Commentary
The dangers of being a sperm donor

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.013Get rights and content

Abstract

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.

Introduction

In the debate about donor anonymity, few people have really considered the question of why many donors do not want their donor status revealed and why they want to remain anonymous. When a person helps someone, why does he fear that others find out? Sperm donation is a socially recognized and legally framed practice in most Western countries. Still, it is not fully accepted in daily life: it is not openly discussed among friends and family, and men do not tell others when they donated or have children by donation. Few people want to use donor spermatozoa, want to donate spermatozoa or want their partner or son to donate spermatozoa. Public campaigns to promote sperm donation are rare, while such campaigns have been set up for organ and blood donation. The reluctance to organize public campaigns may be explained by the lack of consensus about the social and moral acceptability of the practice. The ambiguous attitude towards sperm donation shows in two central causes of harm to the donor: stigmatization and attributional fatherhood. The wish to avoid this harm is a significant reason why many potential donors do not want to donate and why many donors do not want their donor status to be revealed and/or their identity to be disclosed.

Section snippets

Stigma and attributional parenthood

The best known cause of harm is the stigma attached to sperm donation (Haimes, 1993). This stigma is connected to certain aspects of the donation: sexuality (masturbation) and payment. Male masturbation is associated with moral disgrace and shame (Nordqvist, 2019). In particular, the connotation with a reprehensible form of sexuality (masturbation) is mentioned by donors as a reason not to talk to others about their donor status (Kalampalikis et al., 2006; Kirkman, 2004). The financial

Donor status and donor anonymity

Two steps can be distinguished in the possible harm to sperm donors. The first step is when a man's donor status is revealed. Contrary to what many people believe, being outed as a donor may be harmful. Being outed as a donor shows certain similarities with being outed as gay. Western societies are supposed to accept homosexuality and oppose discrimination in any form but discrimination against homosexuals is still very much a reality.

For many donors, anonymity may be the way to guarantee that

Avoiding harm in the future

How can this harm to donors be avoided? The macro solution would be to educate society in order to eradicate the genetic connection rule for kinship so that fatherhood would no longer be attributed to donors. Since this goal is unlikely to be reached in the near future, the focus should shift to a micro solution. The first option has proven its effectiveness: non-disclosure of the donor status and anonymity. However, this solution can no longer be guaranteed due to the existence of the genetic

Conclusion

Although sperm donation is seen as a socially accepted practice, the practice is still struggling against the ubiquitous rule in the rest of society in which fatherhood is linked to genetics. In other circumstances, siring children without rearing them is regarded as highly irresponsible. This paper has shown that not everyone in society accepts the exceptionalism of sperm donation in this regard and that some keep seeing the donor as a father. These people may blame the donor for not living up

References (27)

  • H. Draper

    Grandparents' entitlements and obligations

    Bioethics

    (2013)
  • G. Fuscaldo

    Genetic ties: are they morally binding?

    Bioethics

    (2006)
  • M.M Harrigan et al.

    Redefining family: an analysis of adult donor-conceived offspring's discursive meaning-making

    Iowa J. Commun.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text