Written by Dr Leah Gilman and Dr Alexus (Lexie) Davies
Photo by Vlada Karpovich on Pexels
The UK’s fertility regulator (the HFEA) strongly advises against home insemination with donor sperm. However, such informal donor conception (IDC) is on the increase. We need a ‘grown up’ conversation about this practice which goes beyond the current ‘just say no’ approach. The Digital Donor Conception study aims to kickstart just such a discussion.
Informal donor conception refers to sperm donor conceptions which are made outside of fertility clinics or sperm banks. Such practices of family-making have a long history in LGBTQ communities – partly linked to their exclusion from clinical forms of assisted conception. However, in recent years informal donor conceptions have increasingly been facilitated by online platforms. These include specialist websites and apps, such as Pride Angel, Modamily and Just a Baby, as well as social media platforms which have been adopted for this purpose e.g. Facebook and Instagram. Such platforms enable would-be sperm donors and those seeking donor sperm to find and contact one another. Whilst some ‘matches’ will then proceed to clinic-based conception, a survey, conducted by Vasanti Jadva and colleagues, of Pride Angel users suggests the vast majority will opt for ‘at home’ or ‘DIY’ insemination.
Analysis conducted as part of the Digital Donor Conception study found that the websites of fertility clinics and regulators strongly discourage informal donor conception. The HFEA website states, ‘It’s always safer to have treatment with donor sperm at a licensed clinic,’ before listing the potential health, legal and social risks associated with ‘DIY’ donor conception. Similarly, the websites of several leading UK fertility clinics warned of the dangers of ‘online donors’ and encouraged readers to seek treatment via a licensed clinic instead.
Nevertheless, growing numbers are opting for the informal route to sperm donor conception. In 2022, Pride Angel, one of several introduction websites, had nearly 5000 UK sperm donors and 25,000 UK-based would-be recipients registered (personal communication with Pride Angel Director). In comparison, HFEA statistics show that there have been approximately 400 new UK-based sperm donors registering with UK clinics each year since 2012. It is not known how many members have actually donated or conceived following registration on matching platforms. However, even conservative estimates suggest that informal donor conception is a reproductive practice which rivals, if not exceeds, clinical donor conception in the UK. Clearly the ‘just say no’ approach is not working.
The Digital Donor Conception study aims to kickstart a more nuanced ‘grown up’ discussion of informal donor conception. We aim to understand the experiences of informal donor conception for those who engage in this process – including both (intended) parents and donors. We are interested in how people’s reproductive journeys are shaped by the legal, social and technological landscapes in which they are made. This will likely include barriers to clinical fertility treatment, for example racialised inequalities in relation to access and outcomes in fertility treatment, a ‘post-code lottery’ in relation for same-sex couples seeking NHS funding and the high costs of private fertility treatment. However, a deficit approach is insufficient. We must also take seriously the possibility that, for some, informal donor conception will be a positive choice; one which enables donors and intended parents to know one another prior to conception, allows conception in the comfort and intimacy of one’s own home and can be seen as part of queer or alternative community and family-building practices.
Ultimately, it is not our intention to say whether informal donor conception is good or bad, risky or not. Instead, we aim to understand how the meaning of informal donor conception is constructed by those who engage in it and to ensure these voices are included (alongside others – an important group being donor conceived people who are born from informal donor conception) in the public discussion going forward.
Interviews conducted with professionals in the donor conception field suggest that there is an appetite for these conversations. Whilst the fertility professionals interviewed in this study did typically emphasise the risks of informal donor conception in conversation, many also expressed empathy with those who pursued such routes. Some had friends who had conceived with a donor outside of a clinic. Another commented that they would likely try this route if they needed a donor themselves. Such comments suggest that it will be possible to move beyond what has, until now, often been a polarised conversation about informal donor conception. Moving the conversation in this direction is essential in order to provide appropriate support for donors, parents and their respective families who arrange donor conception outside of clinics.
Sociological Studies Research 