Talk:Sperm donation

BIAS

The entire section on donor anonynimity and the "desire to know" reads very much in a biased manner and in no way seems encyclopedic. There is a lack of source citation and the wording makes it seem very negative PRIORITY 1 !!! ---Discuss

I agree it's far from perfect. It could need better sources. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I think sperm donor should be merged into this article. They have a huge amount of overlap. Also, the much more extensive organ donation and blood donation articles have redirects from organ donor and blood donor. If donor and donation information can be incorporated into those articles, I don't see why it cannot be done in this one. -- Kjkolb 17:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I however think they both has too much subjective information and too little objective information. I have tried to correct some but also don't want to do to much as I am new to this. Clausbbb

They've been merged, but it could use some cleanup. -- Kjkolb 07:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Through the advent of DNA testing and internet access to extensive databases of information, many sperm donors have recently been traced and it has made them have to confront how to present the fact that they were a donor to their wife or girlfriend as well as to their wider family."

Huh? Kinst 02:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The article indicates that "Many" donors have been traced over the internet as a result of DNA testing however only one case is cited and I believe this is an unsupported accusation. Does anyone have a reference that would back this up?

Credentials?

"Few checks if any are made by sperm banks on sperm donors' self-supplied details and some sperm banks routinely inflate the credentials of their donors."

This is a pretty big accusation. Should require clarification ("The following researchers or individuals have claimed that..." or sources. ~~ Aristagoras

Equivalent article needed on egg donation

I added Egg Donantion to Requested Articles, but thought it would be a good idea to put it here too -- a lot of the same issues involved. See Brown, Andrea (2006-07-24). "The family nest eggs". The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colorado. --Renice 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is such an article on egg donor. I made a link there at the bottom. Mikael Häggström 12:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a redirect from Egg Donation so nobody else misses it. I think we should keep the two articles consistent. One is named 'sperm donation' while the other is named 'egg donor'. Since the interaction involves a recipient and children as well, 'egg donation' would probably be more appropriate. Richard001 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Link Farm

The site needs some links to sperm banks of course, but I'm not quite clear on why all of the ones on the list, need to be there. I'm sure we could prune it to one or two from each country.

ManicParroT 17:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed a large number of links which appeared to be advertising particular services or Yahoo groups. More could probably stand to go, on top of that, but we'll see. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Free Fertility Foundation

This link appears to be to advertising for one donor - suggest deletion. 130.216.191.182 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't ment to be, but if it might appear so, go ahead. Mortsggah 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Already gone. ...adam... ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional references

I removed the tag at the top requesting more references, since there are several references in the article. Therefore, further requests of references are better made in the respective sections instead where such are lacking. Mikael Häggström 11:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging or moving

I think sperm bank is a candidate to be merged into this article. A sperm bank is an important aspect of sperm donation, and should be given more coverage here besides just linking to it. The article is very small though, so merging may be a better idea, especially as this one is not particularly large itself. There's also the possibility of merging both this and egg donation into one broader article (say gamete donation), though I think the topics are distinct enough and both have much potential despite being quite brief at this stage. Richard001 08:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Up-dating

I have amended the table relating to the number of permitted births to reflect the change in the law in Sapin. I have also changed the previous references etc where necessary.

Spain was being seen as a destination for 'fertility tourists' and reports of Spanish clinics recruiting egg donors from Easter European counties, and importing quantities of donor sperm from other countries thoughout the European Union by the onselling of sperm served to fuel a debate which led to the imposition of these restrictions.

The previous position left the numbers in each case to individual practitioners. It is thought that many of these imposed US style limits and that in effect, they always used up the available material. Sperm donation in Spain is anonymous

It should be noted that surrogacy arrangements have been outlawed in Spain for some years.

A comment from a Spanish correspondent would be appreciated.

Samples per child

I find the section on Child per sample very useful. I just have two comments. First, would it be possible to distinguish donor samples meaning single ejaculates from donor samples meaning vials? I thnk the references in this section are to the former but perhaps this could be made clear. Secondly, would it be possible to add a fomula for donor samples used in IVF?

I made it a little more clear that it's about ejaculates and not vials (the number of vials needed differs by the concentration of sperm used, since it needs to make a total of ~20 million sperm). Regarding IVF, it may be possible to find the numbers for the simplest form of it too. However, it should perhaps fit better in the IVF-article, since there are many different IVF-procedures, not only related to sperm donation. For instance, ICSI is one form of IVF, and, since it only uses one single sperm cell, one ejaculations could theoretically give rise to millions of children. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the ejaculate concentration and success rates are somewhat higher for sperm donors, especially when compared to infertile couples. Perhaps we will have to search separate sources for the values here and in the article Artificial insemination.Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael- Thank you for amending and clarifying the new section you added, and thank you also for your further explanation here. I believe that it is true that ejaculate concentrations and success rates are generally higher for sperm donors. One reason for this is, as you suggest, that 'male factor' fertility issues are the reason behind many couples seeking fertility treatment. In my experience however, the data available does not always make the distinction between treatments with donor sperm and treatments with partner sperm. I also take your pont about IVF procedures and that it is difficult to know where best to put the information. It is also true, as you say, that some treatments involving IVF could theoretically give rise to many pregnancies. My concern about not including this here is that many sperm banks now offer vials for ART uses and without some kind of comparison, or at least explanatory note, many readers will not be aware of the situation. (User talk: ALEXEIS)

Question

how long does the sprem last once it enters the vagina

See Semen_quality#Environment, and please see Wikipedia:Reference desk for for future questions. This is where we discuss the article itself. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New entry in Information about donor

This text in italics below was inserted in the "Information about donor"-section. Before being a part of the article again I would like to know for which country that mandatory-rule was made for, because I doubt it is a universal law of the Unitied Nations. And although it is very possible to be true, I'd like to see a more specified reference to the claim of inaccuracies given from sperm banks. User:This deserves inclusion (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

However since 2005 it has been mandatory for sperm banks to obtain proof of donor identity. Through connections made via a web group called the donorsiblingregistry.com (the DSR) it has been demonstrated that very frequently donors and/or sperm banks lie about donor attributes regarding physical traits and in terms of academics, athleticism and accomplishments.

If I'm not mistaken it was inserted by the same editor (Miranda770) that keeps making unsourced POV edits[1]. I think it doesn't belong in the article. Not until it's properly referenced, anyway. Yintaɳ  09:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Up-date to inlcude reference to Natural Insemination

I note that a small change was made to the definition of 'sperm donation' to accommodate the term 'natural insemination', also known as 'NI'.

A number of private sperm donors are now offering this, as well as some fertility clinics in China and India.

Although it does seem a somewhat curious development, it would seem right that the Encyclopedia should at least refer to this method. I have therefore made a few textual changes in an attempt to ensure that the article is consistent in its approach on this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.245.86 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

FlashForward

The introduction of this article—as it appeared from July 8 – October 11, 2009—was used in the November 12 episode of FlashForward. While the screen was altered slightly to say that it was from "www.referendium.com", the style and content were unaltered. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

which is totally legal and cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.207.16 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution; so it is free to use as long as you give credit to the authors. Such credit could be an explicit link to the authors of the page in question, or an implicit credit by acknowledging Wikipedia as the source. The latter allows someone to come here for a page history with authors etc.

By changing Wikipedia to "referendium.com" the show did neither. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the URL on the show said ciizendium, not referendium. But, citizendium oesn't have an article on sperm donation. One other major difference is that the website name showed up in place of the article name. Neither WP, nor CZ, do either. - Drew Smith What I've done 21:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Right under the article title—where it normally says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"—it instead said "From www.referendium.com", and in the upper left corner where the Wikipedia logo would normally be, the page simply said Referendium in a large font. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also assumed it was Citizendium, but that would mean someone on the show is a pretty good wikihistorian. I just re-checked my DVR's recording and everything is Referendium including the URL (www.referendium.com/spermdonation.htm, which by the way isn't even a mediawiki page) and the "from..." subhead. I wonder why they even bothered changing? At least they used a new domain name and at least they remembered to register it before the show broadcast, as a quick check of Whois says ABC registered it on 9-11-09. Stu 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Generality

The article only addresses humans - what about the equivalents in animal husbandry? - Karl Andrews (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Education required

I heard that sperm donors are required to have a college degree. Is this true? Do you know any details?

65.77.68.18 (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC

Not for most clinics or sperm banks. Some impose educational requirements for donors and they may advertise this fact to recipients. ALEXEIS

Reverted original research

Recent edits have been unsourced and full of likely opinion. I reverted one set of edits. Please find sources or unsourced info will be removed. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC) This is not true. An article cannot contain numerous footnotes and sources. Your re-definition of 'sperm donation' was itself inaccurate. It is not a 'contribution' to anything or anyone, but a gift. There is an explanation of this further down in the article. Your definition suggested that every donation resulted in a pregnancy, whereas this is not, of course, the case. I could see what was behind the amendments and I therefore re-amended the definition, retaining some of your points, and I later added information which went some way to explaining your additions. Simply to have deleted these wholesale is unacceptable. One may not like or agree with what is stated, but that does not make the statement untrue. ALEXEIS

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources - December 2010

I have removed information/claims sourced to a non-notable Huffington Post blog by a non-notable author who is quoted few places other than in Wikipedia article edits made by now-banned editors. Please see Talk:Jacob M. Appel for more discussion and examples of spamming. Flowanda | Talk 08:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

- Not to be a sycophant but I couldn't agree more, especially the claim about it being a "watershed" -Indalcecio (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Weasel words in natural insemination section

There's quite a few VERY obvious weasel words like "some people argue" and "some women feel" etc. and since there aren't any citations to any of these statements I added a few tags. -Indalcecio (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What?!! I thought it was GUYS that were sexually innate?! Not the women. The guys try to

"However, others point out that the process is essentially a sexual one: a woman's innate sexuality may be the reason why a child is wanted, the donor has to be screened for sexually transmitted diseases which could be passed on through the use of his sperm, and the donor has to sexually stimulate himself in order to produce the sperm samples which are used for achieving pregnancies in women to whom he is not related. Some would argue that it is impossible to distinguish sexuality from reproduction, and that the very reason for preserving sexual integrity is to preserve reproductive integrity."

What?!! I thought it was GUYS that were sexually innate?! Not the women. The guys try to always get in their pants or "charm the pants of them".

I don't think that if a couple, especially a heterosexual one, would want to have sex with a donor if she loved and respected her husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser92612 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This whole page doesn't make sense and is messed up grammar wise

Just read everything over and you'll know what I mean.

If you read the history part, it tells it twice that in 1884, someone inseminated a couple because of fertility issues but the public wasn't keen on that as a result.... and then in 1963, it said that they removed the law that it was a crime to do this but then they didn't. How does that make any sense?! --Wikiuser92612 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag for "NI and sperm donation"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation#NI_and_sperm_donation

This is very poorly referenced, and my strong suspicion is that parts of it were written by one or more private donors seeking to promote NI. There is a long history on private donation sites of people debating the efficacy of "NI" (ie sex) versus artificial insemination (usually using a plastic cup and syringe to transfer fresh semen). There isn't really much evidence either way, and I've not seen anything which really suggests that either is more or less effective than the other.

Statements which need references:

"NI almost invariably produces higher pregnancy rates than ICI".

By comparison, semen used for artificial insemination must normally be allowed to liquefy to enable it be used in a syringe (unless a conception cap or conception device using fresh semen is used for the artificial insemination), and fertility clinics and sperm banks always use sperm which has been liquefied, frozen and thawed, all of which reduces its fecundity. (it is my understanding that some clinics still use fresh semen in certain circumstances anyway, but the first sentence in the paragraph talks about "the usual method of artificial insemination deployed in private donor arrangements", which would usually involve fresh rather than frozen semen.)

"Furthermore, medical evidence shows that semen produced during sexual intercourse is likely to be substantially more fertile than semen produced by masturbation."

Consequently, an increasing number of private sperm donors now offer NI as an alternative to the use of artificial means, or they will do so after attempts to achieve a conception by artificial insemination have failed, and similarly, an increasing number of women are seeking a natural conception from a donor.[51][52] (the references talk about private sperm donation, but don't really support the claims in the sentence)

"Some fertility clinics, notably in India and China also offer donors and surrogate women who will attempt to achieve pregnancies by NI as a more effective and cheaper alternative to ART methods."

I'm not sure the last two sentences really belong here either. It just seems to be an attempt to justify "NI" rather than AI:

"Where NI is used to achieve a pregnancy by a donor, the ethical considerations are significantly different from considerations where a pregnancy is achieved by artificial means. Whatever method is used, sperm donation is, of course, essentially the attempt to impregnate a woman with the sperm of a man who is not her partner, and neither AI nor NI preserves the reproductive integrity of the relationship a woman has with her partner."

Ml66uk2 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Some of the statements here definitely need to be either referenced or deleted. Some "citation needed" tags would be useful here, either in addition to, or instead of, NPOV tag. Lulu71339 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult area. I am pleased that at least Wikipedia has a serious section about it because there is very little information available elsewhere. This is probably why suitable references are short in number.

I suggest that incorporating further references might lead to NI effectively being promoted by Wikipedia, rather than simply justifying the text.

There is, for example, medical evidence that sexual intercourse is more effective than forms of AI other than IVF methods, and perhpas someone could find and include such a reference. However,in doing this, the effect might be further to justify NI rather than simply to explain it. Furthermore, sperm does lose its fecundity when frozen and some men's sperm cannot be frozen and thawed at all without it becoming effectively useless.

If sperm is to be produced for analysis, it is medically accpeted that the best samples will be produced through sexual intercourse, not by masturbation. It is for this reason that collection condoms are primarily available.

If you attempt to justify statements about the increased popularity of NI, you again run the risk of promoting this method. ALEXEIS

--- (you can use 4 tildes to sign your post btw)

If we're talking about non-frozen semen, I'm not aware of any "medical evidence that sexual intercourse is more effective than forms of AI other than IVF methods", and even if it's true, it's hard to see how such evidence could be gathered.

I think collection condoms are primarily available because some people have religious objections to masturbation btw, and I've only even seen one source that suggested that semen collected this way was more fertile.

Ml66uk2 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that if collection condoms were only available because some people have objections to masturbation, there would not be much of a market for them. You say you have seen one source which suggested that semen collected this way was more fertile. Have you seen any contrary evidence? I agree that it is not easy to collect some evidence in this area. However, to suggest that artificial forms of insemination are more effective than natural insemination would appear to go against the body of medical opinion, if not of medical evidence.

ALEXEIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXEIS (talk • contribs) 07:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there was much of a market for collection condoms. I'm not suggesting that artificial forms of insemination are more effective than natural insemination, but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest the reverse. The private donors with the most donor children all seem to donate exclusively by AI.

Ml66uk2 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you add the reference you have seen which suggests that collecting semen by sexual intercourse is more effective than by masturbation. You do not seem to have any other evidence.

You cannot measure the effectiveness of a method of insemination by its popularity. It may well be that private donors use AI more frequently than NI, and indeed, there are doubtless many donors who use no other method. However, you need to show that the pregnancy rate for AI is greater than for NI to prove your point. All forms of artificial insemination are a substitute for natural insemination and as such they are less effective. In the case of private donations, most failures are probably due to the lack of expertise in carrying out the insemination. This comment about effectiveness does not, of course, apply to methods of ART which is one reason why those methods are used for donor pregnancies.

Wikipedia is an up-to-date source of information. It is not about making a particular moral standpoint, worthy as that may be, but in providing as much information about a subject as is reasonably available.

ALEXEIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXEIS (talk • contribs) 05:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not about trying to make a moral standpoint. Like I said before, I haven't suggested that the pregnancy rate for AI is greater than for NI, but I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the opposite, and I think it's unlikely that such evidence will ever be gathered (except for clinic procedures). I think the section we're talking about is making a moral standpoint though, and also contains several inaccuracies and unreferenced claims.

Do you happen to be a private NI donor by any chance? For what it's worth, I run and moderate a couple of private donor forums.

Ml66uk2 (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not sure that you have actually shown that any of the points you have referred to are inaccurate. You mention a possible reference in support of them but you have not included this. As I commented originally, the danger of including too many references is that you will end up supporting the statements made, which I imagine you would not want to do.

I do not agree that the section is actually making any moral standpoint at all. This applies, in my view, to the whole of the article on Sperm Donation. There are many who disagree with it altogether.

Unless you can actually refute what the article says with supporting evidence, I suggest that it be left as it is.

ALEXEIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXEIS (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)