Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation
ABSTRACT In this perspective, I shall argue that women who donate eggs solely for human embryonic stem cell research ought to be compensated. My argument rests on three inter-related principles. First, it is important to recruit the healthiest possible egg donors to minimize the risks of donation. This would relieve pressure to donate on those suffering from diseases that might be treatable with stem cell-based therapies, who are likely to be at greater risk from donation. Second, I believe that it is crucial to be pro-active in building representative stem cell banks, especially in stem cell initiatives paid for, in part, by the public/government. The right of all groups to participate in and benefit from equitable and safe research must be developed for egg donors as for other kinds of research participants. Particular attention should be paid to the opinions and desires of women from historically underserved populations as to how to conduct donations and guide research so as to serve all members of society. Third, reasonable payment would undermine tendencies for domestic and international black and grey egg markets for stem cell research to develop. I then suggest replacing the question of compensation with the question of harm mitigation as the central donor protection issue.
- SourceAvailable from: Simone van der Burg
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Other risks are associated with paying women for the donation of their oocytes, that will then be used in therapeutic cloning to create source material for TE research. These risks include hyperstimulation of the ovaries and complications of the recovery (either through surgery or transvaginally) of oocytes (Dickens and Cook 2007; Yoshimura 2006; Choumerianou et al. 2008; Dhai et al. 2004; Hall et al. 2006; Lomax et al. 2007; Thompson 2007). Any discussion of paid donation of source material of TE leads to discussion of risks of the exploitation of poor people (Resnik 2002; Awaya 2005; Black 1997; Smith 2006). "
ABSTRACT: In their 2007 paper, Swierstra and Rip identify characteristic tropes and patterns of moral argumentation in the debate about the ethics of new and emerging science and technologies (or "NEST-ethics"). Taking their NEST-ethics structure as a starting point, we considered the debate about tissue engineering (TE), and argue what aspects we think ought to be a part of a rich and high-quality debate of TE. The debate surrounding TE seems to be predominantly a debate among experts. When considering the NEST-ethics arguments that deal directly with technology, we can generally conclude that consequentialist arguments are by far the most prominently featured in discussions of TE. In addition, many papers discuss principles, rights and duties relevant to aspects of TE, both in a positive and in a critical sense. Justice arguments are only sporadically made, some "good life" arguments are used, others less so (such as the explicit articulation of perceived limits, or the technology as a technological fix for a social problem). Missing topics in the discussion, at least from the perspective of NEST-ethics, are second "level" arguments-those referring to techno-moral change connected to tissue engineering. Currently, the discussion about tissue engineering mostly focuses on its so-called "hard impacts"-quantifiable risks and benefits of the technology. Its "soft impacts"-effects that cannot easily be quantified, such as changes to experience, habits and perceptions, should receive more attention.Science and Engineering Ethics 11/2012; 19(3). DOI:10.1007/s11948-012-9419-y · 1.52 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Others argue that women should not be denied the capacity and the right to make free and informed decisions about their bodies and their lives and advocate a combination of payment and informed consent procedures. Allowing the development of a regular, formal market for oöcytes would foreclose the emergence of " black " informal, unregulated markets and thus prevent exploitation of women (Thompson 2007). From a different perspective, Catherine Waldby and Melinda Cooper (2010) emphasize the productivity of the female body in this new sector. "
ABSTRACT: Using human oöcytes for research purposes is a controversial subject, but although much has been written on the ethical issues of the practice, there is comparatively little empirical knowledge of the practice itself. This article analyzes the scope, infrastructure, and dynamics of oöcyte procurement for research in Europe and California and identifies some major trends and shifts in the field. Our research shows that oöcyte procurement strategies have evolved out of close institutional integration with the IVF sector, that there has been a shift from “poor quality” oöcytes to “good quality” oöcytes – which implies a shift to ethically more problematic procurement practices – and that we see a variety of crypto-commercial strategies, which enable monetary transactions while avoiding confrontation with non-commercialization policies. Finally, there has been a move to more commercial models of procurement, which can be interpreted as a strategy to release the infrastructural requirements that tie researchers to the IVF sector.New Genetics and Society 06/2012; 31(2):1-23. DOI:10.1080/14636778.2011.603953 · 0.80 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The editorial commentary leading the edition reveals a debate surrounding whether or not IVF patients are the most appropriate oöcyte donors because they are already exposed to the risks of ovarian stimulation, as distinct from procurement from healthy volunteers (Nature 2006). Certainly, ovarian stimulation and oöcyte harvesting are onerous processes, involving daily injections of hormones for several weeks to first shut down ovulation and then stimulate the ovaries to produce high numbers of oöcytes (Thompson 2007). This is quickly followed by day-surgery for oöcyte harvesting . "
ABSTRACT: This article develops a model of informed consent for fresh oöcyte donation for stem cell research, during in vitro fertilisation (IVF), by building on the importance of patients' embodied experience. Informed consent typically focuses on the disclosure of material information. Yet this approach does not incorporate the embodied knowledge that patients acquire through lived experience. Drawing on interview data from 35 patients and health professionals in an IVF clinic in Australia, our study demonstrates the uncertainty of IVF treatment, and the tendency for patients to overestimate their chances of success prior to the experience of treatment. Once in active treatment, however, patients identify their oöcytes as both precious and precarious. We argue that it is necessary to formally include embodied experience as a source of knowledge in informed consent procedures, both for gratuitous donation and for egg-sharing regimes. We recommend that at least one full cycle of IVF be completed before approaching women to divert eggs away from their own fertility treatment.Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 03/2012; 9(1):29-39. DOI:10.1007/s11673-011-9349-4 · 0.71 Impact Factor