Bypassing the sperm bank: documenting the experiences of online informal sperm donors

Asked to be a sperm donor: disclosure dilemmas of gay men living with HIV

Previous research has documented the various challenges people living with HIV face as they navigate intimate relationships, including what is often referred to as disclosure. In studies of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, the issue of telling or not telling others about an HIV-positive status has been examined primarily in relation to communication with sexual partners, with few studies focusing on other aspects of intimacy. Drawing on interviews with gay men living with HIV, conducted in four clinics in London, this article explores the narratives of men who have been asked by female friends about the possibility of being a sperm donor. The narratives highlight layers of complexity which have received little attention, not only in research on HIV but also in studies of sperm donation and co-parenting. The article advances dialogue between these two largely separate bodies of work. Our data suggest that reluctance to share an HIV-positive status with others can be an important factor in deciding how to answer the 'sperm donor question'. Examining reproductive relationships of a specific kind - those based on friendships between women and gay men - the article develops the understanding of how secrecy about HIV shapes intimate lives.

Acceptance and rejection of "morally challenging" behaviour in online sperm donation communities: narrative interviews with recipients and donors

Introduction

Online sperm donation allows those hoping to conceive a baby ("recipients") to meet prospective sperm donors online, via "connection" websites or social media. These sites offer some advantages to clinical donation (including lower costs and greater choice over donation arrangements) but previous research has suggested that these sites may also pose risks and challenges to those who use them. Therefore, the aim of this exploratory research was to better understand online sperm donation communities and the experiences of both recipients and donors, particularly with respect to situations that could be "morally challenging" or involve harm.

Methods

Three prolific donors and five recipients were interviewed using an in-depth narrative approach. Carol Gilligan's Listening Guide was employed to analyse the data.

Results

The findings demonstrated that the donors sought to find ways to maintain autonomy in their donating practices and were concerned about the character and parenting abilities of recipients, as well as the potential for recipients to make unwarranted complaints. The recipients were concerned about their safety and finding a donor they could trust, discussing issues relating to donor "dishonesty", online abuse, and a lack of support from connection sites and related authorities. Both donors and recipients identified "morally challenging" behaviour relating to donor anonymity (donor use of fake online profiles or aliases) and the sexual motivations or (mis)conduct of some donors. The participants each discussed the ways in which they managed perceived risks.

Discussion

The degree to which the participants voiced their acceptance or rejection of challenging behaviour in online sperm donation communities varied across and within participants, highlighting the complexity of the way in which people interact in this environment. Further research is required to understand how this form of sperm donation can be as safe and supportive as possible, while also respecting the importance to donors and recipients of autonomy and choice when making donation arrangements.

Embodied sociotechnical imaginaries: how donor-conceived people imagine identity, family and reprodigital futures beyond regulation

Sociological scholarship has begun to explore imaginaries of family and reproduction, yet less work has focused on the emerging social form of the donor family. In this article, we consider the embodied sociotechnical imaginaries of donor-conceived people, exploring their reflections, judgements, hopes, and predictions regarding donor conception. Combining reflexive thematic analysis of free-text survey responses from sperm donor-conceived (n = 90) and egg donor-conceived (n = 1) and data from semi-structured interviews with sperm donor-conceived people (n = 28), conceived in both clinical and non-clinical contexts in Australia, we analyse donor-conceived people's imaginings of family, identity, and the practice of donor conception in the digital age. Our analysis centres the donor-conceived body that imagines, and in doing so, highlights the entanglements of reproductive and digital technologies, and the humans and institutions that drive their uptake. We argue that leveraging the imaginative and political capacities of donor-conceived people is a productive approach that illuminates possible (re)directions of the assisted reproduction industry as well as illustrating potential policy futures.

The case for reframing known donation

Contemporary UK egg and sperm donation exists in two predominant forms: (i) clinic-based, identity-release donation; and (ii) known donation, which can take place either inside or outside of the clinic context. Regulatory and clinical discussions of the latter currently focus, almost exclusively, on risk whereas identity-release is widely presented as the default route for both donors and recipients. Consequently, there is little support available for those potential donors and recipient parents who might prefer a known donor arrangement. In this commentary, we reflect on our sociological research with donors and parents through donor conception and argue that there are a number of reasons why known donation may, in some contexts, offer advantages over identity-release donation. Whilst this research also demonstrates that there can be challenges involved in known donation, these are not inevitable nor are challenges absent from identity-release routes. It is timely and important to question whether the current de-valuing of known donation compared with identity-release donation holds up to academic scrutiny. We argue for a more balanced approach in which the benefits and challenges of both known and identity-release routes are discussed with donors and recipients and for increased support for known donation in clinics and by regulatory bodies.

Are UK Policies and Practices for Regulated Donor Insemination Forcing Women to Find Unregulated Sperm Donors Online? A Perspective on the Available Evidence

In recent years, there has been an increase in women obtaining donor sperm via unregulated websites and social media. In this article, we bring together the disparate evidence in this emerging field to consider whether restrictive UK policies and practices for regulated clinical donor insemination (DI) are a potential explanation for the growing use of the currently unregulated, online route to donor insemination. To this end, we examine the nature of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, recent data provided by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), and prior research on who uses online sperm donation and their reasons for doing so. In addition, we highlight why this issue is important by outlining some of the benefits and drawbacks of the unregulated route. We argue that, whilst there are many factors driving the unregulated route to DI, restrictive UK policies and practices for regulated DI might be one of these. We conclude that turning our attention to structural barriers, such as regulated DI policies and practices, is necessary to produce more definitive evidence of this potential issue, and that adopting a Reproductive Justice framework could lead to more equitable provision of regulated DI services.

The dangers of being a sperm donor

This article argues that that there are two important reasons why many potential donors refrain from donating and why many donors value not being outed as a sperm donor. The first reason is the stigma attached to sperm donation. The second is the attribution of fatherhood to the donor. Attributional fatherhood is based on the rejection of the basic rule underlying the practice of sperm donation, i.e. the donor is not the father of the offspring. Attributional fatherhood ascribes the status of father exclusively on the basis of the genetic connection between the donor and the offspring. The violation of the 'responsible father' rule generates moral blame and may result in conflicts, disapproval and rejection. The presence of this view in different groups is demonstrated. Possible solutions for this issue are briefly presented. Given the geneticization of relationships in society in general, this phenomenon may increase in the future, thus putting pressure on the practice of sperm donation.