement can inflate effective numbers. Surveys of donor-conceived adults show that 15% actively search for half-siblings, with many reporting positive outcomes like expanded support networks, though larger cohorts introduce psychosocial strains including emotional overwhelm from managing numerous ties and diluted relational intensity. These connections can reshape family boundaries, as offspring form bonds across households that rival or supplement natal ties, sometimes leading to group meetups that highlight shared amid diverse upbringings. interviewing 47 young adults found interest in peer contact often stems from about heritage, yet mismatches in expectations—such as varying disclosure levels or relational depth—complicate , potentially exacerbating identity fragmentation. In large groups, risks of unintended arise if siblings unknowingly form romantic partnerships, underscoring causal links between unregulated donation volumes and downstream genetic safety concerns. While some studies note compensatory benefits like shared history mitigating , others document challenges in integrating these networks without disrupting primary cohesion. Overall, reveals a spectrum of outcomes, with connection benefits tempered by scale-dependent burdens not fully anticipated in early donation practices.

Donor Perspectives and Long-Term Effects

Sperm donors frequently report altruistic motivations, such as helping infertile couples or single parents, alongside financial incentives, with studies indicating high levels of satisfaction post-donation. In a Swedish cohort of gamete donors followed longitudinally, the majority expressed no regret over their decision, attributing positive reflections to a sense of contribution to family-building without ongoing responsibilities. Similarly, a survey of Danish sperm donors who donated over a decade prior found that most viewed the experience favorably, with minimal reports of emotional distress or second thoughts, though a subset expressed curiosity about offspring outcomes. Satisfaction rates among sperm donors exceed 95% in comparative analyses with oocyte donors, often linked to the relatively low physical and emotional demands of the process compared to egg donation. Perspectives on offspring vary, with many donors preferring limited or no contact to maintain , viewing their role as purely genetic rather than paternal. A qualitative of donors' retrospective views revealed that while initial donations were seen as detached acts, life changes—such as forming their own families—could prompt reevaluation, with some expressing mild concern over potential large genetic families but rarely profound attachment. In identity-release programs, approximately 65% of donors express interest in learning about resulting pregnancies, yet over 20% opt against any feedback to avoid complicating their lives. Upon contact from donor-conceived individuals, donors often describe encounters as intriguing but emotionally neutral, emphasizing genetic curiosity over familial bonds, though about two-thirds incorporate offspring into their concept of . Long-term psychological effects appear minimal for most donors, with empirical data showing no elevated rates of mental health issues compared to the general population. The aforementioned Swedish study, tracking donors over years, confirmed stable mental health metrics and absence of donation-related regret, suggesting that anonymity or controlled disclosure mitigates potential stressors. However, in systems shifting toward mandatory identity disclosure, such as in the UK since 2005, some donors report anticipatory anxiety about future contacts, particularly if multiple offspring seek connection, potentially leading to unintended paternal attribution or social stigma. Qualitative insights indicate that serial donors—those contributing to numerous offspring—may experience delayed emotional impacts, like surprise at genetic proliferation, but quantitative outcomes reveal low incidence of clinically significant distress. Non-anonymous donors occasionally note positive long-term fulfillment from selective relationships with offspring, though this is not universal and depends on individual temperament and circumstances.

Health and Risk Factors

Genetic and Infectious Disease Transmission

Sperm donors undergo genetic screening, including family review and testing for carrier status of certain hereditary conditions such as , , and hemoglobinopathies, to mitigate transmission risks to offspring. However, these protocols have limitations; late-onset genetic diseases may manifest in donors after screening and donation, as in a documented case where a donor developed a hereditary disorder post-donation, exposing conceived children to unforeseen risks despite initial compliance with guidelines for known familial conditions. Similarly, , an inherited , has been transmitted through sperm donation, highlighting the potential for dominant genetic traits to propagate across multiple offspring from a single donor. Expanded carrier screening panels, now common in many sperm banks, test for hundreds of recessive mutations but remain incomplete, failing to cover all possible variants and relying on probabilistic risk reduction rather than elimination. A key genetic concern arises from prolific donors fathering dozens or hundreds of children, amplifying the odds of consanguineous unions among half-siblings and thereby elevating risks, which studies model as increasing recessive disease incidence through shared deleterious alleles. For instance, a donor carrying a rare genetic variant linked to cancer risk fathered at least 67 children across before the condition was identified, prompting renewed debate on donor offspring limits to curb such population-level genetic vulnerabilities. Empirical cases include a conceived via developing genetically transmitted from the donor, underscoring gaps in pre-donation phenotyping for non-apparent traits. For infectious diseases, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations mandate screening anonymous sperm donors for HIV-1 and HIV-2, (HBV), (HCV), (), and human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) types I and II using serological assays and nucleic acid testing (NAT), with semen samples quarantined for at least six months before retesting and release to confirm negativity. Additional tests for (CMV), , and are standard in accredited banks, performed at initial qualification and semi-annually thereafter, excluding donors with positive results or high-risk behaviors like recent unprotected sex with potentially infected partners. Despite rigorous protocols, transmission incidents occur rarely; historical reports include HIV-1 infection via unprocessed donor semen in the early 1990s, with confirmatory detected 136 days post-donation, and more recent CMV transmission following intrauterine from an IgG-positive donor. Post-insemination infection rates remain low, with one reporting 47 claimed cases over 18 years among thousands of procedures, equating to less than 0.1% incidence, often attributable to residual donor pathogens evading detection windows or recipient factors. In screened donor pools, prevalence is minimal—0.10% for and 0.19% for HBV in a large U.S. study—yet underscores the imperfect sensitivity of tests during acute infection phases, where viral loads may precede detectable antibodies. International guidelines, such as those from the European Centre for Prevention and Control, align closely but emphasize ongoing risk assessments for emerging pathogens, as gametes can harbor viruses like CMV in even without systemic symptoms. Overall, while screening substantially reduces transmission probabilities, zero-risk assurance is unattainable due to limitations and donor post-initial .

Psychological Risks from Large Donor Families

Donor-conceived individuals from prolific sperm donors, where one donor may father dozens or even hundreds of , often encounter psychological challenges stemming from the discovery of extensive half-sibling networks. These large genetic families can exacerbate identity , as the donor's role dilutes across numerous children, leading to feelings of or replaceability rather than a unique paternal connection. Qualitative accounts from donor-conceived adults describe shock and emotional distress upon learning of 50 or more half-siblings, with some reporting a sense of overwhelm that complicates formation and family belonging. Empirical studies on half-sibling dynamics highlight navigational difficulties in forming relationships amid large groups, including emotional distaste toward the donor's prolific output and concerns over relational boundaries. For instance, donor-conceived teens and young adults report varied responses—ranging from to indifference—but a subset experiences heightened anxiety in establishing intimate ties, potentially due to the of multiple genetic connections without corresponding social structures. Such dynamics may amplify broader identity struggles observed in donor-conceived populations, where genetic correlates with lower or trust issues in a minority of cases, though direct causation from sibship size remains understudied quantitatively. Regulatory responses reflect these risks, as jurisdictions like the imposed donor offspring limits (e.g., 25 children maximum) following scandals involving over 100 children per donor, explicitly citing psychological burdens such as identity crises and inadvertent incest risks from unstructured sibling interactions. In the U.S., informal donation networks exacerbate issues, with prolific donors contributing to clusters of offspring sharing heritable conditions like ADHD, which can compound familial stress and psychological adjustment demands. While peer-reviewed data on long-term outcomes is sparse—often limited to small cohorts—advocacy from donor-conceived groups underscores persistent calls for caps to mitigate these harms, prioritizing empirical caution over assumptions of resilience.

Empirical Outcomes for Offspring

Studies examining the psychological adjustment of donor-conceived offspring have produced conflicting findings, with many longitudinal investigations reporting no significant differences in emotional or behavioral problems compared to naturally conceived children. For instance, the Longitudinal Study of Donor Insemination Families, tracking children from infancy to , found donor-conceived offspring exhibited similar levels of internalizing and externalizing behaviors as controls, based on parent and teacher reports. Similarly, a 15-year follow-up of donor-conceived individuals showed stability in adjustment without donor-type differences in problem behaviors. These results, however, often derive from clinic-recruited samples in stable, two-parent households and rely heavily on parental assessments, which may underestimate offspring distress due to or lack of awareness of internal experiences. In contrast, self-reported data from donor-conceived adults reveal higher incidences of psychological challenges, particularly related to and . A 2010 survey of 485 young adults conceived via anonymous sperm donation found they were over three times more likely to report depression and twice as likely to struggle with compared to peers raised by both biological parents or adoptees; additionally, 47% expressed ethical objections to donor conception itself. Identity disruptions are common, with 85% of respondents in a 2023 Harvard survey experiencing a shift in their sense of self upon learning of their origins, and 86.5% asserting a right to donor . A 2024 acknowledged a significant minority of studies documenting elevated issues and identity difficulties among donor-conceived individuals, attributing discrepancies to recruitment biases in affirmative samples. These self-reports, often from networks, may overrepresent those seeking answers, yet they highlight causal links between genetic disconnection and existential unease not captured in prospective designs. Physical health outcomes at birth show no elevated risks for donor sperm-conceived neonates. A 2016 meta-analysis of clinical data indicated comparable rates of , preterm delivery, and congenital anomalies to those in naturally conceived or IVF cohorts without . Long-term genetic risks, however, arise from prolific donors creating large half-sibling networks; a 2025 analysis estimated increased probabilities in such families, potentially heightening recessive disease incidence absent paternal lineage knowledge. Overall, while perinatal metrics align with population norms, the absence of paternal genetic context may exacerbate undiagnosed hereditary conditions, underscoring empirical gaps in large-scale, adult-focused tracking.

Religious and Cultural Perspectives

Abrahamic Traditions

In , artificial insemination using a husband's own is generally permitted under to facilitate procreation within , aligning with the religious imperative to "be fruitful and multiply" as stated in Genesis 1:28. However, sperm donation from a third party is largely prohibited by Orthodox authorities due to concerns over paternal lineage, as the donor would be considered the halakhic father, potentially leading to inadvertent incestuous unions among offspring and violating prohibitions against mixing familial lines. Additionally, Jewish men are forbidden from serving as sperm donors, as the process involves emission of outside of marital relations, constituting a waste of seed akin to Onan's transgression in Genesis 38:9-10, per rulings from Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. If donor sperm is used in non-Orthodox contexts, rabbis emphasize tracing donor identity to prevent future marital prohibitions under yichud or arayot laws. Catholic doctrine categorically opposes sperm donation, deeming it intrinsically immoral because it dissociates procreation from the conjugal act, which must unite spouses unitive and procreative dimensions as per and (1968). The procedure typically requires for semen collection, violating , and introduces a third party into parenthood, undermining the exclusivity of marital love and risking of children. Protestant views vary by denomination: evangelicals and conservatives often echo Catholic concerns over donor and family structure disruption, while mainline groups may permit it under ethical safeguards, though without unified doctrinal prohibition, reflecting broader acceptance of assisted reproduction absent direct biblical condemnation. Islamic across Sunni and Shiite schools prohibits sperm donation, equating it to () since the child inherits the donor's lineage, not the non-biological father's, violating nasab (paternity) rules essential for , relations, and under . Third-party gametes are impermissible to preserve marital exclusivity and prevent confusion in awliya (guardianship) and (waiting periods), with fatwas from bodies like Al-Azhar deeming it comparable to illicit intercourse. Shiite jurists, such as Khamenei, allow limited exceptions where the infertile husband consents and the child bears his name for legal purposes, but Sunni consensus rejects any donor involvement to uphold Quranic emphasis on biological descent in Al-Ahzab 33:5.

Secular and Alternative Views

Secular frameworks typically endorse sperm donation as a tool for exercising reproductive and addressing , emphasizing , rigorous donor screening for genetic and infectious risks, and limits on the number of per donor to mitigate unintended familial connections. These perspectives prioritize from medical outcomes, such as success rates in , while advocating regulations to balance donor privacy with recipient needs. A key contention arises over : many ethicists assert that donor-conceived individuals possess a presumptive right to genetic origins information upon adulthood, as withholding it can impair and genealogical knowledge, supported by surveys of donor-conceived adults expressing desires to contact donors. This view draws from first-person accounts and psychological studies indicating higher rates of identity-related distress among those denied such access, challenging earlier assumptions of donor privacy as paramount. Humanist organizations, focusing on evidence-based human flourishing without religious doctrine, support broadening access to sperm donation for singles, same-sex couples, and older individuals to promote equality in family-building, provided disclosure to offspring occurs to safeguard psychological well-being. They argue that empirical data on family stability—such as comparable child development metrics across conception methods—justify its normalization, while critiquing secrecy as perpetuating stigma akin to adoption concealment. However, some humanist-leaning bioethicists caution against societal encouragement of donation, citing surveys where over two-thirds of donor-conceived respondents oppose incentivizing it due to relational complexities. Feminist analyses often portray sperm donation as empowering women by decoupling motherhood from partnership dependency, enabling independent parenthood through donor selection based on traits like and , which aligns with observed preferences in large-scale studies of over 1,000 women. Yet, critiques highlight gendered asymmetries: sperm donation's minimal invasiveness contrasts with egg donation's burdens, potentially reinforcing norms where male contributions are commodified lightly while female labor is undervalued, though empirical motivations for both reveal mixed and compensation drivers. Libertarian perspectives frame donation as a consensual market transaction rooted in , opposing restrictions on compensation or selection absent , analogous to arguments for organ sales where voluntary exchange maximizes utility without state . They contend that of low in regulated markets supports , prioritizing individual over collective ethical qualms about . From , sperm donation is scrutinized as enabling "mating by proxy," where women select donors for heritable traits signaling genetic fitness—such as height or intelligence—mirroring ancestral mate but decoupled from paternal investment, potentially amplifying reproductive skew toward high-fitness donors. Men's reluctance, evident in studies showing only 24% willingness for reproductive use versus 67% for , stems from aversion to genetic without control, reflecting evolved paternity certainty mechanisms. Prolific donors may exploit this for evolutionary gain, as seen in cases linking to high-volume donation, raising concerns over dysgenic selection if regulations fail to curb unchecked proliferation. These views, grounded in trait data, underscore causal mismatches between biological imperatives and modern practices, though academic sources occasionally underemphasize risks due to ideological alignment with reproductive innovation.

Historical Evolution

Origins and Early Practices

The practice of , the precursor to modern sperm donation, originated in the late with initial human applications focused on using a husband's sperm (AIH). The first documented case occurred in the 1770s in , when Scottish surgeon John Hunter performed insemination on a whose had , achieving a successful . Earlier animal experiments, such as Lazzaro Spallanzani's 1779 successful insemination of a , laid groundwork but did not immediately translate to humans due to technical and ethical hurdles. Donor (), involving from a third party, emerged in the 19th century amid efforts to address , often conducted clandestinely to avoid . The earliest recorded instance took place in 1884 in , where physician William Pancoast inseminated an infertile woman's with from a medical student—chosen for desirable traits—without her knowledge or , only informing her afterward; the resulting child was born healthy. Such practices remained rare and undocumented, typically limited to medical elites selecting donors based on physical or intellectual attributes to "improve" offspring genetics, reflecting eugenic undertones prevalent in early . By the early , donor insemination gained limited traction in the United States and , though it was shrouded in secrecy due to legal ambiguities and moral concerns over adultery-like implications. In 1914, U.S. physician Addison Davis Hard publicly reported cases of , marking one of the first non-anecdotal accounts, while British practitioners in the 1930s began documenting procedures more systematically. By 1941, approximately 10,000 successful AID pregnancies had occurred in the U.S., often using fresh sperm from medical students or acquaintances, with clinics emphasizing donor anonymity to preserve family privacy. These early methods lacked standardization, relying on basic syringes for intracervical deposition, and carried unaddressed risks of disease transmission absent modern screening.

Post-WWII Expansion and Modernization

Following , the practice of sperm donation expanded amid the era, which heightened societal emphasis on family formation and fertility treatments, including artificial insemination by donor (AID). clinics proliferated, with physicians increasingly turning to donor for cases of male factor , often sourcing fresh anonymously from medical students or staff to inseminate patients without their knowledge of the donor's identity. A pivotal advancement occurred in 1953 when Jerome K. Sherman developed a glycerol-based method for cryopreserving human sperm, enabling the first successful from thawed frozen sperm and laying the groundwork for long-term storage. This breakthrough addressed logistical challenges of fresh donations and facilitated posthumous or deferred use, as demonstrated in 1954 experiments proving viability for fatherhood after death. By 1955, an estimated 50,000 children had been conceived via donor sperm , with annual additions of approximately 6,000, reflecting growing acceptance among medical professionals despite ethical debates. The establishment of dedicated sperm banks marked a key modernization step. In 1964, the first therapeutic sperm banks opened in Iowa, United States, and Tokyo, Japan, allowing systematic collection, freezing, and distribution under medical oversight. Commercialization accelerated in the early , with banks marketing services for reversals and cancer patients, followed by broader applications; by 1977, facilities like Cryobank emerged, offering screened, cryopreserved donor to expand donor pools and accessibility. This shift from ad-hoc physician-mediated donations to institutionalized banking improved safety through preliminary disease screening, though rigorous lagged until later decades. By 1979, approximately 379 U.S. physicians reported performing donor , signaling industry maturation, yet practices remained opaque, with donor standard and limited offspring limits, fostering unintended large donor-conceived families. These developments transformed sperm donation from a niche, secretive procedure into a structured medical service, driven by technological feasibility rather than regulatory mandates, though ethical concerns over eugenic undertones persisted in some advocacy.

Market Expansion and Accessibility Issues

The global market, encompassing commercial facilities for sperm donation and storage, reached approximately USD 5.92 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow at a (CAGR) of 3.53% to USD 7.04 billion by 2030, driven by rising rates, delayed childbearing, and increasing demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART). In the United States, the market was valued at USD 1.80 billion in 2023, with a forecasted CAGR of 3.2% through 2030, reflecting expanded networks and international sourcing of donor gametes. This expansion has been fueled by commercialization, including online donor matching platforms and to countries with fewer restrictions, such as , where clinics export sperm to meet global shortages. Accessibility to donor varies significantly by , with heterosexual couples generally facing fewer barriers than single women or same-sex female couples in many regions. In the United States, licensed clinics permit access for different-sex couples, female same-sex couples, and single women, though insurance coverage remains inconsistent and often excludes non-heteronormative family structures. Internationally, regulations diverge: while countries like and much of allow singles and same-sex couples to use donor , others such as [Hong Kong](/page/Hong Kong) restrict it to heterosexual couples, prompting cross-border travel for treatment. These disparities have spurred unregulated alternatives, including informal networks on platforms like , where demand outstrips clinic supply, raising risks of unverified donors and legal complications. Persistent donor shortages exacerbate accessibility challenges, particularly for recipients seeking donors matching specific ethnic or phenotypic traits. A 2023 analysis by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine indicated that donors comprise only about 3% of available sperm at major U.S. banks, creating mismatches for recipients and forcing reliance on donors of other races, which can affect offspring identity and health outcomes. Shortages have intensified post-COVID-19 due to deferred donations and heightened demand from expanded eligibility for singles and lesbian couples, compounded by stringent screening rules that reduce eligible donor pools. Economic barriers further limit access, as donor sperm vials often exceed USD 1,000, with intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles costing USD 800–2,000 or more, excluding ancillary expenses like storage and monitoring. Only 14 U.S. states mandate infertility coverage, leaving most patients—disproportionately affecting lower-income, racial minority, and LGBTQ+ groups—to bear full out-of-pocket costs, which perpetuate disparities in treatment uptake and success. Geographic isolation and lack of clinic proximity compound these issues, particularly in rural areas, while racial underrepresentation in donor pools signals deeper cultural and recruitment failures rather than mere supply constraints.

High-Profile Scandals Involving Prolific Donors

One prominent case involves , a Dutch former musician and consultant born in 1981, who donated sperm to at least 11 fertility clinics in the and abroad between approximately 2007 and 2017, resulting in an estimated 550 children as of 2023, though Meijer has contested higher figures like 1,000 publicized in media. Dutch regulations limit donors to contributing to no more than 25 families to mitigate risks of large half-sibling networks, which can lead to unintended and psychological distress for offspring; Meijer's actions violated this by creating clusters exceeding 100 half-siblings in some areas, discovered through DNA testing platforms like those used by donor-conceived individuals. In April 2023, a Dutch court, following a by the Donor Child Foundation (representing donor-conceived children) and a mother of one of his offspring, permanently banned from further donations at clinics or privately, imposing a potential fine of €100,000 ($110,000) per violation. The ruling highlighted concerns over the "web of family relations" complicating offspring identities and relationships, with parents unaware of the donor's prolific status until genetic matches surfaced online. Meijer's case gained wider attention via the 2024 documentary The Man with 1000 Kids, which alleged deception of recipients; Meijer responded by threatening legal action against , claiming sensationalism and that he had disclosed his donation history to some parents while ceasing clinic donations after limits were reached. Another notable example is , a U.S. math professor known as "The Sperminator," who has openly facilitated conceptions for over 176 children across multiple countries, including the U.S., , and , as of June 2025, primarily through private, in-person donations advertised online since 2015. Unlike regulated clinic donations, Nagel's approach bypasses limits, raising alarms about half-sibling proliferation—potentially hundreds—and associated challenges, though he has faced no formal bans and announced retirement at age 50. In the UK, Robert Charles Albon, operating under the alias "Joe Donor," has been linked to at least 180 children via private donations advertised on as of February 2025, prompting a warning against further activity due to risks of complex familial ties and welfare concerns for children. These cases underscore regulatory gaps in private and international donations, contrasting with clinic oversight, and have fueled advocacy for global limits and mandatory donor registries to track offspring numbers.

Calls for Stricter Oversight and Alternatives

Concerns over the proliferation of half-siblings from individual donors have prompted advocacy for enhanced regulatory frameworks, particularly following high-profile cases such as that of , a Dutch donor estimated to have fathered between 550 and 600 children across multiple countries by 2023, leading to a court-ordered ban on further donations due to risks of unintentional and psychological harm to . Donor-conceived individuals have cited these scenarios in pushing for limits on offspring per donor, arguing that excessive genetic connections strain family structures and elevate risks in mating pools. In response to a 2025 case involving a European donor with an undetected cancer-causing genetic mutation, researchers at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference urged stricter genetic screening protocols and cross-border donor registries to mitigate hereditary transmission, highlighting how fragmented national regulations enable unchecked international distribution of high-risk gametes. Similarly, in regions like , experts have flagged vulnerabilities from lax oversight, including exploitation and untracked donor usage, calling for mandatory transparency and ethical standards to protect recipients and offspring. In the United States, where no federal oversight exists, legal scholars advocate for a national system to enforce caps—such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's guideline of 25 children per 800,000 population—and track cross-jurisdictional donations, contrasting with stricter limits in places like the (10 families per donor) or (10 children across four families). Unregulated online platforms have drawn particular , with Australian fertility lawyers in 2025 labeling them a "wild west" for facilitating anonymous, unvetted exchanges that bypass safeguards, prompting demands for intervention to impose licensing and genetic verification. Proponents of reform emphasize empirical risks, including a 2016 study noting that arbitrary family limits fail to account for population density variations, potentially allowing hundreds of offspring in dense areas despite nominal caps. As alternatives, some ethicists and policymakers promote known-donor arrangements—where comes from screened acquaintances or —to preserve relational continuity and reduce anonymity-related identity crises in , though this requires robust contracts to delineate parental rights. Others advocate shifting toward or donation programs, which avoid expanding donor-conceived cohorts while addressing , as evidenced by U.S. clinics integrating these with IVF to prioritize non-commercial paths. International bodies like FIGO have endorsed donation only under stringent ethical oversight, implicitly favoring regulated alternatives like partner or fostering over expansive anonymous banking.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.