Sperm Donors – a National Shortage?
Beth Sullivan

In 2005 the law affording anonymity to UK Sperm donors changed. Children conceived by sperm donor cycle were granted the right to approach The Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority (HFEA) and request the identity of genetic parents. The ruling did not apply retrospectively and it won’t be until 2023, when the first enabled child reaches 18, that this information will be released. A furor of negative speculation surrounded the revision. Experts warned that the lack of anonymity would deter potential donors, in spite of enabled children having no prospect of a financial or legal claim against them. When the HFEA published the figures for sperm donor registration, instead of confirming the predicted fall, numbers had risen, from 272 in 2005 to 303 the following year, not only disproving the widely believed portent, but also reversing a 3 year slump.

An existing model

Sweden had already undergone an amendment to its own anonymity laws. The rights of native sperm donors to remain unaccredited were revoked in 1985. Instead of discouraging donors, the identity disclosure ruling only changed the nature of the applicant. Pre-ruling, the majority of donors were young single men. Post-ruling saw an influx of older males, many of whom were in stable relationships with children of their own. Donor intentions were considered to be more altruistic in nature. The UK has followed suit and seen a similar shift in donor characteristics.

Shortage

Despite no decline in registered sperm donors since the 2005 change in law, accordant media continue to claim there is a national shortage. Bionews reported that at the Progress Educational Trust debate on the topic in 2009 ‘the removal of entitlement to donor anonymity’ was a major factor discussed by delegates considering the shortage. The HFEA has considered raising the number of families one donor can assist from 10 to 20 in an effort to combat the perceived deficiency. A belief given further credence by the long wait faced by would be parents, some of which have sought donors in Denmark, Spain and the US. This practice of ‘fertility tourism’ sparked further concern. Many seeking treatment outside the EU encounter clinics not subject to the rigorous regulatory standards demanded in the UK. In some countries there is no obligation to screen donors for genetic problems or infections like HIV.

The reality

The HFEA finally revealed that failing administrative procedures in clinics were responsible for protracted waiting lists. The failure to track the number of births enabled by a single donor has led to sperm being held back for fear of surpassing the 10-birth restriction. It has been reported that the average sperm donation made between 2006 and 2008 assisted only 1.5 families, well below the 10 family cap. Laura Witjens, chair of the National Gamete Donation Trust, said, ‘this waste amounts to 85%.’ It can be argued that some instances of low facilitation are due to donors imposing limits upon their own donations. Though this remains their prerogative, 80% of donors agree with the 10 family curb. Despite this, only six of the 975 donors registered between 2006 and 2008 enabled 10 families, a figure representing less than 1%. In defense of these allegations, clinics explained how frozen sperm stock sold to secondary clinics proved problematic. As the first vendor clinic retains responsibility for keeping track of births, the task of accounting for enabled families is left to them. Many reported difficulties in chasing secondary clinics for follow up data. Classification is another issue. Frozen embryos from donor sperm: are they to be counted as a pregnancy? These issues cause problems with monitoring the limit, which in turn may erect barriers to donor supply.

A review of procedure

With the number of donors approaching 500, it is thought to be enough to satisfy the needs of the British public. In fact Witjens made a controversial statement to this end, ‘at this point in time, we have enough donors.’ It would seem that clinics must review their procedures and the HFEA consider why donations fail to reach the potential dictated by their own policy. For them to debate an increase in the family limit to 20 seems pointless with the current infrastructure in place. Until these issues are addressed, the HFEA should concentrate on utilising the stocks already present and not pursuing shortage claims.
——

Beth Sullivan is a freelance writer from England who writes for a number of technology journals covering business supply and company strategies. Applying this analysis to the donor issue she was surprised how little the assertions of the mainstream press are supported.

The Importance of Reporting Your Child’s Birth and Any Medical Issues

In addition to posting on the DSR, it is very important you report all pregnancies and births to your clinic and/or sperm bank. Banks need to be aware of any adverse outcome such as birth defects and suspected/confirmed genetic disorders. Sometimes, the first indication that the donor may be a carrier of a previously unsuspected genetic disease is from a report of a birth defect. Reporting all births also plays a important part in some sperm bank’s efforts to limit the number of pregnancies and or births for any one donor.

Please research these policies before choosing a sperm bank. (Not on the sperm bank’s website, but rather from DSR families’ experiences). For example, parents reported to us that Fairfax Cryobank continued to sell the sperm of the donor with the reported 150+ children, even after being notified by several of the mothers that their half-sibling group was getting too large (when it was at about 60). California Cryobank says that they have implemented some recent policies that are helping them to better follow up with recipients. But reporting births and illness is not the end of the story. Sperm banks desperately need to initiate policies to regularly update all donors’ medical files (even those from ten or twenty years ago) and have both the information, and the ability to then share it, with the families.

And donors, in addition to posting on the DSR, please report any illness or genetic issues that you have found out about since donating to your sperm bank or egg clinic! Our research showed that most donors (96% of egg donors and 84% of sperm donors) have never been contacted for medical updates, yet between a quarter to a third of them said that they (or close family members) did indeed have medical issues that would be of interest to families. Chances are slim that you will hear from your sperm bank or egg clinic, so please take it upon yourself to report any medical issues. Think of the children that you may have helped to create, and how this information could greatly benefit them and their families.

How many of you have called your sperm bank for information on your donor or your offspring, and been told “sorry….the files are in the basement” or “sorry…our old paper files are a pain to access”?

There are several sperm banks who do not have immediate, computer access to their files on donors and offspring. California Cryobank, Idant are the first two that come to mind. Recipients, offspring and donors who call for information are frequently told, “the files are offsite” or “in the basement” and then told how impossible or inconvenient it would be to access them. Then, they are given incomplete information.

Ok sperm banks, it’s time to pull the files, hire a couple of summer interns, and have all your records up to date and complete, immediately accessible via computer, for the families calling in either looking for information, or calling to report information. This is the ethical, right, and responsible thing to do, as you are the guardians of important familial and medical information for thousands of families.

You should have all reported pregnancies and births, and all reported medical information at your fingertips….not in the basement, not offsite, and not inaccessible.