Money, morals and medical risks: conflicting notions underlying the recruitment of egg donors

Ahuja, KK; Simons, EG; Edwards, R.G.

doi:10.1093/humrep/14.2.279

Cited by 46 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Egg-sharing has been practised in the UK for well over a decade Simons, 1996, 1998;Ahuja et al, , 2000 and Ahuja, Mostyn, and Simons (1997); Ahuja, Simons, Mostyn, and Bowen-Simkins (1998) and Ahuja, Simons, and Edwards (1999). After a period during which it expressly voiced its disapproval of egg sharing (Deech 1998a;HFEA, undated;Johnson, 1997), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, initiated a consultation on the removal of payment to gamete donors in which it sought responses specifically on egg sharing (HFEA, 1998a).…”

Section: Conclusion and Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Patient experiences of an "egg sharing" programme

Blyth

2004

Human Fertility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The centre sent a written invitation to participate in the study to all women who had indicated an interest in egg sharing and who had received both information and counselling in advance of proceeding (n = 60). Of these, 43 had decided to proceed after the counselling session and 17 had decided not to do so. Expressions of interest in participating in the study were received from 20 women: (a) five women had proceeded with egg sharing but had not been successful with their own treatment at the time of interview--all husbands/partners also participated (n = 10); (b) seven women had proceeded with egg sharing and had conceived (one of whom had conceived unexpectedly without assisted conception services)--5 couples and 2 women participated (n = 12); (c) six women decided to proceed with egg sharing, however an insufficient number of eggs were available following egg retrieval to enable egg sharing to take place--all husbands/partners also participated (n = 12); (d) two women decided not to proceed--and both husbands/partners participated (n = 4). The study data were derived from retrospective semi-structured interviews conducted by the author with these 20 women and 18 husbands/partners. Respondents also completed a paper exercise following the interview indicating their level of agreement or disagreement with a number of statements relating to egg sharing that were derived from responses to the HFEA's consultation on the withdrawal of payment to donors (HFEA 1998a.). While there was an overall 33% response rate, the response rate for those who had decided to proceed with egg sharing (41.9%) was greater than for those who had decided not to proceed (11.8%). Consequently, this study under-represents the views of women and their partners who had considered, but then rejected, egg sharing. Couples agreeing to participate in the research were given a choice of being interviewed together or separately and in their own home or at an alternative venue. This choice of separate or joint interviews was offered as part of the explicit effort to involve men in the study and to maximize participant choice. Twelve couples agreed to be interviewed separately; six couples were interviewed together and two women whose partners did not take part in the study were interviewed alone. There was no evidence of any significant differences in interview data between joint and separate interviews. Indeed, there was little disagreement between partners at all; this is probably not surprising, given that they will have discussed their decision about egg sharing together and will be aware of each other's views about at least some of the issues discussed during interview. All except four interviews took place in respondents' own homes. Two interviews took place in the centre at the respondents' requests and two interviews were conducted by telephone because of geographical considerations. All interviews were audio-recorded with respondents' permission and subsequently transcribed verbatim. The research was conducted in accordance with the Briti...

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Patient experiences of an "egg sharing" programme

Blyth

2004

Human Fertility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This procedure has made childbearing possible in women with age-related infertility and diminished ovarian reserve or lack of functional ovarian tissue (1). The process is unique in several clinical and ethical aspects (2)(3)(4). Management of ovarian stimulation in donors and embryo selection for recipients may require a paradigm distinct from that of standard in vitro fertilization cycles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship of clinical response, oocyte number, and success in oocyte donor cycles

Letterie

Marshall

Angle

2005

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose : The purpose of the study was to determine if there is a threshold of clinical response to ovarian stimulation below which pregnancy rates diminish in oocyte donation cycles. Methods : Two hundred and seventy-six oocyte donor cycles were reviewed. Data were stratified by number of oocytes retrieved and divided into pregnant versus non-pregnant outcomes. Results : There were no differences in fertilization rates or clinical pregnancy rates regardless of the number of oocytes retrieved ranging from 3 to >25. There was no difference in the mean age of the donors in pregnant versus non-pregnant cycles. Conclusions : These data suggest that a lower threshold below which cycle cancellation should be considered donation cycles is different than standard IVF.

show abstract

“…Participants in egg sharing arrangements themselves have distinguished between egg sharing and the sale of gametes, emphasizing the importance of a desire to help others in a similar position as well as themselves [15,17,18,22,24,56].…”

Section: Egg Sharing and Egg Tradingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Egg sharing: a practical and ethical option in IVF?

Blyth¹,

Golding²

2008

Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Egg sharing is a procedure in which a woman who is herself undergoing assisted-conception treatment receives subsidized treatment in exchange for sharing her eggs with another woman. It has become increasingly prevalent in the UK and is the major source of donor eggs in the UK; however, its practice is controversial. Available evidence concerning the outcomes of egg sharing is limited. To date, while this has failed to provide strong empirical support for concerns that have been raised regarding egg sharing, continuing significant gaps in information regarding clinical and psycho-social outcomes remain, which mean that an informed judgment on empirical grounds cannot yet be made. Ongoing key ethical controversies focus on the impact of egg sharing on the commodification of human gametes and whether women can genuinely consent to donating their eggs under an egg-sharing scheme. KEYWORDS: commodification of gametes • decision making • donors • egg donation • egg sharing • informed consentTechnological developments in reproductive healthcare have increased the options available to people seeking to overcome fertility impairments -including treatments using gametes provided by a third party. In practice, although some jurisdictions prohibit donor remuneration, payment to 'donors' is common. Such payment necessarily confounds the accepted definition of 'donor'. In accordance with common usage in the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) literature, we have employed the terms 'donor' and 'donation' in this paper, but the reader should be aware of this caveat. While insemination of donor sperm has been used as a medicalized procedure for well over a century [1], IVF using donor eggs is a much more recent phenomenon; the first birth from such a procedure was reported in Australia in 1984, using an egg provided by an IVF patient [2]. It is quite possible, although the authors do not provide details of the arrangements under which the donation took place, therefore, that the very first reported birth through egg donation was in fact the result of egg sharing. Use of donor eggs is clinically indicated for women seeking to conceive who have experienced primary or secondary ovarian failure, who have functioning ovaries but for whom standard ovarian stimulation drug regimes have failed or where there is a risk of transmitting a serious genetic disorder to a child [3].Use of donor eggs has become especially prevalent in ART procedures for older women (i.e., women aged over 40 years), for two inter-related reasons; first, because of the significant decline in female fertility once women reach their mid30s [4] and the more rapid decline after the age of 40 years [101], and second, because the likelihood of successful embryo implantation is related to the age of the woman providing the egg rather than to the age of the woman in whom the embryo is implanted [5]. US data show that while fewer than 3% of all women undergoing an ART procedure during 2005 used donor eggs, 22% of women aged 41-42 years, 55% of women aged over 42 yea...

show abstract

Money, morals and medical risks: conflicting notions underlying the recruitment of egg donors

Cited by 46 publications

References 11 publications

Patient experiences of an "egg sharing" programme

Patient experiences of an "egg sharing" programme

The relationship of clinical response, oocyte number, and success in oocyte donor cycles

Egg sharing: a practical and ethical option in IVF?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About