BACKGROUND: In 1985 the Swedish government introduced legislation that required all semen providers to furnish identifying information on themselves which would then be made available to their biological/provider offspring when they are deemed to have 'sufficient maturity'. The purpose of the legislation was to protect the child's rights and needs. The aim of this paper is to examine the degree to which semen providers have considered the implications of their decision to donate upon their three families; their birth family, the family they form with their partner, and the recipient family. METHODS: Thirty semen providers from two Swedish clinics were sent self-completion questionnaires collecting both quantitative and qualitative information. The initial response rate was 100%. Questions requested demographic information; the degree to which semen providers had consulted with or advised their partners, family, existing offspring and acquaintances about their semen donation; views and attitudes of semen providers towards donor offspring, anonymity, information sharing, payments to semen providers, community acceptance of DI and semen providers, experience of donation, recruitment/screening procedures. RESULTS: Almost all respondents had told their partners that they were providing semen, however, a much smaller proportion had told their birth families. Almost two thirds of semen providers were positive or very positive about the prospect of meeting their offspring at some time in the future, with older men expressing more enthusiasm. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that semen providers have only partially considered and addressed the full implications of having semen provider offspring. The age of semen providers could be influential in determining some attitudes and views.
BACKGROUND: In 1985 the Swedish government introduced legislation that required all semen providers to furnish identifying information on themselves which would then be made available to their biological/provider offspring when they are deemed to have 'sufficient maturity'. The purpose of the legislation was to protect the child's rights and needs. The aim of this paper is to examine the degree to which semen providers have considered the implications of their decision to donate upon their three families; their birth family, the family they form with their partner, and the recipient family. METHODS: Thirty semen providers from two Swedish clinics were sent self-completion questionnaires collecting both quantitative and qualitative information. The initial response rate was 100%. Questions requested demographic information; the degree to which semen providers had consulted with or advised their partners, family, existing offspring and acquaintances about their semen donation; views and attitudes of semen providers towards donor offspring, anonymity, information sharing, payments to semen providers, community acceptance of DI and semen providers, experience of donation, recruitment/screening procedures. RESULTS: Almost all respondents had told their partners that they were providing semen, however, a much smaller proportion had told their birth families. Almost two thirds of semen providers were positive or very positive about the prospect of meeting their offspring at some time in the future, with older men expressing more enthusiasm. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that semen providers have only partially considered and addressed the full implications of having semen provider offspring. The age of semen providers could be influential in determining some attitudes and views.