Egg donors: US students paid too much?

US ethical guidelines on compensation for egg donation are frequently being breached and student donors with higher-than-average SAT scores are being offered higher compensation for their eggs, according to a US study.
Professor Aaron Levine of the Georgia Institute of Technology concluded that the voluntary guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) may not work and questioned the ethical protection afforded to egg donors. He looked at over 100 egg donation advertisements placed in 63 student newspapers. Nearly one quarter of advertisements offered compensation exceeding $10,000 and another quarter offered compensation between $5,000 and $10,000.

The US fertility industry relies upon self-regulation, but the ASRM recommends that compensation for eggs over $5,000 requires 'justification' and exceeding $10,000 is 'not appropriate'. The ASRM considers the $5,000 threshold as fair compensation for the donor's efforts and expense, but not enough to amount to exploitation or unfair inducement. Many commentators are ethically opposed to the perceived payment for eggs because it presents a financial inducement for women to assume health risks associated with egg donation and may also lead to the commoditisation of human tissue.

Professor Levine also discovered anecdotal evidence that egg donors who can show higher educational achievements are paid more for their eggs than those who cannot. Average SAT scores were a 'strong predictor' of compensation offered. An increase of 100 SAT points correlated to an increase in egg value by $2,350. This increased to $5,780 for advertisements placed by donor agencies. Fertility clinics, however, offered the same amount of compensation to all donors, regardless of academic attainment.

Professor Levine concluded that: 'donor agencies and couples valued specific donor characteristics and based compensation on these preferences - a violation of the guidelines'.

John Robertson, ASRM Ethics Committee Chair and Professor of Law at the University of Texas, writing in an editorial in the same issue, said that donors are currently given an arbitrary amount of compensation and there is no consensus on what is appropriate or may amount to inappropriate inducement. Professor Robertson said that the issue cannot be left to the fertility experts, but warned that giving the guidelines greater legal status may push the issue behind closed doors.

Professor Levine published his findings in the March 2010 edition of the Hastings Center Report.

www.prideangel.com