PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentProhibiting sperm donor anonymity in the US and possible effects on recruitment and compensation

BioNews

Prohibiting sperm donor anonymity in the US and possible effects on recruitment and compensation

Published 4 April 2017 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 895

Authors

Andrew Hellman

Professor Glenn Cohen

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).

Many children conceived using donor sperm or eggs want to know their biological parents. In the US, some clinics make the identity of the sperm donor available to a donor-conceived child at age 18. Most intending parents, though, choose sperm donation pro

Many children conceived using donor sperm or eggs want to know their biological parents. In the US, some clinics make the identity of the sperm donor available to a donor-conceived child at age 18. Most intending parents, though, choose sperm donation programs that do not reveal the identities of the sperm donors – so-called 'anonymous sperm donation' (though some have questioned whether true anonymity is possible in a world of social media and direct-to-consumer genetic testing) (1).

In many parts of the world, laws now require sperm donor identities be made available to donor conceived children when they reach a certain age, typically 18. Since Sweden became the first country to pass such a law in 1985, other jurisdictions have followed suit, including Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and the UK. The Australian state of Victoria has prohibited anonymous donation since 1998 and now allows all donor-conceived people to apply for information about their donors – even those who donated before 1998 and did not consent to being identified (2). As many jurisdictions that allow anonymous donation, including the US, push for similar legislation, studying the matter empirically has become increasingly important.

In particular, if the US were to adopt a mandatory identification system, what would be the effect on the supply of willing sperm donors? A recent paper co-authored by one of us, Cohen, Coan, Ottey, and Boyd (2016) (3), attempts to answer this question using empirical methods to study current US sperm donors.

The UK's HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) provides a good model of a legally required identification system. UK law requires donors to enter personal information into the HFEA registry, including non-identifying information – the donor's physical description, year and country of birth, and marital status, for example – and identifying information – the donor's name, birth date, and last known address. A donor conceived child can apply for their donor's non-identifying information at age 16 and for their identifying information at age 18. Some observers have raised concerns that legally prohibiting donor anonymity could considerably reduce the number of men willing to be sperm donors, but others dispute that claim or think the UK data are inconclusive. In any event, both the reproductive technology industry and attitudes towards openness and family identity vary significantly from country to country. Therefore, while useful, studies of the UK and other countries can only tell us so much about how mandatory identification would affect the pool of willing donors in the US. Would mandatory identification decrease the pool of willing donors? If so, could paying donors more make up for those who would opt out of donating under a mandatory identification regime?

To our knowledge, Cohen and Coan (2013) (4) was the first experimental study to explore the effects of mandatory identification laws on individual preferences for sperm donation. The study asked 393 US males between the ages of 18 and 60 what they would need to be paid in order to donate sperm. Participants were assigned to two groups: those in the control group were told that identifying information was protected by anonymity, consistent with US law, while participants in the treatment group were told that registration of identifying information was mandatory, consistent with UK law. The study found that, on average, participants in the mandatory identification group needed to be paid about $40 more to donate than subjects in the anonymous donation group. Among the 332 participants who reported that they would actually consider donating sperm, the mandatory identification group required $31 more. While the results were suggestive, the study faced a major limitation in that study participants were not sperm donors. Because sperm banks are highly selective, accepting fewer than 10 percent of prospective donors, a group drawn from the general American male population, as the study participants were, may not be representative of actual US sperm donors.

The newer study, Cohen, Coan, Ottey, and Boyd (2016), sought to return to the same research question with a different sample: actual US sperm donors. The study recruited active and inactive donors from a major (and typical) US sperm bank, ultimately garnering responses from 67 active and 94 inactive donors. Of the 161 respondents, 90 are (or were) anonymous donors and 71 are (or were) open identification donors. Participants in the treatment group were first given information explaining the mandatory identification system as implemented in the UK, including the kinds of information donors must disclose, and told to imagine they were donating in the context of such a program. The control group was given no information about mandatory identification. Both groups asked to provide the amount of money needed to donate (including an option not to donate at any price). More specifically, the treatment group was asked in reference to the UK mandatory identification law: 'If US law was changed in this way, how much money, if any, would you need to be paid in order to donate your sperm?'

The study found significant differences between the treatment and control groups. Nearly 30 percent of participants who were willing donors under the current anonymity regime indicated they would refuse to donate under a mandatory identification regime. Among the participants who did not flat-out refuse, those in the mandatory identification group on average requested $102 more per donation than those in the protected anonymity group. The data from the full sample were skewed by five participants who asked for anywhere between $500 and $5000 more to donate in the mandatory identification condition. But even after removing all participants who asked for more than $400 – five times the current pay for donors – participants on average asked for $40 more to donate with mandatory identification than anonymously. In other words, almost 30 percent of currently willing donors would opt out entirely if mandatory identification were required, and those donors who would still be willing would expect somewhere between $40 and $102 more per donation.

Our results illustrate the challenges that legislation requiring mandatory identification could impose on the supply of sperm donation in the US. Under a mandatory identification regime, sperm banks might need to spend more on donor recruitment and compensation in order to maintain an adequate supply of sperm donors. Alternatively, sperm banks could broaden their criteria for eligible donors. Whether such a change in standards would be positive or negative depends, in part, on how much of the current standards reflect success rates and health requirements as opposed to the preferences of the recipients of the sperm. Some qualities banks screen for, such as the ability for sperm to freeze well and that sperm be free of STIs, sexually transmitted infections, or serious genetic diseases are likely non-negotiable. Finally, it is worth emphasising that US sperm banks have complete discretion to alter compensation, which makes them quite different from sperm banks in other countries that have strictly regulated what sperm donors can be paid.

Related Articles

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
28 September 2018 • 1 minute read

Sperm shortages force Tokyo hospital to end donor insemination

by Jonathan Bestwick

A shortage of sperm donors has forced a Japanese hospital to stop offering couples a certain type of fertility treatment...

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).
News
7 March 2017 • 2 minutes read

Donor anonymity comes to an end in Victoria, Australia

by Rikita Patel

People conceived using donor eggs or sperm now have a legal right to identifiable information about their biological parents in Victoria, Australia...

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).
Comment
28 February 2017 • 3 minutes read

Regulating the donor-conception industry in the US

by Wendy Kramer

In the US, the donor-conception industry is largely unregulated, and there is wide variation in egg- and sperm-bank policies and procedures. Problems often arise as a result of lack of consistency around medical testing, health history follow-up, sharing

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).
Reviews
14 November 2016 • 6 minutes read

Book Review: Regulating Reproductive Donation

by Dr Antony Starza-Allen

This collection of essays from leading lawyers, fertility professionals, social scientists, ethicists, and others documents the experiences of families engaging in assisted conception, adding to the growing body of empirical studies in this area...

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).
Comment
21 March 2016 • 3 minutes read

Retrospective removal of donor anonymity: respectful, fair, grateful and moral? An evidence-based argument

by Professor Eric Blyth and 1 others

The Government of Victoria should be applauded for confronting a dilemma that so many others have avoided...

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).
Comment
14 March 2016 • 3 minutes read

Disrespectful and immoral: retrospective legislation on donor anonymity

by Professor Guido Pennings

The State Legislature of Victoria has decided unilaterally to break their agreements with the sperm donors who donated before 1998 and will reveal their identity. It is difficult to imagine a measure that shows more disrespect for both donors and recipients...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Going home and forgetting about it: a different perspective on donors and donor conception

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.

Find out how you can advertise here
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Popular
  • Recent
8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Was the Women's Health Strategy worth the wait?

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Why the UK should extend the 14-day rule to 28 days

25 July 2022 • 5 minutes read

200 Years of Mendel: From Peas to Personalised Medicine

8 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Citizenship and same-sex parents – about time, Sweden!

8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Was the Women's Health Strategy worth the wait?

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Why the UK should extend the 14-day rule to 28 days

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856