Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) profiles in the assessment of ovum donors

[Comparative survey of French oocyte donor's profile and motivations between nulliparous and multiparous donors, 2017-2018]

OBJECTIVES

Since the authorization of French nulliparous women to donate oocytes, who are the new donors? What are the similar and differential points with the initial donors who have already procreated?

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter cohort study using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The return rate is 90.7% with 248 donor files from 5 French assisted reproductive technology (ART) centers, included between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018. The average age is 31,0 years. More than two thirds of women have a higher educational level than the license. Donation is spontaneous or relational in 69% and 25% of cases, respectively. Among nulliparous donors, 37% don't know the possibility of self-preservation but after information, 80% wish to benefit from it versus 32% of multiparous women if they were given the opportunity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study by the Study Group for Egg Donation (GEDO) highlights the particularities of French oocytes donors. The 2015 decree allowed to diversify the origin of the donation, which remains mainly altruistic but the possibility of self-preservation for nulliparous donors also seems to motivate women. This link between donation and self-preservation poses an ethical problem that needs to be approached and resolved in the next Bioethics Law framing Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART).

Selecting and Screening Donors

Oocyte donation was originally established in 1983 as a treatment option for younger women with premature ovarian failure and for women with severe pelvic disease whose ovaries, as a result, were surgically inaccessible. The indications for donor oocyte in vitro fertilization (IVF) have now expanded to include not only women with hypergonadotropic hypogonadism but also those with advanced reproductive age, diminished ovarian reserve, significant genetic disease risk, poor oocyte or embryo quality, or multiple failures in prior attempts to conceive using conventional assisted reproductive technology (ART). Oocyte donation has also been recently used as an important source of material to promote the study of stem cell research.

In these first cases of donation, gametes were obtained primarily from women already undergoing IVF who had excess oocytes at the time of retrieval. Today, most egg donors are not currently pursing infertility treatment themselves but are willing to donate their gametes for altruistic or commercial reasons. Since its initiation, oocyte donation services have spread throughout the USA and to many areas of the world. In the USA, 9,000–10,000 donor oocyte cycles occur annually. Though donor oocyte IVF is available throughout the USA, globally the practice of oocyte donation varies due to legal restrictions in many countries (Chap. 30).

Who becomes a sperm donor: personality characteristics in a national sample of identifiable donors

OBJECTIVE

To study the personality characteristics of identifiable sperm donors in a national sample in comparison with the same characteristics of a control group.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

All clinics (n=7) performing gamete donation in Sweden.

POPULATION

All Swedish sperm donors recruited during 2005-08. An age-matched group of Swedish men served as controls.

METHODS

Standardised questionnaires were used to measure personality.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics and the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI).

RESULTS

The mean age of the donors was 33.8±7.8 years (18-56 years). About one-third (36.5%) of the donors had biological children of their own. With regard to personality, significant differences were present on harm avoidance, with lower means for sperm donors (P=0.002, 95% CI -3.74 to -0.85), and on self-directedness and cooperativeness, with higher means for donors (P=0.002, 95% CI 0.97-4.19; P=0.001; 95% CI 0.75-2.95, respectively), compared with controls. This indicates that the donors in general feel less worried and suffer less from uncertainty, shyness and fatigability than controls. They also perceive themselves as being autonomous, with a capacity to take responsibility, to behave in a goal-directed manner, to be resourceful and self-acceptant, and to behave in a manner guided by meaningful values and goals. Furthermore, they describe themselves as being well integrated in humanity or society, and having a good capacity for identification with and acceptance of other people.

CONCLUSIONS

The screening process at the clinics seems to generate a group of stable, mature and well-integrated donors, and this is a promising result for the future.