1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«This article presents the results of a qualitative study undertaken to delineate more clearly the phenomenon of sperm donations being offered via introduction websites and to find out what motivates donors to become involved in others’ family projects.» (p. 185)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«The men interviewed (n = 8) were between 20 and 48 years of age, with an average age of 34.6 years. All identified themselves as heterosexual. At the time of the interviews, five donors were single and three were in couples. Three were legally recognized as fathers of one or more children born from a relationship (and not from a sperm donation) […].» (p. 188)

Instruments :
Guide d’entretien semi-directif

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu

3. Résumé

«Contrary to the conventional view of sperm donation as a disembodied act, the men’s decisions to offer their gametes for others’ parental projects were neither unmeditated, nor devoid of emotion (Riggs, 2009). […] The desire to help single women or couples become parents is associated for the donors with an impulse toward genetic transmission or a symbolic projection of their own procreative identity. It does not represent a pretension to a formal paternal role, however, but rather a paternal bond in the ethereal sense. [W]eb-based donors operate in an ambivalent space, as the donations between strangers are seen as marginal to other types of donations. Of course, being outside the medical system imparts a certain flexibility to the practice of web-based assisted reproduction, but it also carries a stigma that prompts donors to remain discreet and reveal their experiences only to a very small number of people.» (p. 196) Furthermore, «[t]his study highlights the health considerations related to assisted reproduction conducted outside of medical channels […]. The efforts made by some donors to provide their gametes in relatively safe ways […] showed they were mindful of the risks associated with this practice and did not pretend they were nonexistent. Consequently, they created a space that allowed the parties involved to reach a decision based on trust and mutual consent.» (p. 197)