Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May;40(5):1063-1070.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-023-02776-1. Epub 2023 Mar 21.

Should patients pay for sperm given for free? Results from a pilot study on fertility clinics' views on the charging for altruistically donated sperm

Emma Rowlinson  1 , Sarah Martins Da Silva  2 , Nkoyenum Pamela Olisa  2 , Lisa Campo-Engelstein  3
Affiliations

Should patients pay for sperm given for free? Results from a pilot study on fertility clinics' views on the charging for altruistically donated sperm

Emma Rowlinson et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023 May.

Abstract

Purpose: Many countries prohibit payment for gamete donation, which means fertility clinics do not have to compensate donors. However, acquiring and utilizing donor sperm can still be expensive for fertility clinics. This study evaluates international fertility workers' views on charging patients for altruistically donated sperm.

Methods: Using social media and email, we disseminated a SurveyMonkey survey with a question that was specifically focused on opinions about charging patients for altruistically donated sperm. Clinicians were able to select multiple pre-populated answer choices as well as write answers that reflected their views as an open-ended response. Snowball sampling was utilized to reach international fertility clinicians.

Results: Of 112 respondents from 14 countries, 88% believe it is acceptable to charge for altruistically donated sperm based on one or more of four different assenting categories: so patients appreciate that sperm is valuable, because it generates funds for the running of the clinic, to cover specific costs associated with sperm, and to make a profit for the clinic.

Conclusions: The consensus that charging for altruistically donated sperm is acceptable was not surprising since recruiting and processing donor sperm can be expensive for clinics. However, there were geographical differences for specific assenting answer choices which may be based on countries' income, and healthcare system, as well as religious and cultural beliefs.

Keywords: Altruism; Clinician perspectives; International; Profit; Sperm donation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Range of compensation converted to euros and USD for sperm donors in countries that participated in the survey
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Screen capture of exact SurveyMonkey question distributed to participants. Participants were able to select more than one answer choice as well as type responses in the “other” free text box
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The distribution of participants (P) based on continent of origin of 112 fertility clinicians who responded to the question should fertility clinics charge patients for altruistically donated sperm. Europe (blue, P= 49), Africa (orange, P= 39), South Asia (pink, P= 16), North America (yellow, P= 6), South America (green, P= 1), and Australia (dark blue, P= 1). Clinicians from 14 countries responded, with Nigeria and the UK accounting for the majority at 40.2% and 33.0% respectively
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The number of responses (N) based on participant’s country of origin to each of the categories ask in the survey including: yes—so patients appreciate sperm value (N=43, 23.6%); yes—because clinics can profit (N=34, 18.7%); yes—because it generated funds to run the clinic (N=43, 23.6%); yes—only to cover costs associated with sperm (N=40, 22%); no—clinics should not profit (N=20, 11%); and no—other (N=2, 1%). Eighty-eight percent (N=160) of the overall responses (N=182) cited a “Yes” answer supporting charging for altruistically donated sperm
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The percentage of responses (N) by category for total number of Nigerian and UK survey participant responses respectively. Forty-five (P) UK clinicians participated and left 48 (N) responses with N=4 (8.3%) for yes, to appreciate value, N=2 (4.2%) for yes to generate profit, N=6 (12.5%) for yes to generate funds, N=23 (49.7%) yes to cover costs, N=12 (25%) for no, clinic’s shouldn’t make a profit, and N=1 (2.1%) for no, other reason. Thirty-seven (P) Nigerian clinicians participated and left 99 (N) responses with N=32 (32.3%) for yes, to appreciate value, N=29 (29.3%) for yes to generate profit, N=32 (32.3%) for yes to generate funds, and N=6 (6.1%) for yes to cover costs
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Yee S. ‘Gift without a price tag’: altruism in anonymous semen donation. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(1):3–13. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den347. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Henein M, Ells C. Towards a Patient-centred regulation of gamete donation in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(9):1338–1340. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2019.05.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nuffield Council on Bioethics . Human bodies: donation for medicine and research. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2011. pp. 19–39.
    1. Reid L, Ram N, Brown RB. Compensation for gamete donation: the analogy with jury duty. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2007;16(1):35–43. doi: 10.1017/S0963180107070041. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Commission, E. Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation for human tissues and cells Accompanying the document report from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the implementation of Directives 2004/23/EC, 2006/17/EC and 2006/86/EC setting standards of quality and safety for human tissues and cells. Brussels. 2016.

LinkOut - more resources