Australian sperm donors: Public image and private motives of gay, bi-sexual and heterosexual donors
Margie Ripper
Department of Social Inquiry, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA
PP: 313 - 325
Abstract
This paper contributes to debate in Australia about sexuality-based restrictions on access to Assisted Reproduction Services, particularly sperm donation by gay and bi-sexual men. It utilises content analysis of print-media and reveals that the public image of sperm donation is saturated with concern about risk, particularly risk to heterosexual donors and their property, from claims made by recipient women and their children.
In contrast, a detailed analysis of the profiles of men who register to donate sperm through the Australian Sperm Donor Registry reveals that most donors are open to identity disclosure. However a marked difference is evident between heterosexual and gay/bisexual donors with the latter being significantly more likely to desire contact with children born of their donations.
It appears sperm donation offers gay and bi/sexual men an opportunity for family formation and parenting which is denied by Australian laws and clinical practices that exclude them from Assisted Reproduction Services and adoption.
Keywords
donor insemination, sperm donor motivation, sociology, sexuality
References
Australian Sperm Donor Register. Accessed at http://www.australianspermdonorregistry.net/ on 18 August 2007.
Carabine J (2001) Unmarried Motherhood 1830-1990: A genealogical analysis, in Wetherell M, Taylor S and Yates S (eds) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis, Sage Publications: London, pp.267-307.
Dalley H (2004) Sperm banking on the internet, Ninenews September 19. Accessed at http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1646.asp?s=1 on 12 October 2007.
Daniels KR (1989) Semen donors: Their motivations and attitudes to their offspring, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 7(2): 121-127.
Daniels K, Blyth E, Crawshaw M and Curson R (2005) Previous semen donors and their views regarding the sharing of information with offspring, Human Reproduction 20: 1670-1675.
Fife-Yeomans J (2007) Children win the right to inherit, The Daily Telegraph March 16: 7.
Frith L, Blyth E and Farrand A (2007) UK gamete door's reflections on the removal of anonymity: Implications for recruitment, Human Reproduction 22(6): 1675-1680.
Janssens PMW, Simons AHM, van Kooij RJ, Blokziji E and Dunselman GAJ (2006) A new Dutch law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: Background, content and impact, Human Reproduction 21(4): 852-856.
Kirkman M (2004) Saviors and satyrs: Ambivalence in narrative meanings of sperm provision, Culture, Health and Sexuality 6: 319-335.
Lalos A, Daniels K, Gottleib C and Lalos O (2003) Recruitment and motivation of semen providers in Sweden, Human Reproduction 18: 212-216.
Lupton D (1994) Moral Threats and Dangerous Desires: AIDS in the News Media, Taylor & Francis: London.
Paine M (2007) Tassie SOS for sperm donors, Hobart Mercury March 19: 3.
Riggs DW (2008) Lesbian mothers, gay sperm donors and community: Ensuring the wellbeing of children and families, Health Sociology Review 17(3).
Ripper M (2007) Fishing for taddies: Emotion work in lesbian women's search for sperm donors in South Australia, Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review 3(1): 16-24.
Rowland R (1983) Attitudes and opinions of donors on an artificial insemination by donor programme, Clinical Reproduction and Fertility 2: 249-259.
Scheib J and Cushing R (2007) Open-identity donor insemination in the United States: Is it on the rise? Fertility and Sterility 88(1): 231-232.
eContent Home
