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 payment for egg donation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label payment for egg donation. Show all posts
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Sperm and egg donors should be paid more, experts claim
Two experts have indicated their support for paying sperm and egg donors more money. Two panelists in a debate last Wednesday, organised by the Progress Educational Trust in partnership with the Royal Society of Medicine, on the ethics of egg donation and payment said in the press they want to raise the maximum payment above today's £250 per cycle.
Speaking to the Guardian, Tony Rutherford, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said about egg donation: '£1,500 seems to be reasonable compensation for the physical rigours that these women need to undergo. They need to have injections of drugs, invasive internal scans and then a small operative procedure to collect the eggs. They may also possibly need to have time off work to attend appointments spread over three to four weeks'.
Mr Rutherford said the fees paid should match the financial benefit gained by those taking part in egg-sharing schemes, where a woman donates some of her eggs in return for free or cheaper fertility treatment. He added: 'Compensation should not be so high that it acts as a financial inducement'.
The debate also extended to payment to sperm donors - also subject to the £250 cap. Laura Witjens, chairwoman of the National Gamete Donation Trust, wrote in a BBC news health column: 'Sperm donors deserve at least the same payment if not more than egg donors do'. She argued the process they go through is difficult, lengthy and requires a serious commitment.
The debate was held as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) prepares to launch a public consultation on the donation of eggs, sperm and embryos in January 2011, which will look at issues including payment.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/9A62Xs
Speaking to the Guardian, Tony Rutherford, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said about egg donation: '£1,500 seems to be reasonable compensation for the physical rigours that these women need to undergo. They need to have injections of drugs, invasive internal scans and then a small operative procedure to collect the eggs. They may also possibly need to have time off work to attend appointments spread over three to four weeks'.
Mr Rutherford said the fees paid should match the financial benefit gained by those taking part in egg-sharing schemes, where a woman donates some of her eggs in return for free or cheaper fertility treatment. He added: 'Compensation should not be so high that it acts as a financial inducement'.
The debate also extended to payment to sperm donors - also subject to the £250 cap. Laura Witjens, chairwoman of the National Gamete Donation Trust, wrote in a BBC news health column: 'Sperm donors deserve at least the same payment if not more than egg donors do'. She argued the process they go through is difficult, lengthy and requires a serious commitment.
The debate was held as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) prepares to launch a public consultation on the donation of eggs, sperm and embryos in January 2011, which will look at issues including payment.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/9A62Xs
Friday, 10 September 2010
Paying egg donors will not solve the problems of IVF
Yes, there are shortages and the system is expensive. But fees would not fix it, says Francoise Shenfield
Simon Jenkins argues for market criteria to be applied to egg donation (In the name of purity, public funds are wasted on the rich, 25 August). Britain's regulator in this field, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, will soon rule on the issue of compensation to egg donors.
Jenkins raises interesting points, in particular: "If we do not pay what the market requires, we will get shortage, profiteering and unfairness." But two important points should be made in the face of his pragmatic market approach – advocating a deregulated payment to donors to increase numbers – and his hatred of "money–loathing", which he says is "rife in the British public service".
First, other factors such as the ending of donors' anonymity may also be relevant to the shortage, as shown by the only European study published to date, by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. And when, as Jenkins points out, "couples travel to Spain" and other countries in search of donors, it may also be because they prefer anonymity. It may be easier to recruit anonymous donors too.
To read more go to
Simon Jenkins argues for market criteria to be applied to egg donation (In the name of purity, public funds are wasted on the rich, 25 August). Britain's regulator in this field, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, will soon rule on the issue of compensation to egg donors.
Jenkins raises interesting points, in particular: "If we do not pay what the market requires, we will get shortage, profiteering and unfairness." But two important points should be made in the face of his pragmatic market approach – advocating a deregulated payment to donors to increase numbers – and his hatred of "money–loathing", which he says is "rife in the British public service".
First, other factors such as the ending of donors' anonymity may also be relevant to the shortage, as shown by the only European study published to date, by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. And when, as Jenkins points out, "couples travel to Spain" and other countries in search of donors, it may also be because they prefer anonymity. It may be easier to recruit anonymous donors too.
To read more go to
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Egg donors could get up to £800 in payments
Currently the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA) imposes a £250 cap on payments so as to avoid commercialising the procedure.
But the low payment is thought to be behind a shortage in egg and sperm donation which is driving infertile women and men to overseas – often unregulated – clinics, according to research.
Now the HFEA is considering adopting the Spanish system which would see the payment cap lifted to £800.
"We want to review egg donation," Professor Lisa Jardine, the chair of the HFEA told the Sunday Times.
"We are suggesting moving closer to the Spanish system. But there is no suggestion of adopting the US model where a good-looking girl with a degree can get $30,000 (£19,000) for her eggs."
A report will go to the HFEA's executive next month, setting out the proposed higher payments.
It will then be put out to public consultation.
Fertility clinics are barred from offering straight payments for egg or sperm donation.
Even though egg donors can face invasive procedures and some health risks, they are entitled to a maximum "compensation"of only £250 for loss of earnings, plus expenses.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/dmDUNQ
But the low payment is thought to be behind a shortage in egg and sperm donation which is driving infertile women and men to overseas – often unregulated – clinics, according to research.
Now the HFEA is considering adopting the Spanish system which would see the payment cap lifted to £800.
"We want to review egg donation," Professor Lisa Jardine, the chair of the HFEA told the Sunday Times.
"We are suggesting moving closer to the Spanish system. But there is no suggestion of adopting the US model where a good-looking girl with a degree can get $30,000 (£19,000) for her eggs."
A report will go to the HFEA's executive next month, setting out the proposed higher payments.
It will then be put out to public consultation.
Fertility clinics are barred from offering straight payments for egg or sperm donation.
Even though egg donors can face invasive procedures and some health risks, they are entitled to a maximum "compensation"of only £250 for loss of earnings, plus expenses.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/dmDUNQ
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)
