Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oocyte Donation: Ethical Aspects

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Third-Party Reproduction

  • 878 Accesses

Abstract

In vitro fertilization with donor oocytes has become an increasingly popular method of assisted reproductive technology for women with ovarian insufficiency or ovarian dysfunction, women with specific genetic risk factors, and same-sex couples seeking to have children. Oocyte donation for third-party reproduction has and continues to provoke ethical controversy today. This chapter addresses the morality of oocyte donation for reproduction, the moral significance of varied conceptualizations of oocytes, and ethics in the context of oocyte donation pertaining to the key constituencies involved in the process, including oocyte donors, recipients, children conceived with donor oocytes, clinicians, and oocyte donor matching agencies. Specific attention is given to ethically contentious aspects of the practice of oocyte donation, including informed consent, compensation, exploitation and undue inducement of donors, costs to recipients, commodification of children, appropriate recipient populations, donor anonymity, information sharing, and conflicts of interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Stanworth M. The deconstruction of motherhood. In: Stanworth M, editor. Reproductive technologies: gender, motherhood and medicine. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 1987. p. 10–35.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted Reproductive Technology Report National Summary Report 2004–2010. 2012 [cited 2012 September 18]. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/art/Apps/NationalSummaryReport.aspx.

  3. Steinbock B. Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. Mt Sinai J Med. 2004;71(4):255–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McGowan ML. Participation in investigational fertility preservation research: a feminist research ethics approach. In: Woodruff T, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 209–21.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dickenson DL. Property and women’s alienation from their own reproductive labour. Bioethics. 2001;15(3):205–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dickenson DL. The lady vanishes: what’s missing from the stem cell debate. J Bioeth Inq. 2006;3:43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ballantyne A, de Lacey S. Wanted: egg donors for research: a research ethics approach to donor recruitment and compensation. Int J Feminist Approach Bioeth. 2008;1(2):145–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lauritzen P, Vicini A. Oncofertility and the boundaries of moral reflection. Theol Stud. 2011;72(1):116–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Callahan D. Bioethics and fatherhood. Utah Law Rev. 1992;1992(3):735–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Benatar D. The unbearable lightness of bringing into being. J Appl Philos. 1999;16(2):173–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zoloth L, Henning AA. Bioethics and oncofertility: arguments and insights from religious traditions. In: Woodruff TK, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York: Springer; 2010. p. 261–78.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Inhorn MC. Making Muslim babies: IVF and gamete donation in Sunni versus Shi’a Islam. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2006;30(4):427–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kahn SM. Rabbis and reproduction: the uses of new reproductive technologies among ultraorthadox Jews in Israel. In: Inhorn MC, van Balen F, editors. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2002. p. 283–97.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robertson JA. Is there an ethical problem here? Hastings Cent Rep. 2010;40(2):3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klein JU, Sauer MV. Ethics in egg donation: past, present, and future. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28(4):322–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Holland S. Contested commodities at both ends of life: buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001;11(3):263–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Almeling R. Selling genes, selling gender: egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. Am Sociol Rev. 2007;72:319–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Macklin R. Ethics, informed consent, and assisted reproduction. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12(8):484–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. New York State Task Force on Life and Law. Assisted reproductive technologies: analysis and recommendations for public policy. New York: New York State Task Force on Life and Law; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Interests, obligations and rights of the donor in gamete donation. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:22–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Black JJ. Egg donation: issues and concerns. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2010;35(3):132–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Using family members as gamete donors or surrogates. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:797–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kenney NJ, McGowan ML. Looking back: Egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):455–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gurmankin AD. Risk information provided to prospective oocyte donors in a preliminary phone call. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(4):3–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pearson H. Health effects of egg donation may take decades to emerge. Nature. 2006;442(7103):607–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Repetitive oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2008;90 Suppl 3:S194–5.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ethics Committee of The American Society For Reproductive Medicine. Financial compensation of oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):305–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Daniels K. Donor gametes: anonymous or identified? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(1):113–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Murray TH. New reproductive technologies and the family. In: Cohen C, editor. New ways of making babies: the case of egg donation. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press; 1996. p. 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Donor compensation, reimbursement and benefits in kind. 2012 [cited 2012 October 30]. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6177.html.

  31. Robertson JA. Compensation and egg donation for research. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(6):1573–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Levine AD. Self-regulation, compensation, and the ethical recruitment of oocyte donors. Hastings Cent Rep. 2010;40(2):25–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Daniels CR, Heidt-Forsythe E. Gendered eugenics and the problematic of free market reproductive technologies: sperm and egg donation in the United States. Signs. 2012;37(3):719–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Baum K. Golden eggs: towards the rational regulation of oocyte donation. Brigh Young Univ Law Rev. 2001;1:107–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2006 guidelines for gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):S38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gurtin ZB, Ahuja KK, Golombok S. Egg-sharing, consent and exploitation: examining donors’ and recipients’ circumstances and retrospective reflections. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(7):698–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heng BC. Ethical issues in transnational “mail order” oocyte donation. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;95(3):302–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Waldby C. Oocyte markets: women’s reproductive work in embryonic stem cell research. New Genet Soc. 2008;27(1):19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nahman M. Reverse traffic: intersecting inequalities in human egg donation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(5):626–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Heng B. Legal and ethical issues in the international transaction of donor sperm and eggs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007;24(4):107–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sauer MV. Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not “reasonable compensation” for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(1):7–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Oocyte donation to postmenopausal women. Fertil Steril. 2004;82 Suppl 1:S254–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Craft I, Flyckt S, Heeley G, Layland S, Thornhill A, Kelada E. Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(3):325–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ahuja KK, Simons EG, Nair S, Rimington MR, Armar NA. Minimizing risk in anonymous egg donation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;7(5):504–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Shenfield F, Steele SJ. What are the effects of anonymity and secrecy on the welfare of the child in gamete donation? Hum Reprod (Oxford, UK). 1997;12(2):392–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Readings J, Blake L, Casey P, Jadva V, Golombok S. Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  47. De Jonge C, Barratt CLR. Gamete donation: a question of anonymity. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(2):500–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informing offspring of their conception by gamete donation. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):527–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kalfoglou AL, Geller G. A follow-up study with oocyte donors exploring their experiences, knowledge, and attitudes about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of donation. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(4):660–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kalfoglou AL, Gittelsohn J. A qualitative follow-up study of women’s experiences with oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(4):798–805.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kalfoglou AL, Geller G. Navigating conflict of interest in oocyte donation: an analysis of donors’ experiences. Women Health Issues. 2000;10:226–39.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Dickens BM, Cook RJ. Conflict of interest: legal and ethical aspects. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;92:192–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Berg JW. Risky business: evaluating oocyte donation. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(4):18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Dickenson D. Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Valarie Blake and Julie Severson for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter. Research for this chapter was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (P50 HG003390). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Human Genome Research Institute or National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, TA 200, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA

    Michelle L. McGowan Ph.D. & Leah Wilson M.A., B.S.N., R.N.

Authors
  1. Michelle L. McGowan Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leah Wilson M.A., B.S.N., R.N.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michelle L. McGowan Ph.D. or Leah Wilson M.A., B.S.N., R.N. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospitals of Cleveland Case Western Reserve University, Director of Fertility Services and In Vitro Fertilization, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    James M. Goldfarb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McGowan, M.L., Wilson, L. (2014). Oocyte Donation: Ethical Aspects. In: Goldfarb, J. (eds) Third-Party Reproduction. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7169-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7169-1_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7168-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7169-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation