International Perspectives on Oocyte Donation

  • Jeffrey A. Nisker

Abstract

The practice of oocyte donation varies widely from country to country, reflecting complexity in moral issue and cultural contexts for each potential source of oocytes (Tables 21.1 and 21.2). Impellation for women to consider being oocyte donors may be socioeconomic or, as evidenced by voluntary anonymous donation, approaching altruistic. The impellation often reflects national health care systems and cultural ethos; for example, in countries where in vitro fertilization (IVF) is not fully embraced by the government health care system (e.g., Canada) or where no national health care system exists (e.g., the United States), IVF patients may become oocyte donors, this practice does not exist in most European countries or Australia where IVF is part of national health care. Physicians, scientists, and the public may also vary in their view of appropriate sources of oocytes, not only from nation to nation but also within each country.

Keywords

Europe Assure Expense Posit Lution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wood EC. Oocyte donation: recent trends and concerns. Med J Aust. 1994; 160(5): 282–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leeton J, King C, Withers R. The changing pattern of egg donation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993; 10(2): 173–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leeton J, Harman J. The donation of oocytes of known recipients. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987; 27: 248–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pados G, et al. Oocyte and embryo donation: evaluation of 412 consecutive trials. Hum Reprod. 1992; 8: 1111–1117.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oskarsson T, et al. Attitudes toward gamete donation among couples undergoing in vitro fertilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991; 98(4): 351–356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lessor R. All in the family: social processes in ovarian egg donation between sisters. Sociology of Health and Illness. 1993; 15(3): 393–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pettee D, Weckstein LN. A survey of parental attitudes toward oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8(11): 1963–1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rotsztejn DA, et al. Variables which influence the selection of an egg donor. Hum Reprod. 1992; 7(1): 59–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seibel MM. Cadaveric ovary donation. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330(11): 796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryo Research and Assisted Conception. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warden J. Britain outlaws fetal egg transplants. Br Med J. 1994; 308(6936): 1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kazem R, Thompson LA, Hamilton MP, Templeton A. Current attitudes toward egg donation among men and women. Hum Reprod. 1993; 10(6): 1543–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dean M. New controversies over assisted conception. Lancet. 1994; 343(8890): 165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lyall H, Murray E, Glasier A, Baird DT. Donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception: the view of women of reproductive age. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10(5): 1242–1245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edwards JH. Views on donated ovarian tissue. Lancet. 1994; 344(8925): 824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abdalla H, Studd JW. Egg donation and medical ethics. Br MedJ. 1989; 299: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Féderation Internationale de Gyné cologie et d’ Obsté trique: Recommendations of FIGO Ethics Committee— The Donation of Genetic Material for Human Reproduction, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction (NABER), 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nisker JA. In quest of the perfect analogy for using in vitro fertilization patients as oocyte donors. Women’s Health Issues. 1997; 7(4): 241–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nisker JA. The use of IVF patients as oocyte “ donors.” Policy Options 1996; 2: 25–29.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994: 189–258.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shenfield F, Steele SJ. Why gamete donors should not be paid: a gift is a gift is a gift. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 253–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robertson JA. Ethical and legal issues in human egg donation. Fertil Steril. 1989; 52: 353–363.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faden R, Beauchamp T. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986: 238.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sherwin S. Feminism, ethics, and cancer. Humane Medicine. 1994; 10(4): 282–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baylis F. The ethics of ex utero research on spare “ non-viable” IVF human embryos. Bioethics. 1990; 4: 311–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kenny NP. The ethics of care and the patient-physician relationship. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can. 1994; 27: 356–358.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Veatch R. Autonomy’s temporary triumph. Hastings Centre Report 1984, Oct; 14: 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey A. Nisker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations