The question of payment to egg donors has recently focused the attention of both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and licensed clinics. An acute shortage of egg donors and the rising costs of assisted conception treatment are matters of grave concern to many patients. To understand the emotional and social effects of egg sharing and egg donation, we conducted a survey of attitudes in a group of women who had some knowledge or experience of egg donation. A total of 750 questionnaires were sent out of which 217 were returned within the specified time limit. From these, 107 respondents had experience of egg donation and 110 had made enquiries about donation. The data from these questionnaires were collated and tabulated by the National Opinion Polls (NOP) Research Group. An analysis of the data produced the following key findings: (i) donating or sharing eggs is a social issue, 94% discuss it with partners/family/friends; (ii) altruistic motives are not the prerogative of non-patient volunteers-egg share donors felt that helping the childless was as important as having a chance of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for themselves; (iii) the treatment procedure causes the most anxiety for egg donors. The recipients were most concerned about delays, donor characteristics and how the eggs were allocated; (iv) most respondents (65%) with prior experience of egg sharing would do it again - 63% of egg share donors, 72% of egg share recipients; (v) cash rewards to egg donors and outright advertising for donors were rejected by 64 and 62% of the sample respectively; and (vi) counselling was highly valued and there were no instances of 'shattered lives' after treatment. The findings do not support the recently announced intentions of the HFEA to disallow payment to gamete donors on the grounds of devalued consent. There is no precedent in modern medicine for egg sharing. The patients surveyed drew a clear distinction between egg sharing and financial rewards. As long as egg donation is not covered by the National Health Service, it is fairer to offer egg sharing than to refuse treatment to those unable to pay.
The present acute shortage of eggs for donation cannot be overcome unless adequate guidelines are set to alleviate the anxieties regarding payments, in cash or kind, to donors. The current Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) guidelines do not allow direct payment to donors but accept the provision of lower cost or free in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment to women in recognition of oocyte donation to anonymous recipients. Egg-sharing achieved in this way enables two infertile couples to benefit from a single surgical procedure. However, the practical guidelines related to this approach are ill-defined at the present time leading to some justifiable uncertainty. A pilot study was therefore undertaken in order to establish the place of egg-sharing in an assisted conception programme. The current HFEA guidelines on medical screening of patients, counselling, age and rigid anonymity between the donor and recipient were followed. The study involved 55 women (25 donors and 30 recipients) in 73 treatment cycles involving fresh and frozen-thawed embryos. Donors were previous IVF patients who, regardless of their ability to pay, shared their eggs equally with matched anonymous recipients. They paid only for their consultations and tests right up to the point of being matched with a recipient. The sole recipient paid the cost applicable in egg donation of a single egg collection, although both received embryo transfers. The results indicate that although the recipients were older than the donors (41.4 +/- 0.9 versus 31.6 +/- 0.5 years), and there was no difference in the mean number of eggs allocated, the percentage fertilization rates, or the mean number of embryos transferred, there were more births per patient amongst recipients than amongst donors (30 versus 20%). We conclude that providing the donors are selected carefully, this scheme whereby a sub-fertile donor helps a sub-fertile recipient is a very constructive way of solving the problem of the shortage of eggs for donation. There are also the advantages of including a group of women who would otherwise be denied treatment. Problems related to 'patient coercion' can, in our view, be fully overcome by the application of strict common-sense safeguards. The ideal of pure altruism is not without its medical and moral risk. The success of egg-sharing depends on shared interests and a degree of altruism between the donor, the recipient and the centre. The current HFEA guidelines should be applauded for enabling a highly effective concept of mutual help to develop.
This paper describes the tragic case of a young woman who died of cancer of the colon after successfully donating eggs to her younger sister. Although there is no direct link between her operation and the subsequent development of bowel carcinoma, this case imparts a feeling of unease when seen in conjunction with other cases reported during the last few years. It is a reminder that little is known of the long-term consequences of some aspects of assisted conception. Women undergoing ovarian stimulation for themselves or a matched recipient have the right to be advised, in an agreed format, that there is some concern about unproven potential risks from the stimulatory drugs. The safety of egg donors must assume priority over all other considerations, including lack of donors or any moral position. The recent decision by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to withdraw any form of payment or recompense to egg donors does not seem to us to be based on a balance of scientific advances, patient needs and the ethics of gamete supply. They state that the intention to withdraw payments was implicit in the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Act. However the Act was based on the Warnock report made 6 years earlier. Even in 1990 ovum donation was uncommon and fertility drugs had not yet caused any unease. The Act provided the HFEA with discretionary powers to issue directions so that the future policies would be consistent with any emerging new medical evidence. It is imperative that the HFEA provide convincing evidence on how the current policy of payment to donors harms society, donors or recipients, and how in the UK the new policy will improve medical practice in assisted conception. Successful pilot studies must precede the implementation of any new policy. Failure to do this could cause irreversible harm to the practice of assisted conception using donor gametes, which will ultimately be against the basic aims of the 1990 HFE Act.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.