Abstract
The aim of this study was to describe the phenomenon of sperm donation offered in informal settings and, more specifically, by contacts through the Internet. It documented the perceptions, experiences, and practices of a sample of Canadian donors and explored their motivations for becoming involved in the family projects of others. Eight semistructured interviews were conducted with men who had offered their sperm to couples or single women through one or more introduction websites. The results showed that the process leading to sperm donation outside fertility clinics is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the motives of those involved, logistics, and health concerns, as well as the possibility of having access to information on the genetic heritage of children conceived from these donations. The men applied different strategies to achieve their donations, engaging in a process of negotiation with the recipients, based on mutual trust and acceptance of the risks involved.
In Canada and worldwide, the number of Internet-based offers of gamete donation and surrogacy is substantial and growing. While it is difficult to measure the magnitude of this phenomenon, the emergence of this offer of assistance to reproduction outside of conventional medical channels has become even more pronounced with the advent of Web 2.0, as evidenced by the proliferation of digital platforms and the numerous advertisements circulating on them daily (Woestenburg, Winter, & Janssens, 2016). This is especially true for sperm donation, which, in contrast to egg donation or surrogacy, is a relatively simple, accessible, and inexpensive reproductive technique. In fact, some men offer to donate sperm to couples or single women in informal settings, such as through contact on the Internet (Harper, Jackson, Spoelstra-Witjens, & Reisel, 2017). This includes, for example, forums shared on Web platforms or Facebook groups created, organized, and maintained by the people directly concerned, with no private intermediary, such as an agency or sperm bank. Cursory browsing of Internet sites dedicated to donor-assisted reproduction showed not only that this phenomenon exists but also that access to information is relatively easy.
Whether performed within or outside the medical system, sperm donation calls for a certain form of altruism, given the time and energy invested in the process (Bay, Larsen, Kesmodel, & Ingerslev, 2014; Kalampalikis, Haas, Fieulaine, Doumergue, & Deschamps, 2013). The men using digital platforms are looking for contact with recipients that allow them to associate their donation with people’s life stories (Bossema et al., 2014). Some studies have shown that donors who choose this route rather than fertility clinics, in particular men who are gay and/or single, want to make contact with the intended parents and get to know them (Freeman, Jadva, Tranfield, & Golombok, 2016). They also wish to be kept informed about the development of children born from their donations and of their progress in the first years of life (Woestenburg et al., 2016). Their general motives echo those expressed by donors in fertility clinics or others who had provided their gametes to a person or couple among their friends: a desire to help others start a family, the desire to pass along their genes, and a symbolic projection of their own procreative identity, without claiming any paternal filiation from a legal standpoint or providing materially for the resulting children (Côté, 2012; Daniels, Kramer, & Perez-y-Perez, 2012; Riggs & Scholz, 2011).
To date, studies on the topic of sperm donation have mainly explored recipients’ perspectives or those of men offering their gametes either through fertility clinics or to persons with whom they have a relationship, such as friends or family members (Van den Broeck et al., 2013). Overall, little research attention has been devoted to the experiences and practices of men who donate sperm to strangers outside the medical system, as in the case of donors using introduction websites. Given the emergence of the Internet as a means of accessing assisted reproduction that avoids the regulations applying to medical clinics or sperm banks and the issues this raises (Ravelingien, Provoost, & Pennings, 2016), there is a need to document the point of view of sperm donors themselves to understand the variability in their experiences with respect to the social, legal, and health considerations associated with this practice. This article presents the results of a qualitative study undertaken to delineate more clearly the phenomenon of sperm donations being offered via introduction websites and to find out what motivates donors to become involved in others’ family projects. The article is divided into four parts. First, the subject of sperm donation is examined in light of the particular provisions of Canadian law, a necessary first step to understand the normative framework surrounding the practice. Then, the research strategy for the present study is described in detail, particularly the methodology and analytical framework used. After briefly describing the men encountered, the “Results” section presents the findings drawn from the data collected, while the “Discussion and Conclusion” section compares those findings with current knowledge, to identify further avenues of analysis and reflection on the place of third-party procreators and on the normative framework for this practice.
Sperm Donation in Informal Settings in Canada: Legal and Health Considerations
For over a decade, assisted reproduction practices in Quebec have been democratized, such that it is now possible to gain access to the genetic material of others to undertake a parental project without having to engage with a fertility clinic, at least when it comes to sperm donation (Bureau, 2009; Leckey, 2011). Known-donor insemination 1 can be accomplished either through sexual intercourse or through sperm donations between individuals, commonly referred to as “home insemination” (Kelly, 2010). In accordance with article 538 of the Act Instituting Civil Unions and Establishing New Rules of Filiation adopted by Quebec in 2002, this method is considered to be a form of assistance with a view to establishing a parental project formulated by the person(s) receiving the donation, which could be a heterosexual or lesbian couple or a single woman (Government of Quebec, 2002). In the case of a birth resulting from a sperm donation, the child’s filiation will be established in the same way as filiation by blood (article 538.1 of the Civil Code of Quebec). The child will have no legal bond with the donor, unless the sperm was donated through sexual intercourse in which case the donor has 1 year after the child’s birth in which to have his paternity recognized (Kelly, 2009). On this point, Malacket and Roy (2008) note the risks associated with a court challenge regarding the child’s filiation, observing that the intended parents are, for 1 year, exposed to the threat of blackmail by an ill-intentioned person who might demand compensation in exchange for renouncing any filial rights to the child. To avoid these pitfalls and clarify each person’s position in the absence of any regulations on the matter (Kelly, 2010), some donors have used homemade contracts, while others have preferred verbal agreements based on mutual trust (Côté, Lavoie, & de Montigny, 2015).
Even though the Civil Code of Quebec recognizes private third-party-assisted reproduction, Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act remains more ambiguous on the issue (Government of Canada, 2004), making no explicit reference to sperm donation between individuals (Kelly, 2010). According to one interpretation of the law, donors operating outside of medical channels would be contravening a federal regulation adopted pursuant to Canada’s Food and Drugs Act (Government of Canada, 2009), as sperm intended for assisted reproduction is considered to be a drug whose preservation and use are regulated to ensure its safety. As such, distributing fresh sperm in Canada without first obtaining a permit would be prohibited, as stipulated in the Processing and Distribution of Semen for Assisted Conception Regulations, and a Canadian donating sperm outside of medical channels could be subject to prosecution for violating this federal regulation. As reported by Goubau (2014), however, the Quebec government successfully contested this law in 2010 before the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing that assisted reproduction and related research activities come under provincial jurisdiction, being a matter of health and civil rights, and not of criminal law, which is under federal jurisdiction. Consequently, a Quebec donor may engage in this practice without fear of criminal prosecution.
Finally, the third-party insemination process, conducted among consenting adults without medical oversight, raises a number of health considerations, particularly with respect to safeguarding the health of the future mother and preventing the transmission of potential infectious agents from donor to mother and/or child (Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie, 2009). In fact, recipients of a sperm donation must rely on the donor’s word concerning the veracity of the medical information provided. This situation prompted Health Canada (2011) to issue an advisory on the potential dangers of using donor semen from “questionable sources” such as the Internet. Moreover, the population ratio of 10 children born per donation, as maintained by fertility clinics, is clearly not respected in this practice.
Method
After several weeks of online observation to become familiar with the phenomenon of online sperm donation, we selected three sites based on their popularity in Quebec and on their potential for providing easy access to contact information for francophone and francophile Internet users. The target population consisted of men offering their gametes via Internet sites, regardless of whether they had ever actually carried out a sperm donation. Participants were recruited through introduction websites that were devoted exclusively or partly to donor-assisted conception, such as open-access or free-registration discussion boards. Sixty-two published offers of sperm donation written in French, associated with 47 different email addresses, were gathered from these sites over a 1-year period. Following the recommendations of Thoër, Millerand, Myles, Orange, and Gignac (2012) regarding the ethics of online research and the obtaining of consent, an invitation to participate was sent out to each of the email addresses collected. Error messages were received from 10 of the addresses. After two attempts over a period of 3 weeks, 11 men responded, expressing interest in the project. We then contacted them directly by email to confirm their interest, explain the study’s objectives and measures to ensure confidentiality, and verify that they met the eligibility criteria. In the end, three of them either withdrew or did not follow up on the invitation, without giving any reason for their refusal.
Eight semistructured interviews (Savoie-Zajc, 2009) were conducted by the first author of this article, each lasting on average 1 hr. Six were conducted in person, one via Skype, and another through email correspondence. The interviews covered a variety of topics, including the events surrounding respondents’ decision to offer themselves as sperm donors, their use of the Internet as a means of contacting potential recipients, the processes leading up to their donations, and whether they had any interactions with the resulting children. Besides their motivation for offering sperm to people on the Internet, participants were asked open-ended questions regarding the process and different stages of sperm donation, such as “Can you describe the most recent donation you have made?” Other elements emerged spontaneously over the course of the interviews, for example, the efforts some had made to become much more knowledgeable about reproduction and the female menstrual cycle, or the impact of donating on their daily lives, both as a source of pride and as a well-kept secret.
The data collection procedure was inspired by the ideas and strategies suggested by Deslauriers and Deslauriers (2010) for qualitative research involving men. To mitigate any imbalance of power in the researcher–participant dialogue, the meeting was conducted in such a way as to allow respondents to exercise a form of control, for example, by choosing the time and place for the interview. The men were considered and welcomed as experts in the practice of offering gametes via the Internet; this attitude helped overcome their reluctance to open up to a stranger and reinforced their perception that their ideas were useful and relevant. This proved to be a judicious approach for this study, as the men recruited were initially reticent in discussing their experiences, fearing their statements would be distorted or taken out of context, or even that the invitation to participate might be the trick of a journalist seeking a sensationalistic story. In this respect, the ethics approval certificate issued by the Université du Québec en Outaouais (Gatineau, Canada) and the signing of a consent form were useful tools for clarifying the researcher’s role and responsibility and for informing participants of their rights.
The interviews were fully transcribed and then coded using NVivo 10 software, following standard thematic content analysis methods (Bardin, 2007). Symbolic interactionism, with its pragmatic approach and its focus on the construction of meaning and on social interactions (Poupart, 2011), offered a relevant theoretical perspective for this study to document the practice of sperm donation outside the medical system, especially via the Internet. This analytical framework is built on three basic principles: (a) people respond to events according to the meaning they attribute to those events, (b) this meaning is the product of interactions among the actors involved, and (c) this meaning is modified by the interpretive process used by each person. The meanings our respondents assigned to their sperm donation practice were shaped by dimensions covered in this study: use of the Internet as a place for encounters geared toward reproduction, the motives of the people involved and the bonds created among them, and the participants’ life histories, from which they derived the meaning they assigned to their behaviors.
The men interviewed (n = 8) were between 20 and 48 years of age, with an average age of 34.6 years. All identified themselves as heterosexual. At the time of the interviews, five donors were single and three were in couples. Three were legally recognized as fathers of one or more children born from a relationship (and not from a sperm donation); one was still in a relationship with the mother of his child, while the other two were separated or divorced. The participants had all published their first offers within the decade prior to the interview, the earliest in 2006 and the most recent in 2013. The frequency and number of donations varied considerably from one donor to another, some donated several times a week, and others a few times a year. Two had not yet carried out any donations for beneficiaries encountered online although they were currently in contact with Internet users. The remainder were genitors of at least one child conceived through sperm donation. The estimates of the number of children born from their donations remain approximate and are based solely on the information provided by the participants. Having said that, some estimated having contributed to over five births, while two of them reported several dozen.
Results
There was a great deal of variability in the sperm donors’ experiences, as seen both in the men’s profiles and in the personal histories that brought them to offer their gametes online. The pathways by which the men came to offer their gametes on the Web varied. Three had turned to the Internet after being refused by a fertility clinic, not having met selection criteria due to an insufficient estimated quantity of spermatozoids in their sperm sample, for instance, or their advanced age. Digital platforms devoted to donor-assisted reproduction thus offered them an opportunity to pursue their goals.
I’d been thinking about it for a long time, since I was about 20 years old. But I put off the decision indefinitely, and then it was kind of like the biological clock in women. It’s my “last call.” I think I probably won’t have any [kids] of my own. It was now or never. So my only option was to use the Internet. (Patrice)
Two participants donated both to sperm banks and to people they met through digital platforms. The other three avoided the medical system from the outset, being put off by mandatory medical tests and psychological evaluations of candidates. One of those men, Hector, also objected to the idea that his sperm donations could be associated with a form of commodification, not wanting private enterprise to derive profit from them in any way: “I felt that it [sperm bank] was a business I didn’t want to be involved in. Because for me—and maybe it’s my conservative and Catholic side—life-giving should never become a business. Period!”
Donors’ Reasons for Offering Their Sperm on the Internet
When asked why they offered their gametes to people they did not know, the donors raised three key motives. First, all were convinced their donation would help a woman or a couple start a family and could even contribute significantly to helping them realize an otherwise unattainable dream. Several also spoke about a trigger event, such as the infertility of someone close to them, that crystallized their intention to become a sperm donor.
I was in a relationship with a woman who couldn’t have children and wanted them. That made me very much aware of this problem. It’s a real ordeal that affects many people. I said to myself, “Okay, is there anything I can do to help them? What’s the best way to do it?” (Patrice)
One donor, Bertrand, believed men who were able to procreate had a responsibility to help people who could not. Referring to a “sense of duty,” he also mentioned the distress associated with male infertility:
I think there’s no gift greater than the gift of life. For a man, not being able to reproduce and continue a lineage is a pretty significant traumatic experience, especially in terms of self-esteem and confidence. If we can help, all the better.
Serge took things even further, seeing his practice as a means of recognizing and supporting gay parenting: “As for me, what I want is to be able to help lesbians become mothers. […] They’re good parents, and it makes me happy to help them.”
Second, some men wanted to ensure their progeny or, as Damien said, “leave one’s mark on Earth” by means of their genetic material. Through the transmission of genes, sperm donation is thus seen as a means of transcending the brevity of the human experience.
It’s a way of tricking and surviving one’s death. I’m going to leave my genes, I’ll be part of humankind’s history. […] My passage won’t be pointless. It won’t have been in vain. Leaving my genes is really a matter of instinct. When I die, I might die a little more at peace. (Patrice)
Third, others spoke about the satisfaction they felt from having fathered one or more children without having shouldered the daily role of parenthood. Olivier explained that it was “fulfilling to know [that people could want] our genes to make a baby,” highlighting the satisfaction derived from the requests from potential recipients. For his part, Jonathan clarified that “it doesn’t matter who wants it, as long as I don’t have to take on any responsibilities, it doesn’t bother me […] I like knowing I’ll have lots of kids.” For these men, the donation is a way of achieving a certain symbolic paternity grounded in their biological contribution, while respecting their own expectations and those of the donation’s beneficiary. Nevertheless, this way of achieving paternity is not without emotional consequences, as one donor described,
For sure, it’s a little overwhelming. The first time, when they told me it had worked, I was overwhelmed. I asked myself whether I would stop or keep on going. It was a happy day, because before then I wasn’t sure of my fertility. But it was also a sad day, a day of mourning, because I knew I had a child I would probably never see. Those were mixed emotions. (Patrice)
Recipients’ Motives as Perceived by Donors
Besides their own reasons for becoming involved in others’ parental projects, the donors also spoke about their perceptions of what motivated the recipients of their donations. They reported that the majority of those searching online for sperm donors are lesbian couples, then to a lesser extent heterosexual couples in which the man is infertile, and finally, single women. According to our respondents, these people opt for private sperm donation because, first and foremost, they want to meet the donor rather than selecting one from a brief description in a sperm bank catalog provided by fertility clinics.
Mainly, as I understand it, it’s that the women don’t like the fact that they won’t know the donor, that they can’t talk to him or meet him. Their children will most probably never know their biological father. […] They want to see the donor, to see if it’s someone whose genes they want to have. It’s important, after all. It’s half of their child’s genes! These are things the clinics can’t offer. (Damien)
The issue of access to genetic backgrounds is also a significant motivation expressed by the recipients encountered by donors. Donors are regularly questioned about their willingness to someday meet the children born from their donations, which appears to be an important condition particularly for lesbians, who will not be able to avoid eventual explanations, as they obviously had to use a third-party donor to start their family. In Canada, where state-funded assisted reproduction clinics use only anonymous donors, anyone seeking gametes from an open-identity (open-ID) donor must purchase them from outside the country. As this substantial cost is not generally covered by state-funded programs or private insurance, some single women or couples who want access to information about the donor turn to the Internet to meet this need. Serge elaborated on this subject:
One of the first questions lesbians ask me is whether I’m open to having my identity known by the child. This is a key factor in women’s decision not to use a clinic. I know there are some open-ID donors in the clinics, but there are fees for that.
Along the same lines, sometimes the bond between donors and recipients takes on a longer term perspective, especially regarding potential future donations. According to the men interviewed, some mothers are looking for a donor who is willing to provide sperm for several children, so that the children will all be related by blood.
I tell them they have a “lifetime subscription” because I understand the need. Often, in a lesbian couple, the only way to create a real family bond is for each partner to have a child with the same father, so that the children are really brothers and sisters. I commit to staying available to create a little brother or sister for all mothers to whom I’ve already given, or to their partner, even if it’s a new partner. (Patrice)
Finally, the donors felt that known-donor artificial insemination could reinforce women’s sense of control over the procreation process by enabling them to carry out their project at home. According to the participants, this was justified by previous negative experiences in fertility clinics.
The clinic, it’s very complicated. It involves lots of appointments, exams, tests. There’s that whole aspect. Many people find it impersonal, or didn’t like their experience in the medical system. […] That’s why they go on the Internet, to make their own decisions about the procedure and where to do the insemination, especially. (Hector)
Negotiating Assisted Reproduction Contracts
The donation process often extends over several months, from first contact online to the moment of the actual donation, with part of the process involving negotiation of the assisted reproduction contract. There are several elements to be negotiated between donors and recipients, such as the method (artificial insemination or sexual intercourse), logistics, and location. Patrice, a donor who had already made several dozen donations, gave a summary of the donation process:
As in any meeting over the Internet, there’s an information exchange and some checking to make sure we’re on the same wavelength. […] Mainly, I’m the one responding to questions. I tell them about my intentions, the classic “why I do this.” I show them my health tests; we discuss the procedure, the details, etc. From that, they can determine whether I’m a good match for what they want to do. It’s a process that starts out on the Internet and continues during the “negotiation,” let’s say. We meet in person only for the donation. Even afterward, we go back to the Internet for updates on how things are going.
Donors adapted to recipients’ schedules, with some donating early in the morning or late in the evening. None carried out the donation in their own residence, instead going to either the recipients’ residence or a hotel room. Some also offered a “car-delivery service” for people wanting to limit contact to the absolute minimum; in such cases, the donor would hand over a sperm sample in a sealed container, at a prearranged meeting in a park or on a street corner. All participants said they donated altruistically and did not seek remuneration, aside from travel costs when relevant.
Besides the logistical aspects of the donation procedure, the men talked about their expectations, for instance, regarding postdonation follow-up. Indeed, some expressed the need to be informed about what happened: Did the donation work? If so, what were the characteristics of the child? If it had failed, was another attempt planned? Damien shared,
For myself, anyway, I really like to know whether the child is loved and in good health. To me, that seems important. I also like to know the sex, first name, and to get a photo. After that, I say, “If you want to do more, I’m happy to oblige.” If I have that, I’m happy.
Negotiation frameworks varied in terms of disclosure and formalization. Five men routinely used a “contract” that described the parental project of the woman or couple and clearly spelled out the procreation method to be used and the donor’s role. Several templates are available on the Internet, some developed by donors themselves and others in collaboration with lawyers. Even though these documents are not legally binding, they nevertheless help clarify the situation in cases of conflict, for example, if a donor contests a child’s filiation or a mother seeks recognition of paternity and the associated responsibilities.
The important thing is to define the context really clearly, for example, we had no romantic relationship before the donation, we met through an Internet ad, the objective was a parental project, and it was well and truly an altruistic donation. With such a contract, it would be difficult for the mother to come after me for child support payments, or for me to claim paternity. (Hector)
Not all donors shared this position, however. Two participants felt a verbal agreement based on mutual trust was enough to satisfy the needs of all parties involved. Julian said the agreement was entirely moral in nature and was based on respect. If that trust were to be betrayed, he added, it would be “crucial to stop the fertilization project and look elsewhere.”
As evidenced by the diversity of their responses, many participants remained unsure about the legality of private donations between individuals. Both Olivier and Patrice said during their interview that the first time they had offered their sperm via an advertisement on an Internet forum, they had worried they were committing an illegal act, because the legal confusion surrounding the issue made it difficult for them to find out whether the practice was permitted and, if so, under what conditions. After obtaining advice from a lawyer friend, Patrice set aside his fears and pursued his activities.
Health Considerations, Risk Management, and Education
In general, donors were concerned about health considerations associated with their practice, as evidenced by the extensive documentation on the subject they posted online, the frequency of their medical testing, and their transparency toward beneficiaries. Several provided women with information and made them aware of the potential risks associated with privately conducted insemination at home. They were also mindful of the fears and judgments expressed by certain people or conveyed in the media regarding private sperm donation.
Yes, there’s the safety aspect. Even with my medical tests and attention to careful hygiene, there’s always a 3-month “gray zone.” Still, I keep up-to-date with my tests. I think I can say that what I offer is not all that risky. There’s really no call for a witch hunt, or for saying that because it’s outside the [medical] system, it’s automatically dangerous. (Patrice)
Two donors preferred to offer their gametes without much discussion of their health history or serological status. They believed the decision should be entirely up to the women and couples who solicit their genetic contribution. This reflected their preference for verbal agreements, without resorting to contracts. They justified their position of disregarding potential health risks on the basis that the procreation procedure was freely accepted by consenting adults.
Through their own personal research and Internet contacts, the donors felt they had become well-informed on procreation and methods of insemination and had developed the know-how for conducting their sperm donation practice. This experience-based knowledge sometimes led to their assuming the role of advisor to some recipients, who often did not know the ins and outs of impregnation by insemination at home.
What I tell them, and especially lesbian couples who don’t take it very seriously, is that I have a job to do, but that they also have a job to do, which is to stimulate the partner so that she’s lubricated and the pH of the vagina is changed, so that it’s temporarily receptive to spermatozoids. When that’s done, the chances are improved. That’s the type of advice I give them on the procedures to follow. (Serge)
To maximize the effectiveness of the process, donors took on the mission of making women aware of certain biological facts beforehand. For instance, donors stated that, besides explaining concepts such as the ovulation cycle to recipients in lay language, they also provided personalized support during the procreation process, guiding the recipients at each step of the way. Sometimes several attempts were needed, requiring significant time and energy.
There are a lot of women, especially the younger ones, who have no idea how things work. In those cases, I need to guide them through the whole process. It’s exhausting. They are sure it’s going to work the first time out. […] I have to undo some of their preconceived notions. Sometimes there’s resistance. They don’t take it well, they’re proud and don’t want to be told what to do. Sometimes it’s hard to work together in the beginning, but after that, they see that I know what I’m doing. (Patrice)
The Donation as a Source of Pride, But Conducted Very Discreetly
The participants were unanimous: Being able to help people start their families was a source of undeniable pride. Despite the occasional pitfalls or the considerable time involved, the donors felt their involvement in others’ parental projects was worthwhile. Negative experiences were rare and had mainly to do with not hearing from recipients after the donation, contrary to what had originally been agreed upon. This relatively positive overview could be attributable in part to the participants’ experiences, some of them having volunteered for the study to dispel certain myths surrounding the practice of sperm donation.
Nevertheless, this pride experienced by the donors was not communicated to their family or friends. Because of the social opprobrium attached to private sperm donation and real or imagined fears of rejection, the men rarely told anyone about their experiences. For most of them, the research interview was the only time they had spoken openly about the subject, aside from discussions online with other Internet users and potential recipients. Two donors explained,
I think most people believe it doesn’t exist. They know there are sperm donors, because of the film Starbuck
2
or other stories like that. Otherwise, I think it has a bad rap, especially on the Internet. […] They’ll think I’m heartless, I suppose. You give, and after that you don’t have any contact with the child, or very little, depending on the donors. It’s because of that, I think, that it’s seen as a really negative thing. (Jonathan) I’m not ashamed of doing this, but I don’t talk about it with my family, precisely because I want to avoid any reactions or debates. I don’t think they would be able to understand my motives. I don’t talk about it with my friends, either. (Olivier)
In that sense, the practice of Internet-initiated sperm donation offers them a relatively anonymous space in which they can engage in this activity without worrying about any direct consequences during the contact and negotiation stages, such as the possibility of being recognized or identified. Thus, mutual trust is vital for the success of the reproductive process.
Patterns of Relationship Among the Persons Involved
Participants’ views regarding their relationships, or lack thereof, with the people involved in the project—the single mother or parental couple, and the children conceived through the donation—were divided, reflecting the diversity of agreements established between donor and recipient(s) prior to donation. As they were not looking for any form of joint parenthood, donors and recipients seemed to have reached a shared understanding rapidly with respect to the exclusive nature of the legal filiation, seeing it as the prerogative of the mother or couple who formulated the parental project. The men all agreed that their role with regard to offspring was limited to genitor or biological father and that their involvement in the child’s daily life was neither expected nor wanted. In fact, none had any desire to claim any form of legal or social paternity; as Bertrand summed it up, “I don’t feel linked to those children just because they share my blood.”
Six men were nevertheless positively inclined toward the idea of eventually meeting their offspring, if those children ever felt the need, as the donors were interested in being part of the conception stories, as genitors, of the children born from their donations. Such contact would be brief and intended to answer the child’s questions, if any, and to “put a human face to an abstract idea” the child might have gotten from the mother or parents. None of the donors had faced this experience yet, as their offspring were all under 7 years old.
I would tell him [the child born from the donation] that we could meet for coffee. He could ask me all the questions he wants. That way he could get answers to his questions and not have to speculate about his biological father. He’ll see that I’m a normal person, and he’ll get on with his life. I have my family, I have my daughter. My own children are my family. I don’t want to take on the role of father for 10 children, that’s for sure. My aim is to avoid any confusion between the two. (Damien)
The other two donors wished to safeguard their privacy and exercised great discretion in carrying out their donations, even to the extent of not telling their wives or friends what they were doing. The Internet offered them an anonymous space that served their needs and those of their beneficiaries. To accomplish this, they adopted pseudonyms for their virtual conversations and revealed no information that could serve to identify them. Apart from the contacts made on the Internet and the meeting at the time of donation, the parties involved did not interact in any way.
The other aspect of the verbal agreement is that I drop out of the picture as soon as conception occurs. I simply disappear from the scene, as agreed. In fact, all the women I’ve dealt with don’t want any further involvement from me, which is exactly what I want, too. (Bertrand)
Only one donor appeared open to the idea of being present in the lives of offspring from his donations, not only to answer questions related to genetic heritage but also to take on a certain role in the recipients’ family system: “I have at least three or four mothers who have expressed an interest in keeping me present [in the children’s lives],” said Patrice. While still undefined at the time of the interview, such presence was being discussed among the adults concerned.
Discussion and Conclusion
Contrary to the conventional view of sperm donation as a disembodied act, the men’s decisions to offer their gametes for others’ parental projects were neither unmeditated, nor devoid of emotion (Riggs, 2009). Both donors and beneficiaries engage in a process that is very focused on expressing needs, sharing expectations, and negotiating the assisted reproduction agreement. Echoing the concept of “begetting” (don d’engendrement) proposed by the French sociologist Irène Théry (2010, 2012), gamete donation is not an isolated act performed without reflection, but rather a process that unfolds within a pattern of relationships formed by the intersecting motives and interests of each party. The desire to help single women or couples become parents is associated for the donors with an impulse toward genetic transmission or a symbolic projection of their own procreative identity. It does not represent a pretension to a formal paternal role, however, but rather a paternal bond in the ethereal sense. This dimension of paternity first developed by Mason (2008) then taken up by Nordqvist (2014) acknowledges the possibility of feeling attached to someone, even though the relationship is not based on any legal or social recognition. This ethereal dimension also manifests in the fluid and complex conception of paternity conveyed by the participants. While for them biology alone does not make a father and they refuse to take on any responsibilities with respect to that specific role, they agree that the children may want to get to know them or, at least, to understand the motivation behind their donation.
Nevertheless, donating sperm via online websites might differ from the two other forms of donation (fertility clinic donation and known-donor/friend donation) in terms of social perceptions attached to this practice. The anonymity associated with donations in fertility clinics and the nonmonetary nature of the act foster the construction of a discourse based on donor altruism. In these clinics, sperm is viewed simply as a biological material, analogous to blood. When sperm is donated in the context of a preexisting relationship between the donor and a lesbian couple who are friends, for example, the act is represented more as a gift, a sign of affection that helps consolidate the bonds among the protagonists (Côté, 2012). The donation process is lived openly and set within a formal or informal family system, with the relational aspect being salient in such cases (Côté et al., 2015). In contrast, web-based donors operate in an ambivalent space, as the donations between strangers are seen as marginal to other types of donations. Of course, being outside the medical system imparts a certain flexibility to the practice of web-based assisted reproduction, but it also carries a stigma that prompts donors to remain discreet and reveal their experiences only to a very small number of people. Even though all the donors interviewed took a certain pride in their actions, their donations were all carefully shielded from the observations of others. According to them, at best the digital context in which their donation practice is initiated and carried out provoked curiosity and surprise, but more often others expressed doubts regarding the donors’ mental stability or the nobility of their intentions. Several of them found the image of “serial donor” (Dumont, 2016) offensive, which is why some men confined their donation practice to their personal “secret garden.” This secretive tendency nevertheless raises challenges when it comes to donors requesting help, should an occasion arise where they feel a need for certain resources, or simply to talk about their experience. In this sense, the fear of being stigmatized is a factor that isolates these men, in a context where the male clientele already make limited use of health and social services (Tremblay & Deslauriers, 2014).
This study highlights the health considerations related to assisted reproduction conducted outside of medical channels and offers a more nuanced picture of certain preconceived notions about its dangers. The efforts made by some donors to provide their gametes in relatively safe ways (screening tests, sharing of medical information, use of sterilized materials for artificial insemination, etc.) showed they were mindful of the risks associated with this practice and did not pretend they were nonexistent. Consequently, they created a space that allowed the parties involved to reach a decision based on trust and mutual consent. Because freedom of choice and of action were important values for them, they used several strategies to inform women of their offer of gametes, their preferred methods and logistics, and the limits of their involvement. Such a collaboration thus depends entirely on the goodwill of the persons involved and their mutual acceptance of the risks entailed. In this context, neither the truthfulness of the information provided by the donor concerning his genetic heritage nor the quality of his sperm can be ensured beyond any doubt, in contrast to donations in fertility clinics. Although these active donors on the web took care to safeguard women’s health by sharing results of tests for sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBIs), some questioned the need to disclose other aspect deemed less dangerous, for example, disappointing results of sperm analysis. This discussion of health implications raises several ethical issues surrounding consent, as well as practical considerations for reproductive health. Here, we agree with Harper et al.’s (2017) statements on the need for all of the people concerned, both donation recipients and donors, to be informed regarding the full details and implications of the process of donor-assisted reproduction. It would be advisable, however, to develop tools online that depict the practice in a nuanced and noncaricatural way, not only emphasizing the health risks and concerns of course but also proposing strategies (notably for negotiating the agreement) that people can adopt to make an informed choice, suiting their needs and aspirations.
The study presented in this article is of scientific interest in two respects. First, it explores a dimension that has been neglected in research on family realities and assisted reproduction in the digital age by documenting the views of social actors directly involved in the phenomenon, that is, the sperm donors themselves. Indeed, this project provided an opportunity to include their voices in the discourse around this practice and to shed light on their experiences with gamete donation in the private context. Second, the participants’ narratives help to identify more clearly the contribution of third-party donors and their motives for becoming involved in the family projects of others, while documenting how Web 2.0 has been used and appropriated for purposes of gamete donation. Even though researchers have been studying the Internet as a place for information exchange on matters of sexual and reproductive health for more than 15 years (Thoër, 2012), very few studies thus far have explored the topic of assisted reproduction.
Our research does, however, present certain limitations. The first is that it was conducted in the specific sociolegislative context of the province of Quebec, which shapes donor practices in terms of the organization of assisted reproduction services and procedures for determining the filiation of children. As our objective was to shed light on donors’ perspectives and their connections with the recipients of their donations, we chose not to document in the present article the advertisements placed on the Web and the interactions observed online, but rather to present the statements made in the interviews. A more detailed study on Internet use is needed to describe the media practices of the various actors (Kivits, 2012). Also, the absence of homosexual donors in the sample is unfortunate, as their views might have provided some contrast to certain conclusions that were based solely on the experiences of heterosexual donors, notably concerning motives and relationships developed with the women or couples receiving the donations (Freeman et al., 2016). It would be helpful to build a sociodemographic profile of Canadian donors offering their sperm on the Internet, to better understand this population and establish its characteristics, as our online ethnography and the data collected during this study did not allow for this. It would also be useful to study the views, experiences, and practices of recipients to gain a better understanding, in particular of the pathways that lead single women and couples (both lesbian and heterosexual) to publish online requests for donations or to solicit the aid of a donor directly via a digital platform. Finally, for a comprehensive portrait of this phenomenon, it would be important for future research to include the views of children born from these donations and to compare the experiences of everyone involved.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the men who took part in this research project.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Canada Research Chair in Family Psychosocial Health based at the Université du Québec en Outaouais (Gatineau, Canada).