An inventory of reasons for sperm donation in formal versus informal settings.

The shortage of sperm donors in formal settings (i.e., assisted reproduction clinics) and the availability of sperm donors in informal settings (such as through contacts on the internet) motivated us to investigate why men may prefer either a formal or an informal setting for sperm donation. Interviews with ten sperm donors and non-sperm donors yielded 55 reasons for sperm donation in the two settings. These reasons were categorized according to similarity by 14 sperm donors and non-sperm donors. These categorizations were then structured by means of hierarchical cluster analysis. Reasons favouring formal settings included being legally and physically protected, evading paternal feelings or social consequences, and having a simple, standardized procedure in terms of effort and finances. Reasons favouring informal settings related to engagement, the possibility to choose a recipient, lack of rules and regulations, having contact with the donor child, and having an (intimate) bond with the recipient. The overview of reasons identified may help potential sperm donors decide on whether to donate in a formal or informal setting, and may fuel discussions by professionals about the most appropriate conditions and legislation for sperm donation in formal settings.

A taxonomy of possible reasons for and against sperm donation.

OBJECTIVE: Various reasons may guide the decision of men to become a sperm donor. Our aim was to identify a comprehensive set of possible reasons for and against sperm donation. DESIGN: Concept mapping. SETTING: Assisted reproduction clinics. SAMPLE: Nine sperm donors and seven non-sperm donors. METHODS: Interviews to obtain statements for and against sperm donation, card-sorting tasks to categorize these statements according to similarity, and hierarchical cluster analysis to structure these categorizations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hierarchical structure with reasons for and against sperm donation. RESULTS: The hierarchical structure with 91 reasons comprised selfishness (including narcissism and procreation), psychosocial drives (including altruism, detached procreation, and sexual/financial satisfaction), and psychosocial barriers (including normative and moral barriers related to oneself, one's spouse, the donor child, and society). CONCLUSIONS: The identified hierarchical overview of reasons for and against sperm donation may help potential sperm donors when considering becoming a sperm donor, enable more systematic counseling of potential sperm donors, and guide further research on reasons for and against sperm donation.