Family members as gamete donors or gestational carriers: an Ethics Committee opinion

The use of adult intrafamilial gamete donors and gestational surrogates is generally ethically acceptable when all participants are fully informed and counseled, but consanguineous arrangements or ones that simulate incestuous unions should be prohibited. Adult child-to-parent arrangements require caution to avoid coercion, and parent-to-adult child arrangements are acceptable in limited situations. Programs that choose to participate in intrafamilial arrangements should be prepared to spend additional time counseling participants and ensuring that they have made free, informed decisions. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2017.

Fertility drugs and cancer: a guideline

Methodological limitations in studying the association between the use of fertility drugs and cancer include the inherent increased risk of cancer in women who never conceive, the increased risk of cancer because of factors (endometriosis and unopposed estrogen) associated with infertility, the low incidence of most of these cancers, and that the diagnosis of cancer is typically several years after fertility drug use. On the basis of available data, there does not appear to be an association between fertility drugs and breast, colon, or cervical cancer. There is no conclusive evidence that fertility drugs increase the risk of uterine cancer, although women with infertility are at higher risk of uterine cancer. There are insufficient data to comment on the risk of melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with fertility drug use. Women should be informed that there may be an increased risk of invasive and borderline ovarian cancers and thyroid cancer associated with fertility treatment. It is difficult to determine whether this risk is related to underlying endometriosis, female infertility, or nulliparity.

We want to feel valued: eggs donors' experiences of donation

Egg donation in New Zealand is identity-release, with donor-conceived individuals having the right to access donors' identifying information at the age of 18. It also allows donors and previously unknown recipients to meet prior to donation. Further, donation is altruistic, although reimbursement of costs is possible. In our previous paper we explored the motivations of 21 egg donors in this context and reported that they are motivated to donate as an act of personal gift-giving to recipients who may become known to them through donation, and that they do not want to be compensated for this financially. In this paper, drawing on in-depth interviews, we report on donors' experiences of the donation process and subsequent to donation. Donors understood their donations to be a significant act, both for the recipients and their families, but also for themselves, particularly given the multiple sacrifices which they willingly made. Donors wished for their gift and their role to be valued and acknowledged through being appreciated, informed, involved and supported by recipients and clinics before, during and after their donations. These findings have implications for clinical practice and care, offering insight into how best to support donors prior and subsequent to donation.

Long-term follow-up of mental health and satisfaction in a Swedish sample of sperm and egg donors after open-identity donation

RESEARCH QUESTION

How is the mental health of open-identity gamete donors and their satisfaction with their contributions 14-17 years after acceptance as a donor?

DESIGN

The Swedish Study on Gamete Donation is a longitudinal study comprising women and men who were accepted as donors at seven Swedish university clinics between 2005 and 2008. The latest (fifth) follow-up included 215 open-identity donors (response rate 87%): 123 oocyte donors and 92 sperm donors. The donors answered a questionnaire regarding their perceptions, experiences and expectations after gamete donation 14-17 years previously.

RESULTS

The donors were satisfied with the experience of donating, and no differences were detected between sperm and oocyte donors. Oocyte donors were more than twice as likely to feel that family and friends were proud of their donation compared with sperm donors (51% versus 23%, P < 0.001). In total, six donors regretted their donation: four oocyte donors and two sperm donors. Sperm donors were more frequently satisfied with the financial compensation compared with oocyte donors (P = 0.005). No difference in the development of symptoms of anxiety or depression was detected 14-17 years post-donation.

CONCLUSION

Long-term follow-up studies on donors are important for recruiting donors, and for recipients and the children who will be conceived with donated gametes. The results from the current study indicate that donors, generally, have good mental health and do not regret their decision to donate gametes. These findings are reassuring for all parties involved.

Oocyte Donation: Three Perspectives

Background: A number of important problems remain unresolved in the field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) using germ cells from a single donor. This study aimed to assess attitudes about the use of sex gamete donation in ART in different social groups including medical workers, oocyte recipients, and oocyte donors. Methods: To achieve this goal, we surveyed 286 participants from seven countries. Of them, 190 were medical workers from ART clinics (respondents from seven countries), 45 were oocyte recipients (Kazakhstan), and 51 were oocyte donors (Kazakhstan). Results: A survey of the three groups showed that issues related to donor health were most common in the donor selection process based on patient and doctor distrust of the health care system. The main motive for oocyte donation was financial compensation, which draws attention to the social disadvantage of the donor population. Medical workers with more than 5 years of work experience (79.7%) supported the use of programs tracking donor sex gametes and limiting the use of oocyte donors. Conclusions: The willingness and consent of the surveyed medical workers and oocyte recipients to use the donor material and create a unified registry of donor sex gametes demonstrates the importance of this issue.

Critical Analysis of The Changes in CFM Resolution 2294/21 And Its Impacts on Assisted Human Reproduction

The Brazilian Federal Board of Medicine (CFM) issued resolution number 2294/21, which regulates human reproduction procedures in Brazil, bringing significant changes to clinical practice in assisted human reproduction, and it raised ethical, bioethical, and legal discussions between professionals and patients. This study aims to analyze these changes in different aspects, especially because some of them are controversial. Evidence-based knowledge resources were used to support the analyses of crucial points that were impacted by this change. A literature review was carried out to obtain information about guidelines and laws, as well as articles that contemplate ethical discussions on assisted reproduction. The search sites used were BVS, Pub Med, LILACS and Google Scholar. The keywords used were law, legislation, bioethics, reference guide and assisted human reproduction. Relevant official documents from the Brazilian State were also found and included in the survey. The new resolution regarding the use of assisted reproduction techniques brought important changes, with clinical implications for couples who wish to become pregnant, and there is a need for a broad discussion concerning these repercussions from clinical, ethical, bioethical, and legal points of view.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services?

SUMMARY ANSWER

For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.

The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

^†ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Psychosocial consequences of oocyte donation in donors: A systematic review

Assisted Reproductive Technology by means of oocyte donation is a very successful method leading to psychosocial consequences in donors. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review of the existing literature on the psychosocial consequences of oocyte donation in the donors. The present study was conducted as a systematic review based on the PRISMA checklist. Searches were performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and SID databases for the documents written between 2000 and 2020 regardless of the research methodology and the employed tools. English and Persian articles focusing on psychological and social issues of oocyte donation were reviewed. From 2,759 studies which were found, finally 14 related ones were selected. Psychosocial challenges of donors were obtained in three dimensions including short-term and long-term psychological reactions to treatment complications, emotional reactions to their function as an oocyte donor, and emotional reactions to the resulting offspring resulting and related social challenges. According to the existing studies, oocyte donation is a challenging process with short-term and long-term psychosocial consequences for donors. In order to prevent the feasible psychosocial hazards caused by the donation process, it is necessary to provide oocyte donors with psychosocial support, proper counseling, and awareness of the facts and possible issues ahead.

Alignment between expectations and experiences of egg donors: what does it mean to be informed?

This study evaluated the retrospective perceptions of egg donors regarding information communicated about immediate and long-term risks during the process of becoming an egg donor, and the alignment of that perception with their experiences and expectations of egg donation. Data were collected using an anonymous online survey. Egg donors' demographics, perceptions of being informed about immediate complications and long-term risks, and alignment between their expectations and experiences were analysed. In total, 375 current and former egg donors participated in an online survey about their decisions and experiences. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 57 years, with a median age of 24 years at first donation for compensated donors. The majority of the participants (81%) provided eggs in the USA, and 86.1% reported being compensated beyond direct reimbursement. Overall, 66% of egg donors surveyed reported feeling that their experiences matched their expectations based upon what they had been told during the informed consent process. While most participants (64.8%) felt well informed about potential short-term risks, 55.2% did not feel well informed about potential long-term risks. The findings indicate that while the majority of egg donors felt informed about immediate complications, there are gaps in knowledge about potential long-term risks. Results from this research provide insight into how egg donors understand risks and benefits, and can be used to improve counselling and informed consent forms and processes. The findings also indicate that longitudinal research on the health and well-being of egg donors is needed in order to improve informed consent.

Mild stimulation should be mandatory for oocyte donation

The increasing commercialization of oocyte donation is a source of concern. This evolution is expressed in the fact that oocyte donors’ interests are not a priority. For decades now, people mention that oocyte donation holds serious health risks for donors, as if this is an unavoidable given. However, most of the harm is caused by high hormonal stimulation. The risk/benefit balance of high stimulation compared to the risk/benefit balance of mild stimulation does not justify causing greater harm to donors, especially given the fact that donors submit to the procedure without any medical benefit for themselves and to help others.

[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).

Psychosocial aspects of identity-release gamete donation - perspectives of donors, recipients, and offspring

Donor conception creates families with varying genetic linkage between family members. This may have short-term as well as lifelong psychosocial consequences for all involved. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring, but there is a growing trend towards identity-release donor programmes that give offspring the right to obtain the donor's identity. This review aims to provide an overview of the perspectives of donors and recipients and offspring involved in identity-release donation. The results show that both oocyte and sperm donors have primarily altruistic motives, and recipients, in particular lesbian and single women, are generally open about the donation to their offspring. The few existing studies on offspring perspectives indicate that those who are aware of their donor conception appear to be interested in contact with the donor, and most donors are open to such contact. Investigations of donors and recipients indicate a need for more counselling and support to manage family life with varying genetic linkage within and outside the family unit. This includes preparing for and managing future contact between the donor and his/her family and donor offspring and their family, as well as between donor siblings and their respective families.

Effect of oocyte donor stimulation on recipient outcomes: data from a US national donor oocyte bank

STUDY QUESTION

How does ovarian stimulation in an oocyte donor affect the IVF cycle and obstetric outcomes in recipients?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Higher donor oocyte yields may affect the proportion of usable embryos but do not affect live birth delivery rate or obstetric outcomes in oocyte recipients.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In autologous oocyte fresh IVF cycles, the highest live birth delivery rates occur when ~15-25 oocytes are retrieved, with a decline thereafter, perhaps due to the hormone milieu, with super-physiologic estrogen levels. There are scant data in donor oocyte cycles, wherein the oocyte environment is separated from the uterine environment.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2015 of 350 oocyte donors who underwent a total of 553 ovarian stimulations and oocyte retrievals. The oocytes were vitrified and then distributed to 989 recipients who had 1745 embryo transfers. The primary outcome was live birth delivery rate, defined as the number of deliveries that resulted in at least one live birth per embryo transfer cycle.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study included oocyte donors and recipients at a donor oocyte bank, in collaboration with an academic reproductive endocrinology division. Donors with polycystic ovary syndrome and recipients who used gestational carriers were excluded. The donors all underwent conventional ovarian stimulation using antagonist protocols. None of the embryos underwent pre-implantation genetic testing. The average (mean) number of embryos transferred to recipients was 1.4 (range 1-3).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Per ovarian stimulation cycle, the median number of oocytes retrieved was 30 (range: 9-95). Among the 1745 embryo transfer cycles, 856 of the cycles resulted in a live birth (49.1%). There were no associations between donor oocyte yield and probability of live birth, adjusting for donor age, BMI, race/ethnicity and retrieval year. The results were similar when analyzing by mature oocytes. Although donors with more oocytes retrieved had a higher number of developed embryos overall, there was a relatively lower percentage of usable embryos per oocyte warmed following fertilization and culture. In our model for the average donor in the data set, holding all variables constant, for each additional five oocytes retrieved, there was a 4% (95% CI 1%, 7%) lower odds of fertilization and 5% (95% CI 2%, 7%) lower odds of having a usable embryo per oocyte warmed. There were no associations between donor oocyte yield and risk of preterm delivery (<37 weeks gestation) and low birthweight (<2500 g) among singleton infants.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Ovarian stimulation was exclusively performed in oocyte donors. This was a retrospective study design, and we were therefore unable to ensure proportional exposure groups. These findings may not generalizable to older or less healthy women who may be vitrifying oocytes for planned fertility delay. There remain significant risks to aggressive ovarian stimulation, including ovarian hyperstimulation. In addition, long-term health outcomes of extreme ovarian stimulation are lacking. Lastly, we did not collect progesterone levels and are unable to evaluate the impact of rising progesterone on outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Live birth delivery rates remain high with varying amounts of oocytes retrieved in this donor oocyte model. In a vitrified oocyte bank setting, where oocytes are typically sent as a limited number cohort, recipients are not affected by oocyte yields.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Additional REDCap grant support at Emory was provided through UL1 TR000424. Dr. Audrey Gaskins was supported in part by a career development award from the NIEHS (R00ES026648).

Views of French oocyte donors at least 3 years after donation

RESEARCH QUESTION

The study aimed to evaluate the percentage of oocyte donors who regretted their donation at least 3 years later.

DESIGN

Between December 2018 and January 2019, this single-centre study sought to contact by telephone all women who had donated oocytes during the 6-year period from 2010 to 2015 at the Lille Centre for the study and storage of eggs and spermatozoa (CECOS).

RESULTS

Among 118 women, 72 responded to the questionnaire by telephone and were included in the study. The response rate was 61%. No woman regretted having donated an oocyte, and 89% said that they would do it again in the same situation. The survey distinguished two types of donors: 'relational' (58%) and 'altruistic' (42%); some of their responses differed. Ninety per cent of the women had talked about the donation to family and friends. Among them, 74% felt supported by their family and friends, and 72% by their partner. The donation was something that 76% of the women sometimes thought about; 83% felt that this donation was something useful that they had accomplished. Finally, most donors felt that oocyte donation should remain unremunerated and anonymous.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the donors we interviewed regretted their donation. In France, the current principles governing this donation appear satisfactory to oocyte donors.

"I want us to be a normal family": Toward an understanding of the functions of anonymity among U.S. oocyte donors and recipients

BACKGROUND

Anonymity remains the more common practice in gamete donations, but legislation prohibiting anonymity with a goal of protecting donor-conceived children's right to know their genetic origins is becoming more common. However, given the dearth of research investigating the function of anonymity for donors and recipients, it is unclear whether these policies will accomplish their goals. The aim of this study was to explore experiences with anonymity among oocyte donors and recipients who participated in an anonymous donor oocyte program and to understand the ways in which anonymity functions for them.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 50 women: 28 oocyte donors and 22 recipients who were recruited from an academic center for reproductive medicine in the United States.

RESULTS

Donors and recipients view anonymity both as a mechanism to protect the interests of all parties (recipients, donors, and donor-conceived children) and as a point of conflict. Specifically, three key areas were identified where both donors and recipients saw anonymity as having an important role: relieving anxieties about family structures and obligations; protecting their interests and those of donor-conceived children (while acknowledging where interests conflict); and managing the future.

CONCLUSION

As gamete donation increasingly moves away from the practice of anonymity, examining why anonymity matters to stakeholders will be helpful in devising strategies to successfully implement identity-release options.

Safety and efficiency of oocyte vitrification

As the oocyte is the starting point for a new life, artificial reproductive technology (ART) techniques should not affect the (ultra) structural and functional integrity, or the developmental competence. Oocyte vitrification -one of the most significant achievements in human ART during the past decade- should therefore be a safe and efficient technique. This review discusses the principles and developments of the existing and future techniques, applications possibilities and safety concerns. The broad range of vitrification media and devices that are currently available, show differences in their effects on the oocyte ultrastructure and preimplantation development. It is not yet fully decided whether this has an influence on the obstetric and neonatal outcome, since only limited information is available with different media and devices. For autologous oocytes, the obstetric and neonatal outcomes appear promising and comparable to pregnancies obtained with fresh oocytes. This however, is not the case for heterologous fresh or vitrified oocytes, where the immunological foreign foetus induces adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Besides the oocyte vitrification process itself, the effect of multiple stimulations (for oocyte banking or for oocyte donors), seems to influence the possibility to develop gynaecological cancers further in life. Automated vitrification/warming should offer a consistent, cross-contamination free process that offers the highest safety level for the users. They should also produce more consistent results in survival, development and clinical pregnancies between different IVF clinics.