Acceptance and rejection of "morally challenging" behaviour in online sperm donation communities: narrative interviews with recipients and donors.

Introduction: Online sperm donation allows those hoping to conceive a baby ("recipients") to meet prospective sperm donors online, via "connection" websites or social media. These sites offer some advantages to clinical donation (including lower costs and greater choice over donation arrangements) but previous research has suggested that these sites may also pose risks and challenges to those who use them. Therefore, the aim of this exploratory research was to better understand online sperm donation communities and the experiences of both recipients and donors, particularly with respect to situations that could be "morally challenging" or involve harm. Methods: Three prolific donors and five recipients were interviewed using an in-depth narrative approach. Carol Gilligan's Listening Guide was employed to analyse the data. Results: The findings demonstrated that the donors sought to find ways to maintain autonomy in their donating practices and were concerned about the character and parenting abilities of recipients, as well as the potential for recipients to make unwarranted complaints. The recipients were concerned about their safety and finding a donor they could trust, discussing issues relating to donor "dishonesty", online abuse, and a lack of support from connection sites and related authorities. Both donors and recipients identified "morally challenging" behaviour relating to donor anonymity (donor use of fake online profiles or aliases) and the sexual motivations or (mis)conduct of some donors. The participants each discussed the ways in which they managed perceived risks. Discussion: The degree to which the participants voiced their acceptance or rejection of challenging behaviour in online sperm donation communities varied across and within participants, highlighting the complexity of the way in which people interact in this environment. Further research is required to understand how this form of sperm donation can be as safe and supportive as possible, while also respecting the importance to donors and recipients of autonomy and choice when making donation arrangements.

Adults' Understandings and Experiences of the Capacity to Consent to Substance-Involved Sexual Activity.

Most research on capacity to consent to substance-involved sex has focused exclusively on the implications of alcohol with little attention given to other or additional psychoactive drugs. This study aimed to explore people's understanding and experiences of the capacity to consent to alcohol- and/or drug-involved sexual activity. UK adults (N = 354) completed an online mixed-methods survey on sexual consent during sober, alcohol- and/or drug-involved sex. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes for capacity to consent were: (1) "There is no normative understanding of substance-involved sexual consent," (2) "Moving beyond the binary of consciousness versus incapacitation" and (3) "Substance-involved sexual decisions are viewed as irresponsible." The findings illustrated that capacity to consent is nuanced and multidimensional, and that people's understandings and experiences of capacity to consent to substance-involved sex are not solely individual, but rather, they are also shaped by their environment. We call for a multidimensional view of capacity to consent, where a standard of "unimpaired," rather than sober, is used and modeled by academics, legislators, and educators.

Accessing publicly funded donor insemination treatment in the UK: is funding information available on fertility clinic websites?

We sought to find out if information about public funding for regulated donor insemination (DI) was available on UK fertility clinic websites, and if so, what information was provided for same-sex couples and single women; and if the available information was easily readable. The 'Choose a fertility clinic' pages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) website were used to identify all licensed fertility clinics in the UK, and any available text on public funding for DI treatment was extracted. The Flesch reading ease scores were calculated to determine the readability of the extracted text. Of the 52 clinics included in the synthesis, 23 mentioned public funding, and for 16 of these, it was unclear whether public funding was available. Six of the 23 clinics mentioned public funding for same-sex couples, and two mentioned public funding for single women. The Flesch reading ease scores indicated that none of the text about funding for DI treatment on any of the clinic websites met the NHS-advised level of readability for health information. Fertility clinic websites should specify whether they offer publicly funded treatment, and to whom, as well as clearly stating the eligibility criteria, using suitably readable language to communicate this.