What constitutes a reasonable compensation for non-commercial oocyte donors: an analogy with living organ donation and medical research participation

Fertility stakeholders' concerns regarding payment for egg and sperm donation in New Zealand and Australia

New Zealand and Australia are countries which currently prohibit donor payment and require open-identity forms of donation. This study explored the concerns of fertility stakeholders regarding payment which would constitute financial reward for gamete donation, and factors predicting such concerns. A total of 434 participants from across New Zealand and Australia completed an online survey anonymously. Participants included those with infertility and treatment experience, donors, recipients, donor-conceived people and clinic professionals. Results indicated that participants' concerns related to their assumptions about the type of donor motivated by financial reward, and the possibility that, if paid, donors might conceal information relevant to treatment and the donor-conceived person. Furthermore, participants were concerned about increasing recipient costs. Participants with personal experience of infertility held stronger concerns overall. Professionals expressed concerns of clinical relevance, such as the withholding of donor information relevant to treatment outcomes. The lowest levels of concern were expressed in relation to payment devaluing the meaning of human life. Qualitatively, themes highlighted concerns regarding payment enticing the 'wrong' type of donor, increased cost to recipients, and concern about the wellbeing of donor-offspring. Collectively, such concerns must be understood against the New Zealand and Australia open-identity donation context which enables the possibility of contact between donors and offspring. These findings indicate that donor recruitment campaigns need to account for different stakeholder concerns, and consider ways to address donor shortages effectively while remaining compliant with legislative requirements.

Motivations for egg donation to previously unknown recipients: donation as a personal, relational act of giving

Egg donation has becoming increasingly common however there is a shortage of donors in many countries, including New Zealand. Research regarding motivations to donate in the context of New Zealand's open-identity and altruistic donation policy and practice is, thus far, limited. This in-depth qualitative study comprised interviews with 21 women to examine their motivations in donating to recipients previously unknown to them. Donors valued parenthood highly and had become aware of the fertility struggles of other women through their own experiences, those of friends or family, or through online personal accounts or advertising. The ability to select recipients and build a comprehensive picture of them, such as through reading recipient profiles or meeting them in person, as is possible in New Zealand, deepened their identification with recipients and thus their empathy and desire to help. They resisted commercial models, positioning themselves as by nature altruistic and regarding their donations as expressions of solidarity and acts of personal gift-giving to specific others who became known to them through donation. Donation was interpreted as a socially relational process, setting up expectations around relationships and ongoing connection. Such understandings have implications for recruitment as well as ongoing experiences and support needs.

Fair allocation of cryopreserved donor oocytes: towards an accountable process

A growing number of people desire ART with cryopreserved donor oocytes. The allocation of these oocytes to couples and mothers to be is a 2-fold process. The first step is to select a pool of recipients. The second step is to decide who should be treated first. Prioritizing recipients is critical in settings where demand outstrips supply. So far, the issue of how to fairly allocate cryopreserved donor oocytes has been poorly addressed. Our ethical analysis aims to support clinics involved in allocation decisions by formulating criteria for recipient selection irrespective of supply (Part I) and recipient prioritization in case supply is limited (Part II). Relevant criteria for recipient selection are: a need for treatment to experience parenthood; a reasonable chance for successful treatment; the ability to safely undergo an oocyte donation pregnancy; and the ability to establish a stable and loving relationship with the child. Recipients eligible for priority include those who: have limited time left for treatment; have not yet experienced parenthood; did not undergo previous treatment with cryopreserved donor oocytes; and contributed to the supply of donor oocytes by bringing a donor to the bank. While selection criteria function as a threshold principle, we argue that the different prioritization criteria should be carefully balanced. Since specifying and balancing the allocation criteria undoubtedly raises a moral dispute, a fair and legitimate allocation process is warranted (Part III). We argue that allocation decisions should be made by a multidisciplinary committee, staffed by relevant experts with a variety of perspectives. Furthermore, the committees' reasoning behind decisions should be transparent and accessible to those affected: clinicians, donors, recipients and children born from treatment. Insight into the reasons that underpin allocation decisions allows these stakeholders to understand, review and challenge decisions, which is also known as accountability for reasonableness.

Mild stimulation should be mandatory for oocyte donation

The increasing commercialization of oocyte donation is a source of concern. This evolution is expressed in the fact that oocyte donors’ interests are not a priority. For decades now, people mention that oocyte donation holds serious health risks for donors, as if this is an unavoidable given. However, most of the harm is caused by high hormonal stimulation. The risk/benefit balance of high stimulation compared to the risk/benefit balance of mild stimulation does not justify causing greater harm to donors, especially given the fact that donors submit to the procedure without any medical benefit for themselves and to help others.