The aim of this study was to describe the phenomenon of sperm donation offered in informal settings and, more specifically, by contacts through the Internet. It documented the perceptions, experiences, and practices of a sample of Canadian donors and explored their motivations for becoming involved in the family projects of others. Eight semistructured interviews were conducted with men who had offered their sperm to couples or single women through one or more introduction websites. The results showed that the process leading to sperm donation outside fertility clinics is influenced by a variety of factors, such as the motives of those involved, logistics, and health concerns, as well as the possibility of having access to information on the genetic heritage of children conceived from these donations. The men applied different strategies to achieve their donations, engaging in a process of negotiation with the recipients, based on mutual trust and acceptance of the risks involved.
BardinL. (2007). L’analyse de contenu [Content analysis] (11th ed.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
2.
BayB.LarsenP. B.KesmodelU. S.IngerslevH. J. (2014). Danish sperm donors across three decades: Motivations and attitudes. Fertility and Sterility, 101, 252-257.
3.
BossemaE. R.JanssensP. M. W.TreuckerR. G. L.LandwehrF.van DuinenK.GeenenR. (2014). An inventory of reasons for sperm donation in formal versus informal settings. Human Fertility, 17, 21-27.
4.
BureauM.-F. (2009). Le droit de la filiation entre ciel et terre: étude du discours juridique québécois [Filiation law between heaven and earth: A study of Quebec legal discourse]. Cowansville, Québec, Canada: Éditions Yvon Blais.
5.
Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie. (2009). Éthique et procréation assistée: des orientations pour le don de gamètes et d’embryons, la gestation pour autrui et le diagnostic préimplantatoire [Ethics and assisted reproduction: Guidelines for gametes and embryo donation, surrogacy, and pre-implantation diagnosis]. Québec, Québec, Canada: Government of Québec.
6.
CôtéI. (2012). Motivations des actrices et acteurs quant à l’établissement de la famille lesboparentale avec donneur connu [Motivations of actors involved in establishing lesbian families with a known donor]. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 24(2), 84-101.
7.
CôtéI.LavoieK.de MontignyF. (2015). «J’ai aidé deux femmes à fonder leur famille»: Le don de gamètes entre particuliers en contexte québécois [“I helped two women build a family”: Gametes donations between individuals in the Quebec context]. Enfances Familles Générations, 23, 127-147.
8.
DanielsK.KramerW.Perez-y-PerezM. V. (2012). Semen donors who are open to contact with their offspring: Issues and implications for them and their families. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 25, 670-677.
9.
DeslauriersJ.-P.DeslauriersJ.-M. (2010). La recherche auprès des hommes: défis et enjeux [Research with men: Challenges and issues]. In DeslauriersJ.-M.TremblayG.Genest-DufaultS.BlanchetteD.DesgagnésJ.-Y. (Eds.), Regards sur les hommes et les masculinités: comprendre et intervenir [Perspectives on men and masculinities: Understanding and intervening] (pp. 153-175). Québec, Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université Laval.
10.
DumontS. (2016). Super-géniteurs. Enquête sur le don de sperme sauvage en France [Super-genitors: An investigation into sperm donation in the wild in France]. Paris, France: Michalon.
11.
FreemanT.JadvaV.TranfieldE.GolombokS. (2016). Online sperm donation: A survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Human Reproduction, 31, 2082-2089.
12.
GoubauD. (2014). Biomédecine et droit de la filiation au Canada: entre audace et retenue [Biomedicine and filiation law in Canada: Between boldness and restraint]. In Feuillet-LigerB.Crespo-BraunerM.-C. (Eds.), Les incidences de la biomédecine sur la parenté: Approche internationale [The implications of biomedicine for parenthood: An international approach] (pp. 221-239). Brussels, Belgium: Éditions Bruylant.
13.
Government of Canada. (2004). Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Minister of Justice.
14.
Government of Canada. (2009). Processing and distribution of semen for assisted conception regulations, SOR/96-254. In Food and Drugs Act. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Minister of Justice. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/SOR-96-254.pdf
15.
Government of Quebec. (2002). An act instituting civil unions and establishing new rules of filiation. Québec, Québec, Canada: Québec Official Publisher.
16.
HarperJ.JacksonE.Spoelstra-WitjensL.ReiselD. (2017). Using an introduction website to start a family: Implications for users and health practitioners. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 4, 13-27.
KalampalikisN.HaasV.FieulaineN.DoumergueM.DeschampsG. (2013). Giving or giving back: New psychosocial insights from sperm donors in France. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 18, 1-9.
19.
KellyF. (2009). (Re)forming parenthood: The assignment of legal parentage within planned lesbian families. Ottawa Law Review, 40, 185-224.
20.
KellyF. (2010). An alternative conception: The legality of home insemination under Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 26, 149-170.
21.
KivitsJ. (2012). Les usages de l’Internet-santé [Uses of the Internet for health]. In ThoërC.LévyJ. J. (Eds.), Internet et santé: acteurs, usages et appropriations [The Internet and health: Actors, uses and appropriations] (pp. 37-56). Québec, Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
22.
LeckeyR. (2011). The practices of lesbian mothers and Quebec’s reforms. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 23, 579-599.
23.
MalacketA.RoyA. (2008). Regards croisés sur la filiation homoparentale de l’enfant né d’une procréation assistée en droit québécois et comparé [Perspectives on homoparental filiation of children born through assisted reproduction in Quebec law and comparative law]. In ParentC.DrapeauS.BrousseauM.PouliotÈ. (Eds.), Visages multiples de la parentalité [Multiple faces of parenthood] (pp. 388-413). Québec, Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
24.
MasonJ. (2008). Tangible affinities and the real life fascination of kinship. Sociology, 42, 29-45.
25.
NordqvistP. (2014). Bringing kinship into being: Connectedness, donor conception and lesbian parenthood. Sociology, 48, 268-283.
26.
PoupartJ. (2011). Tradition de Chicago et interactionnisme: des méthodes qualitatives à la sociologie de la déviance [The Chicago tradition and interactionism: Qualitative methods for a sociology of deviance]. Recherches Qualitatives, 30, 178-199.
27.
RavelingienA.ProvoostV.PenningsG. (2016). Creating a family through connection websites and events: Ethical and social issues. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 33, 522-528.
28.
RiggsD. W. (2009). The health implications of emotion work undertaken by gay sperm donors. Feminism & Psychology, 19, 517-533.
29.
RiggsD. W.ScholzB. (2011). The value and meaning attached to genetic relatedness amongst Australian sperm donors. New Genetics and Society, 30, 41-58.
30.
Savoie-ZajcL. (2009). L’entrevue semi-dirigée [The semi-structured interview]. In GauthierB. (Ed.), Recherche sociale: de la problématique à la collecte de données [Social research: From research problem to data collection] (pp. 337-360). Québec, Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
31.
ThéryI. (2010). Des humains comme les autres. Bioéthique, anonymat et genre du don (Cas de figure, no 14) [Human beings like any other: Bioethics, anonymity and gender of donation]. Paris, France: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales.
32.
ThéryI. (2012). Du don de gamètes au don d’engendrement [From gametes donation to the gift of procreation]. Revue du MAUSS, 1(39), 155-162.
33.
ThoërC. (2012). Les espaces d’échange en ligne consacrés à la santé: de nouvelles médiations de l’information santé [Online exchanges for health: New mediations of health information]. In ThoërC.LévyJ. J. (Eds.), Internet et santé: acteurs, usages et appropriations [The Internet and health: Actors, uses and appropriations] (pp. 57-91). Québec, Québec, Canada: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
34.
ThoërC.MillerandF.MylesD.OrangeV.GignacO. (2012). Enjeux éthiques de la recherche sur les forums Internet portant sur l’utilisation des médicaments à des fins non médicales [Ethical issues of research on Internet forums for the use of medication towards non-medical ends]. Revue internationale de communication sociale et publique, 7, 1-22.
35.
TremblayG.DeslauriersJ.-M. (2014). Le non-recours aux services sociaux et de santé par la population masculine [The non-use of health and social services by the male population]. Politiques sociales, 74(3/4), 58-69.
36.
Van den BroeckU.VandermeerenM.VanderschuerenD.EnzlinP.DemyttenaereK.D’HoogheT. (2013). A systematic review of sperm donors: Demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Human Reproduction Update, 19, 37-51.
37.
WoestenburgN. O.WinterH. B.JanssensP. M. (2016). What motivates men to offer sperm donation via the internet?Psychology, Health & Medicine, 21, 426-430.
