Israeli Students' Perceptions Regarding Sperm Donation: Dilemmas Reflections with Dominant Demographic Effect

Overview

Journal Reprod Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2024 Mar 19

PMID 38500168

Authors

Itai Gat

Maya Ronen

Sarit Avraham

Michal Youngster

Ariel Hourvitz

Osnat Levtzion-Korach

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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: 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: 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: 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.

References

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. DOI: 10.1177/0963662507078396. View

Ronen M, Kedem A, Avraham S, Youngster M, Yerushalmi G, Hourvitz A . Motivational stimuli to donate sperm among non-donor students. Basic Clin Androl. 2023; 33(1):29. PMC: 10580632. DOI: 10.1186/s12610-023-00201-2. View

Pennings G . Maintaining an adequate sperm donor pool: modifying the medical criteria for sperm donor selection. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(10):2559-2562. PMC: 8581105. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02289-9. View

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. PMC: 4991659. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew166. View

Sydsjo G, Lampic C, Brandstrom S, Gudmundsson J, Karlstrom P, Solensten N . Who becomes a sperm donor: personality characteristics in a national sample of identifiable donors. BJOG. 2011; 119(1):33-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03172.x. View

Goldberg A, Scheib J . Female-partnered and single women's contact motivations and experiences with donor-linked families. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(6):1375-85. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev077. View

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. PMC: 7724286. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.10.002. View

Scheib J, 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. 2016; 107(2):483-493. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.023. View

Ekerhovd E, Faurskov A, Werner C . Swedish sperm donors are driven by altruism, but shortage of sperm donors leads to reproductive travelling. Ups J Med Sci. 2008; 113(3):305-13. DOI: 10.3109/2000-1967-241. View

10.

Arocho R, Lozano E, Halpern C . Estimates of donated sperm use in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth 1995-2017. Fertil Steril. 2019; 112(4):718-723. PMC: 6765402. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.031. View

11.

CONRAD E, Fine B, Hecht B, 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. View

12.

Eskenazi B, Pies C, Newstetter A, Shepard C, Pearson K . HIV serology in artificially inseminated lesbians. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1988). 1989; 2(2):187-93. View

13.

Gudipati M, Pearce K, Prakash A, Redhead G, Hemingway V, McEleny K . The sperm donor programme over 11 years at Newcastle Fertility Centre. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013; 16(4):258-65. DOI: 10.3109/14647273.2013.815370. View

14.

Isaksson S, Sydsjo 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.038. View

15.

Bauer T . A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies Investigating Motives and Experiences of Recipients of Anonymous Gamete Donation. Front Sociol. 2022; 7:746847. PMC: 8889113. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.746847. View

16.

Fauser B, Boivin J, Barri P, Tarlatzis B, 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. PMC: 6347360. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211150. View

17.

Pennings G . Expanded carrier screening should not be mandatory for gamete donors. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(6):1256-1261. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa088. View

18.

Golombok S, Cook R . A survey of semen donation: phase I--the view of UK licensed centres. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9(5):882-8. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138611. View

19.

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. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq038. View

20.

Silver A, Larson J, Silver M, Lim R, Borroto C, Spurrier B . Carrier Screening is a Deficient Strategy for Determining Sperm Donor Eligibility and Reducing Risk of Disease in Recipient Children. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2016; 20(6):276-84. PMC: 4892196. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2016.0014. View