The use of pornographic materials by adolescent male cancer patients when banking sperm in the UK: Legal and ethical dilemmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased awareness of the importance of fertility concerns to teenage cancer survivors is leading to growing numbers of male teenagers being offered sperm banking at the time of diagnosis. This is now extending to males diagnosed with other conditions where gonadotoxic agents are used in treatment. The storage of sperm in these circumstances is a challenging aspect of health care, given the complex issues and timescale involved. UK law has been enacted to protect legal minors from the potentially harmful effects of exposure to pornographic materials, yet there is reason to suppose that their use in this context could have therapeutic benefit in aiding successful masturbation. This paper uses material gained through consultation with the eleven largest UK sperm banks and 94 male teenage cancer survivors, to discuss the associated legal and ethical dilemmas, including those around the role of parents/carers. Findings suggest that there is variable practice in sperm banks, that almost a quarter of teenage males wanted access to soft porn when banking sperm, and half wanted to bring in their own materials. It concludes that there is an urgent need for any legal barriers to the therapeutic use of pornographic materials to be understood and examined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".