“Informal” donation in reproduction: Risks and opportunities

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The article considers motivation of users of the “informal” sperm donation services and the new social phenomenon of ‘co-parenting’ which is defined in the sociological context as a new model of parenting - when a child is raised by two parents who are not in a traditional marriage. This new social phenomenon is associated with the spread of assisted reproductive technologies, in particular gamete donation, which allows infertile couples and single people to realize their reproductive rights. At the same time, ‘third’ parents (donors) can be involved in both giving birth and raising a child. Co-parenting creates new social relations and transforms traditional institutions of family and parenthood, raising questions about the legal status, rights and responsibilities of all participants, and about the impact of such a parenting model on socialization. In the contemporary society, the problem of infertility can be solved with new reproductive technologies: in addition to the traditional search for donors (through reproductive clinics), an alternative method has recently become widespread - the search for a donor of gametes (reproductive cells) on specialized websites. “Informal” gamete donation reflects deep social-cultural shifts in relation to reproductive technologies, which generates changes in parenting models, ethical norms, social attitudes and values. The authors conducted an empirical study, the object of which was the database of one such website (N=2960). This study allowed to present a social-demographic profile of the user of specialized Internet resources for finding a partner for joint childbirth in Russia, and the main motives of male donors and female recipients were identified. The results indicate the need for the improved access to formal donor programs and programs involving third parties in the parenting project, for the development of ethical standards regulating practices of “informal” sperm donation, and for further research to identify social, ethical and psychological consequences of “informal” sperm donation and effective strategies to eliminate negative consequences of this practice.

About the authors

E. O. Nidergaus

Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia Boris N. Yeltsin

Author for correspondence.
Email: e.o.nidergaus@urfu.ru
Lenina Prosp., 51, Yekaterinburg, 620075, Russia

M. V. Valeeva

Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia Boris N. Yeltsin

Email: m.v.shcherbakova@urfu.ru
Lenina Prosp., 51, Yekaterinburg, 620075, Russia

I. G. Polyakova

Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia Boris N. Yeltsin

Email: irina.polyakova@urfu.ru
Lenina Prosp., 51, Yekaterinburg, 620075, Russia

References

  1. Argunova E.V. Dinamika reproduktivnyh ustanovok peterburzhenok fertilnogo vozrasta (2011–2021) [Dynamics of the reproductive attitudes of Saint Petersburg women of fertile age (2011–2021)]. Sociological Studies. 2023; 7. (In Russ.).
  2. Bogdanova E.E., Belova D.A. Kontseptualnye osnovy sovershenstvovaniya zakonodatelstva o vspomogatelnyh reproduktivnyh tekhnologiyah [Conceptual basis for improving legislation on assisted reproductive technologies]. Laws of Russia: Experience, Analysis, Practice. 2020; 6. (In Russ.).
  3. Gasanov R.M., Eliseev S.A. Pravovoe regulirovanie donorstva reproduktivnyh kletok: novye vyzovy i riski [Legal regulation of reproductive cell donation: New challenges and risks]. Bulletin of Economic Security. 2019; 2. (In Russ.).
  4. Kirichek E.V. Sotsialnye aspekty ispolzovaniya vspomogatelnyh reproduktivnyh tekhnologiy [Social aspects of the use of assisted reproductive technologies]. Journal of Social Policy Research. 2016; 14. (In Russ.).
  5. Meshcheryakova E.I., Aleksandrova N.A. Donorstvo spermy v kontekste vspomogatelnyh reproduktivnyh tekhnologiy: sotsialno-pravovye aspekty [Sperm donation in the context of assisted reproductive technologies: Social-legal aspects]. Family and Housing Legislation. 2020; 1. (In Russ.).
  6. Trusova A.V., Shulyanska I.V., Rusina N.A. Sotsialno-psikhologicheskie aspekty soroditelstva [Social-psychological aspects of co-parenting]. Family Psychology and Family Therapy. 2020; 3. (In Russ.).
  7. Tseluiko V.M. Transformatsiya instituta sem`yi i roditelstva v sovremennom rossiyskom obshchestve [Transformation of the institution of family and parenthood in the contemporary Russian society]. Bulletin of the Lobachevsky Nizhny Novgorod University. Series: Social Sciences. 2018; 2. (In Russ.).
  8. Chernova Zh.V., Shpakovskaya L.L. Novye roditelskie praktiki v sovremennoy Rossii: alternativnye formy roditelstva [New parenting practices in contemporary Russia: Alternative forms of parenthood]. Sociological Studies. 2016; 1. (In Russ.).
  9. Sheyafetdinova N.A. Soroditelstvo kak novaya tendentsiya v sotsialnyh otnosheniyah i pravovoy kulture Rossii [Co-parenting as a new trend in social relations and legal culture of Russia]. Law, Economics and Management: Current Issues. 2020. 1. (In Russ.).
  10. Bossema E.R., Janssens P.M.W., Treucker G.L., Landwehr F., van Duinen K., Nap A.W., Geenen R. An inventory of reasons for sperm donation in formal versus informal settings. Human Fertility. 2014; 17 (1).
  11. Van den Broeck U., Vandermeeren M., Vanderschueren D., Enzlin P., Demyttenaere K., D’Hooghe T. A systematic review of sperm donors: Demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Human Reproduction Update. 2013; 19 (1).
  12. Freeman T., Jadva V., Tranfield E., Golombok S. Online sperm donation: A survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Human Reproduction. 2016; 31 (9).
  13. Jadva V., Freeman T., Tranfield E., Golombok S. ‘Friendly allies in raising a child’: A survey of men and women seeking elective co-parenting arrangements via an online connection website. Human Reproduction. 2015; 30 (8).
  14. Jadva V., Freeman T., Tranfield E., Golombok S. Why search for a sperm donor online? The experiences of women searching for and contacting sperm donors on the Internet. Human Fertility. 2017; 21 (2).
  15. Lavoie K., Côté I., Montigny F. Assisted reproduction in the digital age: Stories of Canadian sperm donors offering their gametes online via introduction websites. Journal of Men Studies. 2017; 26 (3).
  16. Ravelingien A., Provoost V., Wyverkens E., Buysse A., De Sutter P., Pennings G. Lesbian couples’ views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor. Culture, Health & Sexuality. 2015; 17 (5).
  17. Riggs D.W., Russell L. Characteristics of men willing to act as sperm donors in the context of identity-release legislation. Human Reproduction. 2010; 26 (1).
  18. Volgsten H., Schmidt L. Motherhood through medically assisted reproduction — characteristics and motivations of Swedish single mothers by choice. Human Fertility. 2019; 24 (3).
  19. Whyte S., Torgler B. Determinants of online sperm donor success: How women choose. Applied Economics Letters. 2016; 23 (8).
  20. Woesternburg N.O.M., Winter H.B., Janssens P.M.W. What motivates men to offer sperm donation via the Internet. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2015; 21 (4).

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2024 Nidergaus E.O., Valeeva M.V., Polyakova I.G.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies