The attitude of (would-be) recipients of donor sperm and interested persons regarding a worldwide family limit per donor.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the attitudes of (would-be) recipients of donor sperm and interested persons toward worldwide donor family quota, ideal and acceptable family numbers, reasons for supporting or opposing limits, and willingness to pay for restricted donors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between August and September 2025. Univariate and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify demographic predictors of attitudes toward a worldwide family limit.

RESULTS

Overall, 70.3% of respondents supported a worldwide donor family quota, 21.6% opposed it, and 7.7% were uncertain. Support was significantly associated with older age, higher education, higher income, European residence, and being a mother of a donor-conceived child. In multinomial analyses, respondents in heterosexual relationships and those living outside Europe were significantly more likely to oppose a worldwide limit. The most frequently cited reason for supporting a limit was concern about accidental romantic relationships between donor half-siblings, followed by concerns about genetic disease transmission and psychosocial harm associated with large donor-sibling groups. Those opposing a worldwide limit most commonly cited reduced access to donor sperm, longer waiting times, and the absence of compelling reasons for a global cap. Five families was the most commonly preferred limit, whereas 15-25 families were more often considered acceptable. Willingness to pay increased as family limits decreased.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents supported a worldwide donor family limit, although the principal reasons cited-consanguinity and genetic disease risks-are not supported by current scientific evidence. Policymakers should balance concerns about large same-donor offspring groups against the potential consequences of stricter limits, including reduced access to donor sperm, higher costs, longer waiting times, and diminished reproductive choice.