Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-11.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
Inquiry Survey of Infertile Couples for Sperm Donation and Artificial Insemination by Donor


Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.

Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.

Inquiry Survey of Infertile Couples for Sperm Donation and Artificial Insemination by Donor

Article information

Korean J Health Promot. 2017;17(4):242-251
Publication date (electronic) : 2017 December 28
doi : https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2017.17.4.242
In Hwa Kim1, Ji-Hyun Kim1, Min Jung Park2, Sung Min Kang3, Young Seuk Cho4, Tae Yeon Kim4, Nam Cheol Park2,3
1Department of Family Medicine, BHS Hanseo Hospital, Busan, Korea.
2The Korea Institution for Public Sperm Bank, Busan, Korea.
3Department of Urology, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea.
4Department of Statistics, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea.
Corresponding author: Nam Cheol Park, MD, PhD. Department of Urology, Pusan National University School of Medicine, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan 49241, Korea. Tel: +82-51-240-7349, Fax: +82-51-247-5443, pnc@pusan.ac.kr
Received 2017 August 10; Accepted 2017 October 12.

Abstract

Background

Artificial insemination by donor (AID) is important to chance the pregnancy in male infertile couples by requiring appropriate medical, legal and ethical reviews. The purpose of this study was to investigate the perception changes of AID to collect the basic information for establishing the sperm donation, cryopreservation and artificial insemination management system.

Methods

We evaluated the people's thought of sperm donation, cryopreservation, and artificial insemination by donor by means of national inquiry survey from 247 infertile couples for 4 weeks from October 2016. The questionnaires were composed of 4 areas, and each questionnaire consisted of 15 items. Changes in the perception of AID by year were investigated after review of domestic journals.

Results

67.6% of respondents knew the growth of couples with difficulty getting pregnant due to male infertility. 82.2% of respondents replied the necessary of sperm bank as a treatment option for infertility and 40.5% knew the donation and receipt system of sperm. In the survey of change perception of AID according to year, 37.5% and 39.5% of respondents were got information about AID from doctor in 2003 and 2004, but 49.6% from broadcasting in 2016. As a child grows up, 4.0% (2003), 9.0% (2014), and 42.8% (2016) of respondents answered to tell the child about AID.

Conclusions

Infertile couple's thought of AID about the extension of opportunities for male infertility treatment is changed. In conclusion, it is necessary to establish institutional system of sperm donation, cryopreservation and artificial insemination prior to public sperm bank operation.

Keywords: Artificial insemination; donor; Male infertility; Sperm bank

Notes

This work was supported by a 2-Year Research Grant from Pusan National University and a research grant from Ministry of Health, and Welfare (No. 20160903789-00).

References

1. Nachtigall RD, Tschann JM, Quiroga SS, Pitcher L, Becker G. Stigma, disclosure, and family functioning among parents of children conceived through donor insemination. Fertil Steril 1997;68(1):83–89.
2. Vloeberghs V, Verheyen G, Haentjens P, Goossens A, Polyzos NP, Tournaye H. How successful is TESE-ICSI in couples with non-obstructive azoospermia? Hum Reprod 2015;30(8):1790–1796.
3. Hann SK, Kang HS. Infertile women's perception on the national support program for infertile couples. Korean J Women Health Nurs 2015;21(3):171–183.
4. Kantartzi PD, Goulis ChD, Goulis GD, Papadimas I. Male infertility and varicocele: myths and reality. Hippokratia 2007;11(3):99–104.
5. Park NC. The current status of public sperm bank in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2016;59(3):194–204.
6. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Warner L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance - United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017;66(6):1–24.
7. Linden JV, Centola G. New American association of tissue banks standards for semen banking. Fertil Steril 1997;68(4):597–600.
8. Gazvani R, Hamilton MP, Simpson SA, Templeton A. New challenges for gamete donation programmes: changes in guidelines are needed. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2002;5(4):183–184.
9. Scandinavian recommendations: sperm donation. Bull Med Ethics 2003;(191):8–9.
10. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Interests, obligations, and rights in gamete donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2014;102(3):675–681.
11. British Andrology Society. British Andrology Society guidelines for the screening of semen donors for donor insemination (1999). Hum Reprod 1999;14(7):1823–1826.
12. Kim SC. The legal standing of children born under AID. Law review 2011;41:85–108.
13. Park HJ, Park NC. An attitude survey of male infertile patients with artificial insemination by donor. Korean J Fertil Steril 2003;30(4):281–291.
14. Hwang DS, Jeon TG, Park HJ, Park NC. The attitudes of infertile male patients toward the use of artificial insemination by donor: a Korean regional survey. Korean J Urol 2014;55(2):134–139.
15. Moon H, Park SY, Kim MH. Online monitoring about illegal Surrogacy arrangement on a commercial basis in Korea. Korean J Med Ethics 2016;19(1):36–46.
16. Shiai C. Reproductive technologies and parent–child relationships: Japan's past and present examined through the lens of donor insemination. Int J Jpn Sociol 2010;19(1):18–34.
17. Liao J, Dessein B, Pennings G. The ethical debate on donor insemination in China. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20(7):895–902.
18. Pi VL. Regulating sperm donation: why requiring exposed donation is not the answer. Duke J Gend Law Policy 2009;16:379–401.
19. Sabatello M. Regulating gamete donation in the U.S.: ethical, legal and social implications. Laws 2015;4(3):352–376.
20. Gong D, Liu YL, Zheng Z, Tian YF, Li Z. An overview on ethical issues about sperm donation. Asian J Androl 2009;11(6):645–652.

Article information Continued

Copyright © 2017 Korean Society for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Korean Society for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Funded by : Pusan National Universityhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002543
Funded by : Ministry of Health and Welfarehttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003625
Award ID : 20160903789-00

Figure 1

Figure 1

Factors to influence the decision to undergo artificial insemination by donor. 2003 and 2014 were double-barreled a question, and 2016 was a single survey question. To compare each subject, we calculated the average percentage by the total percentage in 2003 and 2014. The question of newspaper and people who have undergo AID were not asked in 2016.

Abbreviations: AID, artificial insemination by donor; NA, not available.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Attitude change regarding whether to notify children about artificial insemination by donor. 2003 and 2014 were double-barreled a question, and 2016 was a single survey question. To compare each subject, we calculated the average percentage by the total percentage in 2003 and 2014. The question of not thinking was not asked in 2016.

Abbreviation: NA, not available.

Table 1

General characteristics of the participants in this study

Table 1

Values are presented as numbers (%).

aSingle includes widowed, divorced, and separated status.

Table 2

Population characteristics of the participants in 2003, 2014, and 2016

Table 2

Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

Values are presented as means±standard deviation (range) or number (%).

aThe question was not asked in 2016.