Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Differences between sperm sharing and egg sharing are morally relevant
  1. Nathan Hodson
  1. Unit of Mental Health and Wellbeing, University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nathan Hodson, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; Nathan.hodson{at}warwick.ac.uk

Abstract

Sperm sharing arrangements involve a man (‘the sharer’) allowing his sperm to be used by people seeking donor sperm (‘the recipients’) in exchange for reduced price in vitro fertilisation. Clinics in the UK have offered egg sharing since the 1990s and the arrangement has been subjected to regulatory oversight and significant ethical analysis. By contrast, until now no published ethical or empirical research has analysed sperm sharing. Moreover the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) does not record the number of sperm sharing arrangements taking place.

This paper describes the sperm sharing process providing an analysis of all the UK clinics advertising sperm sharing services. The ethical rationale for egg sharing is described: reducing the number of women exposed to the risks of stimulation and retrieval. This advantage is absent in sperm sharing where donation has no physical drawbacks. The key adverse social and emotional outcome of gamete sharing arises when the sharer’s own treatment is unsuccessful and the recipient’s is successful. This outcome is more likely in sperm sharing than in egg sharing given sperm from sharers can be used by up to 10 families whereas shared eggs only go to one other family.

Given its morally relevant differences from egg sharing, sperm sharing requires its own ethical analysis. The HFEA should begin recording sperm sharing arrangements in order to enable meaningful ethical and policy scrutiny.

  • reproductive medicine
  • insemination- artificial
  • feminism

Data availability statement

No data are available. na.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

No data are available. na.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Twitter @nathanhodson

  • Contributors NH performed the review, wrote the DOI, conducted the analysis and wrote up the manuscript, and is guarantor.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.