There’s a shortage of sperm in Britain! Apparently, Britain needs donations for about 4,000 women per year; to reach that number, about 500 sperm donors per year are required, while only 300 are currently registered. Things were fine until 2005, when a law was enacted allowing children of sperm donors the right to discover the identity of their father at age 18; simultaneously, the number of women who could use the same donor’s sperm was limited further.
The first change scared off a lot of potential donors, shifting the supply curve of sperm to the left, while the second change caused the demand curve for individual donors to shift to the right.
Because there is no price that might help the market reach equilibrium, Britain has been forced to search elsewhere for donated sperm. The shortage is getting worse, with some women who want babies not having them, and others resorting to imported sperm. The simultaneous restrictions have made both potential mothers and some donors who might have been altruistic enough to donate unable or unwilling to participate.
The potential solutions are clear — either loosen the restriction on the number of women who can be inseminated by one donor’s sperm (the Dutch have a limit of 25 women per donor); pay for sperm, as in the U.S. and Spain; and/or reinstitute donor anonymity.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I’ve gotten paid to donate for a couple of years now. Best part-time job I’ve ever had.
The ending of anonymity in itself was not the problem in the UK it was also the refusal of the Government and in particular the zealous anti-male element to say that the Child Support Agency would not be hounding the sperm donors for child maintenance payments as the biological fathers. I seem to recall the chief Harpie* , Harriet Harmen, seeming to indicate that pursuing the donors would in fact be policy.
*Harpie – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpie
All the motivational books say, “Find something you love doing, and be the best at it, and you will be paid well for doing it.”
Why didn’t I think of this before?
qaqwex: You appear to be confusing private and clinic sperm donation. UK clinic donors have not been financially liable for child maintenance for any of their donor children since the Human Fertisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was long before the ending of of anonymous donation, or indeed before anyone had heard of Harriet Harman.
Like I said earlier, there are actually *more* donors since the ending of donor anonymity anyway.
The problem is that those few men who are considered “adequate” are already tapped out “donating” the old fashion way!
Demand and supply curves. They dictate everything. The market equilibrium price should be found by the use of such marvelous curves.
The demand for sperm has increased, and the supply for it has decreased, there is only one thing left to do, the price of sperm should be increased, therefore, making sperm available only to those who are more willing to buy it, meaning, the ones paying more for sperm will be the ones to get it.
If the price of sperm increases, then the quantity demanded will decrease and the quantity supplied will increase, therefore, reaching the market equilibrium price and quantity.
This is actually a funny article. Since the solution in my opinion is not that hard. Either women start adopting, due to the fact that there are many children in poor countries waiting to be raised, or as JoseAngelCMS suggests sperm could have a higher price. Then only those who really badly want to have a baby, and have the income to raise it, will be able to have one. The quantity demanded of sperm will be less because of its elevated price, reducing the chances of a sperm shortage, reaching market equilibrium. But the article says clearly that a price which establishes market equilibrium, therefore I believe the first option is better, women start adopting, there are plenty of children out there needing your help.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24646458-12377,00.html
According to this article, donors can receive payments for lost wages and travel expenses.
It also points out that backpackers are big donors and are being encouraged to donate, presumably because they’re young and fertile. One would also imagine that lack of donor anonymity would be less of an issue for backpackers – if you’re going to be heading back to the colonies your offspring in the mother country will have less of a chance of tracking you down.
A mate has recently arrived in the UK and with the economic climate is having some difficulties finding a job in his area. Perhaps with fewer jobs available for backpackers, we will see more young travelling men resorting to offering themselves as ‘handymen’ for a few extra quid?