1
|
Polyakov A, Rozen G, Lensen S, Shoham G, Weissman A, Mizrachi Y. Providers' attitudes towards payment to egg donors: an international survey. HUM FERTIL 2023; 26:1439-1447. [PMID: 37815388 DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2023.2265151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2023] [Accepted: 09/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/11/2023]
Abstract
The research question 'How do fertility professionals worldwide perceive the issue of payment for egg donation and does this view change under different circumstances?' was addressed. A worldwide online survey was conducted between January and March 2023, focusing on the views of fertility providers concerning egg donor payments. From the 3,790 IVF-Worldwide.com members invited, 532 (14%) from 88 countries responded. The majority of participants, primarily from Europe (38.9%) and Asia (20.1%), were fertility specialists, embryologists, and fertility nurses. Most (60.3%) favoured regulated donor compensation, with only 13% advocating for unrestricted amounts. Compensation opposition (22.4%) was often rooted in concerns about donors' best interests. When considering egg donation from low-resource to high-resource countries, 38.5% were opposed. When asked about compensating women who underwent elective, non-medical egg freezing should they choose to donate their unused oocytes, most responders supported it to some degree, with only 28.4% opposing any compensation. The survey revealed that a significant majority of fertility professionals worldwide are supportive of some form of compensation for egg donors. However, perspectives diverge depending on the specific scenario and the country of practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Polyakov
- Reproductive Services Unit, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia
- Department of O&G, University of Melbourne, The Royal Women's Hospital, Victoria, Australia
- Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Australia
| | - Genia Rozen
- Reproductive Services Unit, The Royal Women's Hospital, Parkville, Australia
- Department of O&G, University of Melbourne, The Royal Women's Hospital, Victoria, Australia
- Melbourne IVF, East Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sarah Lensen
- Department of O&G, University of Melbourne, The Royal Women's Hospital, Victoria, Australia
| | - Gon Shoham
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
- General Surgery Division, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Ariel Weissman
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
- IVF Unit, Holon, Israel
| | - Yossi Mizrachi
- Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
- IVF Unit, Holon, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kool EM, van der Graaf R, Bos AME, Fauser BCJM, Bredenoord AL. Fair allocation of cryopreserved donor oocytes: towards an accountable process. Hum Reprod 2021; 36:840-846. [PMID: 33394023 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2019] [Revised: 11/17/2020] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
A growing number of people desire ART with cryopreserved donor oocytes. The allocation of these oocytes to couples and mothers to be is a 2-fold process. The first step is to select a pool of recipients. The second step is to decide who should be treated first. Prioritizing recipients is critical in settings where demand outstrips supply. So far, the issue of how to fairly allocate cryopreserved donor oocytes has been poorly addressed. Our ethical analysis aims to support clinics involved in allocation decisions by formulating criteria for recipient selection irrespective of supply (Part I) and recipient prioritization in case supply is limited (Part II). Relevant criteria for recipient selection are: a need for treatment to experience parenthood; a reasonable chance for successful treatment; the ability to safely undergo an oocyte donation pregnancy; and the ability to establish a stable and loving relationship with the child. Recipients eligible for priority include those who: have limited time left for treatment; have not yet experienced parenthood; did not undergo previous treatment with cryopreserved donor oocytes; and contributed to the supply of donor oocytes by bringing a donor to the bank. While selection criteria function as a threshold principle, we argue that the different prioritization criteria should be carefully balanced. Since specifying and balancing the allocation criteria undoubtedly raises a moral dispute, a fair and legitimate allocation process is warranted (Part III). We argue that allocation decisions should be made by a multidisciplinary committee, staffed by relevant experts with a variety of perspectives. Furthermore, the committees' reasoning behind decisions should be transparent and accessible to those affected: clinicians, donors, recipients and children born from treatment. Insight into the reasons that underpin allocation decisions allows these stakeholders to understand, review and challenge decisions, which is also known as accountability for reasonableness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E M Kool
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center, Julius Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - R van der Graaf
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center, Julius Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A M E Bos
- Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - B C J M Fauser
- Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A L Bredenoord
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center, Julius Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
van Santen HM, van de Wetering MD, Bos AME, Vd Heuvel-Eibrink MM, van der Pal HJ, Wallace WH. Reproductive Complications in Childhood Cancer Survivors. Pediatr Clin North Am 2020; 67:1187-1202. [PMID: 33131541 DOI: 10.1016/j.pcl.2020.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Gonadal dysfunction and infertility after cancer treatment are major concerns for childhood cancer survivors and their parents. Uncertainty about fertility or being diagnosed with infertility has a negative impact on quality of survival. In this article, determinants of gonadal damage are reviewed and consequences for fertility and pregnancies are discussed. Recommendations for screening and treatment of gonadal function are provided. These should enable timely treatment of gonadal insufficiency aiming to improve linear growth, pubertal development, and sexual functioning. Options for fertility preservation are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanneke M van Santen
- Department of Pediatric Endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, UMCU, PO Box 85090, Utrecht 3505 AB, The Netherlands; Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Annelies M E Bos
- Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, Postbus 85500, Utrecht 3508 GA, the Netherlands
| | | | - Helena J van der Pal
- Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Heidelberglaan 25, Utrecht 3584 CS, The Netherlands
| | - William Hamish Wallace
- Department of Pediatric Haematology and Oncology, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, Scotland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Huele EH, Kool EM, Bos AME, Fauser BCJM, Bredenoord AL. The ethics of embryo donation: what are the moral similarities and differences of surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation? Hum Reprod 2020; 35:2171-2178. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2019] [Revised: 04/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Over the years, the demand for ART with donated embryos has increased. Treatment can be performed using donated ‘surplus embryos’ from IVF treatment or with embryos intentionally created through so-called ‘double gamete donation’. Embryo donation is particularly sensitive because treatment results in the absence of a genetic link between the parent(s) and the child, creating complex family structures, including full genetic siblings living in another family in the case of surplus embryo donation. In this paper, we explore the ethical acceptability of embryo donation in light of the similarities and differences between surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation. We will argue that no overriding objections to either form of embryo donation exist. First of all, ART with donated embryos respects patients’ reproductive autonomy by allowing them to experience gestational parenthood. It also respects IVF patients’ reproductive autonomy by providing an additional option to discarding or donating surplus embryos to research. Second, an extensive body of empirical research has shown that a genetic link between parent and child is not a condition for a loving caring relationship between parent(s) and child. Third, the low moral status of a pre-implantation embryo signifies no moral duty for clinics to first use available surplus embryos or to prevent the development of (more) surplus embryos through double gamete donation. Fourth, there is no reason to assume that knowledge of having (full or half) genetically related persons living elsewhere provides an unacceptable impact on the welfare of donor-conceived offspring, existing children of the donors, and their respective families. Thus, patients and clinicians should discuss which form of ART would be suitable in their specific situation. To guarantee ethically sound ART with donated embryos certain conditions have to be met. Counselling of IVF patients should involve a discussion on the destination of potential surplus embryos. When counselling donors and recipient(s) a discussion of the significance of early disclosure of the child’s mode of conception, the implications of having children raised in families with whom they share no genetic ties, expectations around information-exchange and contact between donor and recipient families or genetically related siblings is warranted. Importantly, conclusions are mainly drawn from results of empirical studies on single gamete donation families. To evaluate the welfare of families created through surplus embryo donation or double gamete donation additional empirical research on these particular families is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E H Huele
- Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - E M Kool
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A M E Bos
- Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - B C J M Fauser
- Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - A L Bredenoord
- Department of Medical Humanities, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Kool E, van der Graaf R, Bos A, Fauser B, Bredenoord A. What constitutes a reasonable compensation for non-commercial oocyte donors: an analogy with living organ donation and medical research participation. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2019; 45:736-741. [PMID: 31375547 PMCID: PMC6860404 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105474] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2019] [Revised: 07/02/2019] [Accepted: 07/16/2019] [Indexed: 05/08/2023]
Abstract
There is a growing consensus that the offer of a reasonable compensation for oocyte donation for reproductive treatment is acceptable if it does not compromise voluntary and altruistically motivated donation. However, how to translate this 'reasonable compensation' in practice remains unclear as compensation rates offered to oocyte donors between different European Union countries vary significantly. Clinics involved in oocyte donation, as well as those in other medical contexts, might be encouraged in calculating a more consistent and transparent compensation for donors if the elements that constitute a reasonable compensation are explicated. In doing so, lessons can be learnt from living organ donation and medical research participation. Practices in which the elements of a reasonable compensation for the individuals involved have already been more defined in the literature. By means of analogical reasoning, we will outline the different components of a reasonable compensation and subsequently apply these to the context of oocyte donation. We will argue that oocyte donors should first of all be reasonably reimbursed direct expenses related to the donation, without standard remuneration of lost wages. Second, donating oocytes requests a serious time investment, therefore donors are entitled to suitable compensation for their time spent and efforts made. Finally, we will explain that a reasonable compensation consisting of these two components allows for altruism to remain the key value of oocyte donation for reproductive treatment. However, if we acknowledge that donors' motives are more complex and often include reasons from self-interest, the reasonable compensation may be complemented with modest (non)monetary benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emy Kool
- Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rieke van der Graaf
- Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Annelies Bos
- Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Bartholomeus Fauser
- Reproductive Medicine and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Annelien Bredenoord
- Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care Utrecht, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|