For several days I've gotten referrals from message board discussions about the case of Trent Arsenault. Trent is a "free sperm donor" (see the link for the details). For various financial reasons he can't adhere to all the regulations which sperm banks are subject to.
I don't dismiss the concerns out of hand, but I object to the idea that this sort of project is a rational and useful allocation of regulatory time and money.
I find one section of a Reuter's piece illuminating:
Arsenault gets himself screened every six months for that entire list of diseases but cannot afford the specific FDA-approved tests he is supposed to undergo within seven days of each sperm donation, at a cost of $1,700, he said. The stringent, costly testing regimen is the main reason sperm banks charge hundreds of dollars for their services, says Sherron Mills, executive director of the Pacific Reproductive ...
