Israeli students' perceptions regarding sperm donation: dilemmas reflections with dominant demographic effect.
Identity disclosure
Sperm bank
Sperm donation
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Mar 2024
18 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
22
08
2023
accepted:
02
03
2024
medline:
19
3
2024
pubmed:
19
3
2024
entrez:
19
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sperm donation has undergone significant medical and social transformations in recent decades. This study aimed to explore Israeli students' perceptions towards sperm donation and investigate the potential influence of demographic characteristics on these perceptions. The study encompassed 254 students from Tel-Aviv University, who completed an anonymous online survey in January-February 2021. This cross-sectional quantitative online survey, comprised 35 questions categorized into three sections: demographic data, assessment of prior knowledge, and perceptions of sperm donation (general perceptions related to both positive and negative stigmas associated with sperm donation, the roles and activities of sperm banks, and considerations surrounding identity disclosure versus the anonymity of sperm donors and their offspring). Participants exhibited a relatively low level of prior knowledge (mean 31.2 ± 19 of 100). Scores for positive and negative stigmas ranged from 1.3 to 2.2. Notably, the statement "Donors' anonymity preservation is crucial to maintain sperm donation" received a mean of 3.7. Seeking for anonymous sperm donation identity both by recipients and offspring was ranked with low means (1.5 and 1.7, respectively). However, the pursuit of half-siblings by mothers or siblings themselves received higher ratings ranging from 2.7 to 3. Women's stigma ranking were notably lower, while men emphasized the importance of donor anonymity. Sperm Banks hold a position of medical authority rather than being perceived as being commercial entity. The preservation of donor anonymity is widely accepted as a crucial element, prioritized over the requests for identity disclosure from recipients and offspring. Demographic parameters exhibit a strong and precise effects on participants' perceptions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sperm donation has undergone significant medical and social transformations in recent decades. This study aimed to explore Israeli students' perceptions towards sperm donation and investigate the potential influence of demographic characteristics on these perceptions.
DESIGN
METHODS
The study encompassed 254 students from Tel-Aviv University, who completed an anonymous online survey in January-February 2021. This cross-sectional quantitative online survey, comprised 35 questions categorized into three sections: demographic data, assessment of prior knowledge, and perceptions of sperm donation (general perceptions related to both positive and negative stigmas associated with sperm donation, the roles and activities of sperm banks, and considerations surrounding identity disclosure versus the anonymity of sperm donors and their offspring).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Participants exhibited a relatively low level of prior knowledge (mean 31.2 ± 19 of 100). Scores for positive and negative stigmas ranged from 1.3 to 2.2. Notably, the statement "Donors' anonymity preservation is crucial to maintain sperm donation" received a mean of 3.7. Seeking for anonymous sperm donation identity both by recipients and offspring was ranked with low means (1.5 and 1.7, respectively). However, the pursuit of half-siblings by mothers or siblings themselves received higher ratings ranging from 2.7 to 3. Women's stigma ranking were notably lower, while men emphasized the importance of donor anonymity.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Sperm Banks hold a position of medical authority rather than being perceived as being commercial entity. The preservation of donor anonymity is widely accepted as a crucial element, prioritized over the requests for identity disclosure from recipients and offspring. Demographic parameters exhibit a strong and precise effects on participants' perceptions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38500168
doi: 10.1186/s12978-024-01767-4
pii: 10.1186/s12978-024-01767-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
37Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sherman JK. Synopsis of the use of frozen human semen since 1964: state of the art of human semen banking. Fertil Steril. 1973;24(5):397–412.
pubmed: 4735423
doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)39678-9
McGovern PG, Schlaff WD. Sperm donor anonymity: a concept rendered obsolete by modern technology. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(2):230–1.
pubmed: 29331239
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.12.011
Eskenazi B, Pies C, Newstetter A, Shepard C, Pearson K. HIV serology in artificially inseminated lesbians. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1989;2(2):187–93.
pubmed: 2703956
Conrad EA, Fine B, Hecht BR, Pergament E. Current practices of commercial cryobanks in screening prospective donors for genetic disease and reproductive risk. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1996;41(3):298–303.
pubmed: 8799760
Bitan R, Youngster M, Umanski A, Kaufman S, Kedem A, Avraham S, et al. Critical demographic changes among sperm donation recipients over three decades. Isr Med Assoc J. 2023;25(12):809–14.
pubmed: 38142320
De Wert G, Dondorp W, Shenfield F, Barri P, Devroey P, Diedrich K, et al. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 23: medically assisted reproduction in singles, lesbian and gay couples, and transsexual people. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1859–65.
pubmed: 25052011
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu183
Sawyer N. Sperm donor limits that control for the “relative” risk associated with the use of open-identity donors. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(5):1089–96.
pubmed: 20172868
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq038
Scheib JE, Ruby A, Benward J. Who requests their sperm donor’s identity? The first ten years of information releases to adults with open-identity donors. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(2):483–93.
pubmed: 27887716
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.023
Ronen M, Kaufman S, Kedem A, Avraham S, Youngster M, Yerushalmi G, et al. Sperm donors’ identity disclosure: is it REALLY crucial? For whom? J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2023.102337 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2023.102337
pubmed: 38160797
Burr JA. Anonymous or known donors? A brief discussion of the psychosocial issues raised by removing anonymity from sperm donors. Hum Fertil. 2013;16(1):44–7.
doi: 10.3109/14647273.2013.780664
Bauer T. A systematic review of qualitative studies investigating motives and experiences of recipients of anonymous gamete donation. Front Sociol. 2022;7: 746847.
pubmed: 35252431
pmcid: 8889113
doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.746847
Mahieu F, Decleer W, Osmanagaoglu K, Provoost V. Anonymous sperm donors’ attitude towards donation and the release of identifying information. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(10):2007–16.
pubmed: 31463872
pmcid: 6823408
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01569-9
Ronen M, Kedem A, Avraham S, Youngster M, Yerushalmi G, Hourvitz A, et al. Motivational stimuli to donate sperm among non-donor students. Basic Clin Androl. 2023;33(1):29.
pubmed: 37845630
pmcid: 10580632
doi: 10.1186/s12610-023-00201-2
Sims CA, Callum P, Ray M, Iger J, Falk RE. Genetic testing of sperm donors: survey of current practices. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):126–9.
pubmed: 19342039
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.139
Silver AJ, Larson JL, Silver MJ, Lim RM, Borroto C, Spurrier B, et al. Carrier screening is a deficient strategy for determining sperm donor eligibility and reducing risk of disease in recipient children. Genet Test Mol Biomark. 2016;20(6):276–84.
doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2016.0014
Pennings G. Expanded carrier screening should not be mandatory for gamete donors. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(6):1256–61.
pubmed: 32369167
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa088
Payne MR, Skytte AB, Harper JC. The use of expanded carrier screening of gamete donors. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(6):1702–10.
pubmed: 33842976
pmcid: 8129592
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab067
Arocho R, Lozano EB, Halpern CT. Estimates of donated sperm use in the United States: national survey of family growth 1995–2017. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):718–23.
pubmed: 31371048
pmcid: 6765402
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.031
Van den Broeck U, Vandermeeren M, Vanderschueren D, Enzlin P, Demyttenaere K, D’Hooghe T. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(1):37–51.
pubmed: 23146866
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms039
Freeman T, Jadva V, Tranfield E, Golombok S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(9):2082–9.
pubmed: 27412344
pmcid: 4991659
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew166
Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjö G, Lampic C. Psychosocial aspects of identity-release gamete donation—perspectives of donors, recipients, and offspring. Upsala J Med Sci. 2020;125(2):175–82.
pubmed: 31802698
doi: 10.1080/03009734.2019.1696431
Flatscher-Thöni M, Böttcher B, Geser W, Lampe A, Werner-Felmayer G, Voithofer C, et al. Worlds apart or two sides of the same coin? Attitudes, meanings, and motives of potential oocyte and sperm donors in Austria. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(2):287–96.
pubmed: 31916077
pmcid: 7056682
doi: 10.1007/s10815-019-01683-8
Hudson N, Culley L, Rapport F, Johnson M, Bharadwaj A. “Public” perceptions of gamete donation: a research review. Public Underst Sci. 2009;18(1):61–77.
pubmed: 19579535
doi: 10.1177/0963662507078396
Fauser BCJM, Boivin J, Barri PN, Tarlatzis BC, Schmidt L, Levy-Toledano R. Beliefs, attitudes and funding of assisted reproductive technology: public perception of over 6,000 respondents from 6 European countries. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(1): e0211150.
pubmed: 30682152
pmcid: 6347360
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211150
Golombok S, Cook R. A survey of semen donation: phase I—the view of UK licensed centres. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(5):882–8.
pubmed: 7929737
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138611
Hedrih A, Hedrih V. Attitudes and motives of potential sperm donors in Serbia. VSP. 2012;69(1):49–57.
doi: 10.2298/VSP1201049H
Lyall H, Gould GW, Cameron IT. Should sperm donors be paid? A survey of the attitudes of the general public. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(3):771–5.
pubmed: 9572451
doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.3.771
Onah HE, Agbata TA, Obi SN. Attitude to sperm donation among medical students in Enugu, South-Eastern Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;28(1):96–9.
pubmed: 18259910
doi: 10.1080/01443610701811928
Provoost V, Van Rompuy F, Pennings G. Non-donors’ attitudes towards sperm donation and their willingness to donate. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(1):107–18.
pubmed: 28895013
doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-1036-x
Fortier C. Religious and non-religious issues of medically assisted reproduction in France: sexuality, incest and descent. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2020;11:73–81.
pubmed: 33319080
pmcid: 7724286
doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.10.002
Farid MS, Tasnim S. Assisted reproductive technologies: comparing Abrahamic monotheistic religions. ABR. 2023;15(1):53–67.
pubmed: 36618956
doi: 10.1007/s41649-022-00224-3
Isaksson S, Sydsjö G, Skoog Svanberg A, Lampic C. Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1160–6.
pubmed: 25123638
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.038
Scheib JE, Cushing RA. Open-identity donor insemination in the United States: is it on the rise? Fertil Steril. 2007;88(1):231–2.
pubmed: 17531992
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.04.001
Pacey AA, Pennings G, Mocanu E, Rothmar J, Pinborg A, Adrian SW, et al. An analysis of the outcome of 11 712 men applying to be sperm donors in Denmark and the USA. Hum Reprod. 2023;38(3):352–8.
pubmed: 36617425
pmcid: 9977131
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deac264
Edwards J. Technologies of procreation: kinship in the age of assisted conception. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1999. p. 236.
Zadeh S, Ilioi EC, Jadva V, Golombok S. The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(6):1099–106.
pubmed: 29701833
pmcid: 5972639
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey088
Goldberg AE, Scheib JE. Female-partnered and single women’s contact motivations and experiences with donor-linked families. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(6):1375–85.
pubmed: 25883034
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev077
Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter CH, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1): hoz044.
pubmed: 32042927
pmcid: 7002185
doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoz044
Schenker JG. Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(3):310–9.
pubmed: 15820035
doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61789-0
Lampic C, Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjo G. Attitudes towards disclosure and relationship to donor offspring among a national cohort of identity-release oocyte and sperm donors. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1978–86.
pubmed: 25030191
pmcid: 4131739
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu152
Sydsjö G, Lampic C, Brändström S, Gudmundsson J, Karlström PO, Solensten N, et al. Who becomes a sperm donor: personality characteristics in a national sample of identifiable donors: personality characteristics of sperm donors. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;119(1):33–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03172.x
Pennings G. Maintaining an adequate sperm donor pool: modifying the medical criteria for sperm donor selection. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(10):2559–62.
pubmed: 34351538
pmcid: 8581105
doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02289-9
Ekerhovd E, Faurskov A. Swedish sperm donors are driven by altruism, but shortage of sperm donors leads to reproductive travelling. Upsala J Med Sci. 2008;113(3):305–14.
pubmed: 18991243
doi: 10.3109/2000-1967-241
Gudipati M, Pearce K, Prakash A, Redhead G, Hemingway V, McEleny K, et al. The sperm donor programme over 11 years at Newcastle Fertility Centre. Hum Fertil. 2013;16(4):258–65.
doi: 10.3109/14647273.2013.815370
Freeman T, Jadva V, Kramer W, Golombok S. Gamete donation: parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor. Hum Reprod. 2008;24(3):505–16.
doi: 10.1093/humrep/den469