Former sperm donors view experience as "Unproblematic Past Chapter"
Experiences and attitudes of Danish men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago: A qualitative interview study (Lou, 2023)
Lou, S., Bollerup, S., Terkildsen, M. D., Adrian, S. W., Pacey, A., Pennings, G., Vogel, I., & Skytte, A.-B. (2023). Experiences and attitudes of Danish men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago: A qualitative interview study. PLOS ONE, 18(2), e0281022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281022
Geographic Region: Denmark
Research Question: What are the experiences and attitudes of men who were sperm donors more than 10 years ago, particularly their long-term perspectives on donation, anonymity, and potential contact with donor-conceived persons?
Design: Semi-structured interviews conducted by phone or video from May to September 2021. Data analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Sample: Former donors were contacted in batches by the Cryos Research Team to be invited to participate in a range of studies. 39 former donors were invited to participate in this specific study, and 29 consented to be contacted. 23 former donors participated.
Age ranged from 33-52 years old
Mean age at first donation was 27 years
Mean time since the first donation was 15 years (range 12-25)
21 were anonymous
17 currently had partners
16 were raising children
Key Findings
Most men viewed sperm donation as a closed chapter belonging to the past, considering it unproblematic and irrelevant to their current lives.
Primary motivations to donate were financial compensation and altruistic desires to help others. An additional motivation for some men was curiosity about their sperm quality. Anonymity was crucial for most donors' decision to participate. It was often described as a way to protect their future self from unwanted and unpredictable consequences.
When addressing their perceived, potential relationship or relatedness to donor offspring, many men found it difficult to articulate or define, often asking the researcher to repeat or re-phrase the questions. Most men clearly distinguished between genetic contribution and fatherhood.
Almost all donors had informed their current partners about their past donation. A few men described their wives as a ’a bit unhappy’ with not having the sole rights to the man’s gene pool. This could indicate that some partners attached meaning to genetic relatedness and that the past donorship threatened the exclusivity of their offsprings’ genetic relatedness.
None of the donors' own children knew about their father's donation history, mainly due to their young age. Donors expressed concerns about: how their own children would react when eventually told, potential disruption to their children's lives if donor offspring made contact, and protecting their children's wellbeing and family stability.
Most donors acknowledged donor-conceived persons' interest in genetic heritage but prioritized their own right to anonymity. However, many former donors imagined how being confronted with an ’actual, living person’ would probably make it difficult not to get engaged in that person’s life, even if they were initially not interested in it. The men who had been anonymous donors had generally not given offspring contact much thought and had not planned for what to do if their donor children found them.
Knowledge about recipients and offspring was seen as potentially "damaging" as it could create unwanted feelings of relatedness and responsibility.
When I was younger, I didn’t care [about the fate of offspring]. But today, I have children of my own and I realise how dependent they are–on love and good surroundings. So, in some ways I am concerned [for DCP], and there is a sort of relief that I don’t know who they are. […] If one of the children were born into a deeply dysfunctional family, then that would make me upset. I would feel responsible. Therefore, it’s better not to know.
Limitations: Possible selection bias in recruitment through sperm bank. Limited number of non-anonymous donors in the sample.
Applications: Donor counseling needs to comprehensively address long-term implications, including potential impacts on future partners and children, the possibility of anonymity breaches through genetic testing, and strategies for managing unexpected contact.
Funding Source: Cryos International and Novo Nordisk Foundation (Grant No. NNF16OC18722)
Lead Author: Stina Lou is a researcher at DEFACTUM–Public Health Research, Central Denmark Region and the Department of Clinical Medicine at Aarhus University, with expertise in qualitative research on reproductive health.
Regulatory Context
Before 2007, only anonymous sperm donation was allowed in Denmark. After 2007, both anonymous and non-anonymous sperm donation were permitted. Offspring can access non-anonymous donor’s identity at age 18.
Denmark is known for its large sperm banking industry.
Lesbian couples and single women gained access to fertility treatment in 2006.
No restrictions on donor compensation.