| Title |
Danish sperm donors and the ethics of donation and selection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-017-9797-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alison Wheatley |
| Abstract |
There has been a great deal of discussion about the ethical implications of donating sperm and of the ways in which donated tissue is presented, selected, and sold for use in assisted reproduction. Debates have emerged within the academic sphere, from donor offspring and recipients, and in broader popular culture, including questions about the commodification of human tissue and the eugenic potential of selecting donors from particular demographic categories. However, the voices of donors themselves on this subject have been largely silent. This paper draws on data from qualitative interviews with men who donated at a major Danish sperm bank between 2012 and 2013. It argues that many of them are indeed thinking through these complex issues. Donors' approaches to ethical issues fell into two broad 'types': a pragmatic, individualistic approach which focused on more immediate personal consequences, and an ethically-driven approach in which donors considered the impact of donation on offspring and on a wider societal level. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,670,334
of 24,527,858 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#396
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,621
of 320,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,527,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.