The study explored the experiences and attitudes of men who had been sperm donors more than 10 years ago

A new study published in FLOOR ONE The journal aims to analyze the attitudes and experiences of Danish men who were sperm donors more than ten years ago.

survey: Experiences and attitudes of Danish men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago; qualitative interview research. Image credit: NewAfrica/Shutterstock.com

Background

Extensive research has been conducted on men’s motivations for becoming sperm donors. However, fewer studies have been conducted on the long-term effects of a sperm donor.

Previous studies have been conducted on donors’ motivations to disclose their identity and their experiences and attitudes toward contact with donor-conceived offspring. However, more knowledge is needed about the diversity of experiences and attitudes.

Analyzing the long-term impact of sperm donors is important as their attitudes may change over time due to their situation and society as a whole. Changes in personal circumstances can lead to reconsideration of previous actions and decisions, along with regret.

In addition, political and historical developments may also change the meaning and impact of sperm donation. Recent technological advances may compromise donor identity beyond the control of individual donors and sperm banks.

In addition, attention has been paid to the rights of donor-conceived persons (DCPs) to have information about donors, which has led to a change in the jurisdiction of many countries regarding donor rights and anonymity.

About the research

The study was conducted in the context of Danish legislation that allowed only anonymous sperm donation until 2007. After 2007, sperm donors had the option of anonymous or non-anonymous donation.

In the case of non-anonymous donation, the offspring can receive the name and last address of the donor when requested by the sperm bank after the age of 18, while in the case of anonymous donation, they cannot. In both cases, donors were unable to obtain identifying information about their DCPs.

Recruitment of participants for the present study took place through the Cryos International sperm bank from February to November 2021. The two inclusion criteria were to have been more than ten years since their last donation and to have contact information available.

Data collection was done through telephone and video interviews that lasted approximately 24 minutes. Finally, data analysis was performed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Survey results

Twenty-three former donors participated in the study. Most donors’ previous time as sperm donors was reported to be unproblematic and not subject to further consideration. Participants indicated several reasons for becoming sperm donors.

First, many were students at the time of recruitment and sperm donation is an easy way to make extra money. Second, they wanted an opportunity to help people struggling with infertility. Third, some men were curious about the quality of their sperm.

Finally, anonymity was important for them to even consider becoming a donor. Only one participant regretted becoming a donor because he was told that a sick child was born from his donation.

Most men stated during the interview that being a sperm donor belonged to the past and had no relevance to their current lives. Most men indicated no relationship or relationship at all with the donor’s offspring.

They distinguish between paternity and genetic ancestry, with sperm donation only related to the latter. They expressed that knowing their donor offspring could create an unwanted sense of responsibility towards them that they did not want.

Most men reported that they had to inform their current partners about their sperm donation in the past, and these partners were generally accepting. Although some donors accept that knowledge of genetic heritage may be important to some DCPs, their rights to anonymity and protection of their family carry more weight.

Many donors mentioned that the risk of undue contact from DCP is not certain when donating sperm. Many expressed that the breach of anonymity could create unwanted problems in their lives, especially in terms of the impact on their children, who did not know that their fathers were sperm donors.

Many were concerned that offspring-initiated contact would impose a personal connection on them and make them more obligated to provide answers. Some men believed that setting boundaries would be important if a donor’s offspring unexpectedly made contact to protect their family. However, two childless men expressed a desire to meet their offspring.

Conclusion

Therefore, the current study shows that most former sperm donors value their anonymity and are not interested in contact with donor offspring. They were more concerned about their own family and children and did not want to disrupt their current life.

For most men, sperm donation was in their past and they didn’t want to think about it anymore.

Limits

An important limitation of the study is that the sample does not represent all Danish sperm donors. This makes the findings non-generalizable.