UK national sperm bank has just nine donors

ancapailldorcha

BBC wrote:

Just nine men are registered as donors a year after the opening of Britain's national sperm bank in Birmingham.
It is now planning a recruitment drive, with chief executive Laura Witjens saying that appealing to male pride may be an effective way to boost donations.
She has suggested a new campaign featuring a cartoon superhero, echoing a successful strategy in Denmark.
A change in UK law in 2005, removing anonymity for sperm donors, is thought to have led to a drop in volunteers.
Ms Witjens said she hoped adopting the "superman" message would help, but it could still take five years before the national sperm bank had enough donors.
She told the Guardian: "If I advertised saying 'Men, prove your worth, show me how good you are', then I would get hundreds of donors."

Source.

Not overly keen on the word of this "show your worth" maxim. In any case I don't think it'd be something I'd be too keen on myself. Sperm donors can't be held accountable for maintenance nor can they track down any offspring produced by the donation though the offspring can track down the donor should they themselves decide to do so.

eviltwin

What a horrible message, what does it say about men who can't father children. I think the law in the UK changed so donors no longer keep their anonymity. You can't blame people not wanting to donate.

arayess

I for one would never donate sperm, I couldn't live with the fact of having kids that were biologically mine and not knowing who they are or even if they exist.

I'd say I'm not alone in that either.

Stupid campaign tbh

seenitall

I once dated a man who was a sperm donor (he was from the UK incidentally). He was one sick puppy. Needy, obsessive, stalkerish and harder to get rid of than a piece of chewing gum stuck to your ass. He also seemed to get a big kick out of being a sperm donor - spreading his seed far and wide etc.

As a result of that experience, although I have in the past toyed with the idea of having one child as a single woman, nothing could since be further from my mind. As Dr. House correctly said: "DNA matters."

Hollister11

I don't know if i would donate, and potentially have kids i have no relationship with.

Carlos Orange

News stories of sperm donors getting done for child support probably don't incline men either.

Greenmachine

I initially read the headline as word "donor" as "doctors" and thought how many do they need.
I remember the change in legislation. I can understand both sides to a point. The IVF situation is pretty unique and hard to put yourself in the situation, of an IVF child.
In a case like that I don't a child should be told particularly early that,they are a result of IVF, before they can fully grasp what it really is. Something like that should happen mid to late adolescent IMHO. Can't imagine the sense of abandonment, that might accompany an absent father, being present with a child being born via IVF: the child in this case being born out of love, and assumingly raised in a caring environment

Not surprised in the slightest at reluctance of men to now donate. I bet the figures before this ruling were in the hundreds if not the thousands. Instead of helping people, hundred if not thousands of couples, desperate to have a child will not have the chance they deserve.

Pat Mustard

She told the Guardian: "If I advertised saying 'Men, prove your worth, show me how good you are', then I would get hundreds of donors.

Big talk, missus nine-suppliers!

Might want to look at the fact that poor students want cold hard cash rather than a pat on the back for 'proving their worth'. I don't know who else comprises the supply side of this charming business. Actors between roles?

ancapailldorcha

Puerile responses deleted. I would ask anyone new to this forum to read the charter before posting.

tritium

Without looking to get into whataboutery I can't imagine what the response might be to a similar campaign aimed at surrogate mother's......

Anyhow, as others have said, if they put a legal framework in place that guaranteed the option if anonymity for the donor that would be a far more mature approach as opposed to the nonsense they propose

ancapailldorcha

The Guardian's weighed in as well. No mention of the lack of anonymity that may be deterring several men though:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/donor-sperm-real-man-shortage

One eyed Jack

OSI wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous. I could make a donation today, and spend the next 18+ years wondering if I'm going to get a knock on the door with no way of knowing or checking.

Nobody is actually compelled to donate, so obviously while that might put you off, it doesn't put off thousands of men who do actually want to donate, which is why the headline of the article is actually ever so slightly disingenuous (on both the BBC and the guardian articles) -

Witjens said the “superman” theme to be used by her promotional campaign had a serious message – donors must ideally have exceptionally strong sperm in order for it to have the best chance of surviving the freezing and thawing process. That is one of the reason the clinic has so few on its books after almost a year.

“If 100 guys enquire, 10 will come through for screenings and maybe one becomes a donor. It takes hundreds of guys,” she said. Getting an approved donor on the books requires a man to come to the clinic twice a week for up to four months, refraining from sex or masturbation for two days before each visit and then be tested again after six months.

Scarcity in demand does not stop families being demanding, Witjens added. “We get asked for six-foot tall donors, when the average height is 5ft 7in in Britain, so you are effectively ruling out 90% of the donors. And they all want doctors or barristers, but the reality is the majority of those professionals have not got time. So you actually get young guys with flexible jobs.”

Donors receive just £35 per session but Witjens said better advertising was key, not giving donors more money: “We might get more donors if we paid £50 or £100 per donation. But money corrupts. If you feel you can make £200 a week for four months, you might hide things about your health.”

Witjens said the details of the donor marketing campaign had not yet been finalised and that probably it would not be quite as brash as she would like. She said she would ideally like to use pictures of real men on her advertising material, but the proposed picture on the sperm bank’s leaflets is a cartoon superhero.

Nevertheless, the chief executive said she was resisting being quite as forthright as the Danish and some other European sperm banks because of her concern for children who are donor-conceived, who might find it upsetting if a campaign was linked to male pride rather than altruism. “Does that make it more complicated? Hell yes.”

After the initial campaign, a November advert is planned, asking men to consider giving an “alternative Christmas gift”.

Source: Guardian article, "UK sperm bank has just nine registered donors, boss reveals"


Now while the message itself may be objectionable to some, it's clearly a message that works in increasing donations, which is what the sperm clinic wants, rather than to appease the sensitivities of people who are unlikely to want to donate.

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Guardian's weighed in as well. No mention of the lack of anonymity that may be deterring several men though:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/02/donor-sperm-real-man-shortage

From the original article sourced by the BBC, from the Guardian -

Rules on anonymity for sperm donors in the UK were changed in 2005 to allow any child born after that time the right to trace their biological father when they turned 18. No case has yet been brought, as the first opportunity for an 18-year-old to trace a donor father from 2005 would be in 2023.

ancapailldorcha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

From the original article sourced by the BBC, from the Guardian -

The Guardian reported it as well as the BBC. I was linking a separate opinion piece.

Nichard Dixon

On the one hand you have deadbeat Dads who rightly get criticised here for not playing any role in their children's upbringing, yet here you have an article lamenting there are not more of them?

Pat Mustard

Donors receive just £35 per session but Witjens said better advertising was key, not giving donors more money: “We might get more donors if we paid £50 or £100 per donation. But money corrupts. If you feel you can make £200 a week for four months, you might hide things about your health.”

They make the case that they only pay £35 per "session" and that if that somebody could earn income of a whole £200 per week, the money could corrupt and people might hide health issues.

Just sounds like they are being tight with cash. Zero sympathy for them.

And average male height in the UK is 5'9", which, as an average, is considerably higher than 5'7". (I'm fairly sure that I can find a better source than Wikipedia, if necessary).

These sperm bank people sound like they will say whatever suits them.

One eyed Jack

Pat Mustard wrote: »

They make the case that they only pay £35 per "session" and that if that somebody could earn income of a whole £200 per week, the money could corrupt and people might hide health issues.

Just sounds like they are being tight with cash. Zero sympathy for them.

Not necessarily, men who are carriers for genetic disorders for example, who know they are carriers, might want to keep it hidden, and testing for these genetic mutations is expensive and time consuming too, so the more of those men who are put off by the low renumeration, the better it is for the clinic in the longer term.

These sperm bank people sound like they will say whatever suits them.

Don't all banks looking to attract deposits do that?

ancapailldorcha

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't all banks looking to attract deposits do that?

True. However, people will be born as a result of such donations and will be stuck with these genes for life if one disregards the field of gene therapy which is still very much in the nascent stages. With this in mind, one would hope for a higher ethical standard of behaviour from these banks.

Pat Mustard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not necessarily, men who are carriers for genetic disorders for example, who know they are carriers, might want to keep it hidden, and testing for these genetic mutations is expensive and time consuming too, so the more of those men who are put off by the low renumeration, the better it is for the clinic in the longer term.

I don't see how that argument holds water.

If the sperm bank keeps the payments to donors small, how does this deter the donors with genetic disorders any more than donors who are genetically desirable?

Let's face it, the donors do not donate sperm out of some sense of pride, patriotism or bravado. They wouldn't be there in the first place, if not for the money.

Surely, if the sperm bank increases the amount of money paid, this would simply increase the numbers of applicants, who would comprise genetically desirable and less desirable applicants. They already screen the applicants before they accept them as donors.

If the sperm bank really wanted to put the principle to the test and reduce the element of lying for profit as much as possible without the expense of additional screening, then it should pay its donors absolutely nothing whatsoever. But that would be a reductio ad absurdum since it would be unlikely to attract any donors except those with mental health problems.

But I very much doubt that it is about that principle, rather the bottom line.

One eyed Jack

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True. However, people will be born as a result of such donations and will be stuck with these genes for life if one disregards the field of gene therapy which is still very much in the nascent stages. With this in mind, one would hope for a higher ethical standard of behaviour from these banks.

Speaking of ethical standards, this bit is what I found rather... I don't want to say dubious as that's not the right word, but gave me a rather unsettling feeling tbh about the whole thing leading to "designer babies" -

It was created to help tackle the shortage of donors which often drives patients overseas or to unregistered services. It is also the first UK clinic to give people from ethnic minorities the chance to choose from a range of culturally matched donors.

I understand the obvious reasons behind it, but it does contribute somewhat towards the argument that "beggars" so to speak, can indeed be choosers, provided they have enough money!

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I don't see how that argument holds water.

If the sperm bank keeps the payments to donors small, how does this deter the donors with genetic disorders any more than donors who are genetically desirable?

Let's face it, the donors do not donate sperm out of some sense of pride, patriotism or bravado. They wouldn't be there in the first place, if not for the money.

But isn't that the reason for her message put so bluntly appealing to men's vanity and virility in the first place? Because given the evidence from Denmark, it appears to work! Men actually do want to donate out of some sense of pride, bravado or indeed patriotism -

She told the Guardian: "If I advertised saying 'Men, prove your worth, show me how good you are', then I would get hundreds of donors.

"That's the way the Danish do it. They proudly say, this is the Viking invasion, exports from Denmark are beer, Lego and sperm. It's a source of pride."

Surely, if the sperm bank increases the amount of money paid, this would simply increase the numbers of applicants, who would comprise genetically desirable and less desirable applicants. They already screen the applicants before they accept them as donors.

If the sperm bank really wanted to put the principle to the test and reduce the element of lying for profit as much as possible without the expense of additional screening, then it should pay its donors absolutely nothing whatsoever. But that would be a reductio ad absurdum since it would be unlikely to attract any donors except those with mental health problems.

But I very much doubt that it is about that principle, rather the bottom line.

They could easily do that though, I mean pay nothing, if they wanted to. Think of how many people give blood donations every year for free. That was something else that struck me from the article actually, is that while there's no limit on blood donations, and there's no limit on Danish men contributing to the gene pool, the UK system has a limit on the number of times British men can donate sperm -

Witjens said she was keen to “kick the foreign banks out of business” because the UK system was far kinder to the donor-conceived, as it limited the number of families one donor can create. “We can stop people having to go to Denmark where donors might have 150-200 offspring. Then it’s always a very real fear for the donor-conceived, running into a half-brother or sister.”

bnt

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sperm donors can't be held accountable for maintenance ...

That may be the current law, but the fact that they've already changed the law means that they could just as easily change it again. Who knows what can happen in 9 months + 18 years?

Carlos Orange

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But isn't that the reason for her message put so bluntly appealing to men's vanity and virility in the first place? Because given the evidence from Denmark, it appears to work! Men actually do want to donate out of some sense of pride, bravado or indeed patriotism -

That or it is related to the fact Danish donors get paid much more than the proposed £35. Apparently they get $400 - $700 per 'sample'.

http://www.joe.ie/fitness-health/ireland-is-having-an-effect-on-danish-banks-sperm-banks-to-be-precise/32683

ancapailldorcha

psinno wrote: »

That or it is related to the fact Danish donors get paid much more than the proposed £35. Apparently they get $400 - $700 per 'sample'.

http://www.joe.ie/fitness-health/ireland-is-having-an-effect-on-danish-banks-sperm-banks-to-be-precise/32683

An enterprising Aryan could do quite nicely at that!

One eyed Jack

psinno wrote: »

That or it is related to the fact Danish donors get paid much more than the proposed £35. Apparently they get $400 - $700 per 'sample'.

http://www.joe.ie/fitness-health/ireland-is-having-an-effect-on-danish-banks-sperm-banks-to-be-precise/32683

You forgot to include the key word there - viable sample -

That’s because in Denmark, blokes are given as much as $400 per viable sample. When you include other factors such as a non-anonymous donation, donors can expect to walk away with up to $700 per sample.

No mention of how much men who's samples aren't viable make. It's a bit like the original impression given in both the guardian and BBC articles that there are only nine donors on the sperm donor register, it doesn't give a figure for the number of donors that are rejected or who's sperm isn't considered viable.

My sperm wouldn't be viable for example because I'm a CF gene carrier. I don't consider that any reflection whatsoever on my masculinity, and I wouldn't have any issue whatsoever making altruistic donations were it not for the fact my sperm isn't viable.

I wouldn't at all be thinking about this nonsense either of having an adult turn up on my doorstep in 20 years or whatever either. What does anyone realistically think would happen in that scenario, and why would that put them off the idea?

Dravokivich

Eh... What's wrong with a black couple looking for sperm from a black donor?

The issue with designer babies, would be the milkshake from twins more so than just being more aware of their clients needs.

Wibbs

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... What's wrong with a black couple looking for sperm from a black donor?

+1 on the eh… D.

One eyed Jack

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... What's wrong with a black couple looking for sperm from a black donor?

It's effectively the very essence of human beings made to order. There was another piece in the article that referred to other desirable genetic traits, and one of the reasons of course why Danish DNA is so popular, is the high probability of a blonde haired, blue eyed baby.

The issue with designer babies, would be the milkshake from twins more so than just being more aware of their clients needs.

I'm genuinely not sure what this means, unless you mean the sperm from twin sperm donors? I'm not sure where the issue is there?

Being aware of their clients desires is exactly IMO what leads to corruption as they're catering to clients desires and demands moreso than any actual need.

Pat Mustard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But isn't that the reason for her message put so bluntly appealing to men's vanity and virility in the first place? Because given the evidence from Denmark, it appears to work! Men actually do want to donate out of some sense of pride, bravado or indeed patriotism

So they say. It just doesn't make any sense at all. There wasn't any evidence from Denmark in the article: there was just her statement. If this could successfully appeal to virility and vanity, she'd have more than 9 donors already. This is pie in the sky because the sperm bank is too tight to pay.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They could easily do that though, I mean pay nothing, if they wanted to. Think of how many people give blood donations every year for free. That was something else that struck me from the article actually, is that while there's no limit on blood donations, and there's no limit on Danish men contributing to the gene pool, the UK system has a limit on the number of times British men can donate sperm -

To argue that sperm donation would happen out of altruism really sounds like argument for argument's sake.

One eyed Jack

Pat Mustard wrote: »

So they say. It just doesn't make any sense at all. There wasn't any evidence from Denmark in the article: there was just her statement. If this could successfully appeal to virility and vanity, she'd have more than 9 donors already. This is pie in the sky because the sperm bank is too tight to pay.

But there are thousands of donors, just that not all of them, or the vast majority of them I should say, are contributing sperm that could be considered viable after going through the various screening tests, hence why there are only nine registered donors in the UK. That doesn't tell us anything about the number of donors who contributed but were rejected.

To argue that sperm donation would happen out of altruism really sounds like argument for argument's sake.

It's really not just an argument for arguments sake, honestly. I think there are many men who would willingly contribute sperm donations without any sort of renumeration. I find the arguments here that more men aren't contributing sperm because of potential issues with people turning up on their doorstep are the stuff of fantasy moreso than they are a reality. There's a valid argument in that people would like to know where they came from, and records are essential in this, but the idea of that putting most people off donating just isn't borne out by the reality in Denmark where sperm donors are not anonymous and that still doesn't put them off.

Of course I can understand why that might put some men off, but I don't think it would put many men off who would actually want to contribute for altruistic reasons.

Pat Mustard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Men actually do want to donate out of some sense of pride, bravado or indeed patriotism

All of the pride, bravado and patriotism of masturbating into a plastic cup at a sperm bank for a fee of £35.

Carlos Orange

Pat Mustard wrote: »

All of the pride, bravado and patriotism of masturbating into a plastic cup at a sperm bank for a fee of £35.

To be fair it takes years of intense practice to fully master masturbation.

ancapailldorcha

Pat Mustard wrote: »

All of the pride, bravado and patriotism of masturbating into a plastic cup at a sperm bank for a fee of £35.

Unless travel expenses are being offered then they're going to be restricting themselves quite severely geographically.

Carlos Orange

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unless travel expenses are being offered then they're going to be restricting themselves quite severely geographically.

Travel and childcare expenses are on offer afair.

One eyed Jack

Pat Mustard wrote: »

All of the pride, bravado and patriotism of masturbating into a plastic cup at a sperm bank for a fee of £35.

Or, to look at it another way - in the hope that their sperm is considered viable in order that they may help someone else to have a child.

I mean, you could reduce any form of reproduction down to it's most basic level and present it in such a dystopian manner if you like, and chances are you'd probably hit the nail on the head for some people, but that'd only be because there are an infinite number of motivations for why someone might want to contribute sperm to a sperm bank, even if it is simply masturbating into a cup for a couple of quid.

Another motivation may simply be to spread their lineage as widely as possible -

A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland

At Least Ten Other Men Could Rival Genghis Khan's Genetic Legacy

A_Sober_Paddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Unless travel expenses are being offered then they're going to be restricting themselves quite severely geographically.

Doesn't Birmingham have a very working/lower class demographical look. Would the sperm not be better coming from an area like London where there would be better sperm, more upper class(better education, health etc)

Pat Mustard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I mean, you could reduce any form of reproduction down to it's most basic level and present it in such a dystopian manner if you like,

It's not a case of having some way to put it.

Sperm for cash is seedy enough already.

ancapailldorcha

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Doesn't Birmingham have a very working/lower class demographical look. Would the sperm not be better coming from an area like London where there would be better sperm, more upper class(better education, health etc)

The decision to locate in Birmingham may have been down to costing. London is very expensive.

One eyed Jack

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It's not a case of having some way to put it.

Sperm for cash is seedy enough already.

I agree with you there tbh, hence why from the outset of this thread I've argued sperm donation from an altruistic perspective. I don't think any money should change hands for sperm donations, and I don't think IVF clinics should be able to charge people the amounts they do for fertility treatment.

The reality though is that altruistic ideology is completely unrealistic as these are clinics that have to cover their costs, storage, research, tests, treatments, etc, and that's why IVF as an option is prohibitively expensive for so many people, and eventually they resort to desperate measures like this.

They shouldn't have to IMO.