How desperate women around the world are risking their lives to feed a booming - and deeply disturbing - trade in donor eggs.
Somewhere in the world, Nastya Kanatova has three children. She doesn’t know if they’re boys or girls, she has no idea if they have her blue eyes and button nose — and she never will. Five years ago, the Russian was so poverty stricken that she cashed in on the one commodity she had left of any real value — her fertility.
Her husband had left her, she had two young children to feed and little income. In desperation she sold her eggs, on six occasions, receiving £200 a time from a local IVF clinic. The resulting embryos were implanted in British, German and Russian women.
‘I was told three babies were born,’ she says of the transaction. ‘At the time, I had no special feelings towards them — I was giving my genetic material, nothing else.
'I was happy to know that my eggs would help someone who was desperate to have the joy I get from my own children. But, as time went on, I found myself tormented by questions. ‘In dark moments, I feel a sense of loss about them, an emptiness. I have children I will never know. I ask myself: “Are these children OK? Are they happy? Will they ever feel deprived by not knowing fully about themselves, never knowing their biological mum?” Because, in the end it’s not just biology, is it? It’s human emotion, too. I gave them life, yet I feel consumed by guilt.’
Her emotions are not unusual. Around the world, demand for human eggs far outstrips supply — a situation that can lead to women such as Nastya being exploited and then left to deal with the mental and physical consequences. And with the global market booming, things are unlikely to change.
Kylie Minogue recently announced that egg donation was an option she and her partner, Spanish model Andres Velencoso, were now considering, fearing that treatment for breast cancer will have affected her ability to conceive naturally. And only last week the Mail revealed how Carole Hobson, a single 58-year-old former barrister, is expecting twins after becoming pregnant with eggs donated by a 24-year-old Indian woman.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/ij9SWa
Showing posts with label paying egg donors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paying egg donors. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Sunday, 4 April 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
