Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2021). Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.040
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertility and sterility. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.040
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. "Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion." Fertility and sterility, 2021.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
License
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
RRM Academy Synopsis
Paying oocyte donors is ethically justified, ASRM committee holds
A 2021 ASRM Ethics Committee opinion holds that paying women who donate oocytes (eggs) is justified on ethical grounds. It replaces the committee's 2016 document. The committee advises that pay should stay the same however many oocytes are retrieved or how good they are.
Study at a glance, ethics opinion: ASRM committee holds paying oocyte donors is ethically justified. Source: Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2021, PMID 33910756.
Key Findings
The committee holds that paying women who donate oocytes for reproduction or research "is justified on ethical grounds," and that pay fits "principles of fairness."
The committee writes that pay should acknowledge the donor's time, inconvenience, and discomfort. It "should not vary" with the planned use of the oocytes or with how many are retrieved.
The committee says pay should be fair and free of "an undue enticement." It adds that programs should set up disclosure and counseling, and publish policies on covering donors' complication costs.
Donor oocytes were used in approximately 9% of all ART cycles reported to SART in 2016. Of 463 programs reporting to SART, 88% said they offered oocyte donation.
In a survey of donors paid up to $5,000, 88% named "being able to help someone" as the best part of donating.
Interpretation
The document is an ethics opinion, a position from a professional committee. The committee weighs worries about undue inducement, exploitation, and treating gametes as products. The committee concludes that respect for women's autonomy, on balance, supports pay. The opinion cites surveys and policy and tests no hypothesis. The committee writes that current data on donor health are reassuring. The opinion adds that fertility drugs and procedures might raise a donor's future health risks, including impaired fertility, and encourages further study.
RRM Context
The opinion places oocyte donation within ART. Restorative reproductive medicine asks why a couple is infertile and treats the cause. The opinion calls for full disclosure, counseling, and informed consent for donors. Restorative care shares the principle that informed consent comes first. The opinion leaves the long-term effects of stimulation on donors open.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Financial compensation of women donating oocytes for reproductive or research purposes is justified on ethical grounds and should acknowledge the time, inconvenience, and discomfort associated with screening, ovarian stimulation, oocyte retrieval, and postretrieval recovery and not vary according to the planned use of the oocytes or the number or quality of oocytes retrieved. This document replaces the document of the same name published in 2016.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2016
Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › Third Party Reproduction · Clinical Guidelines and Standards › Guidelines by Issuing Body › United States Professional Societies
Sigal Klipstein, Catherine Hammack-Aviran, Catherine Racowsky, Chevis Shannon, David Shalowitz, Elizabeth Ginsburg, Jennifer Kawwass, Joseph Davis, Julianne Zweifel, Katherine Cameron, Lynn Westphal, Mandy Katz-Jaffe, Mary Samplaski, Peter Schlegel, Ricardo Azziz, Robert Rebar, Ruth Farrell, Sean Tipton, Susan Crockin, 0000-0003-0284-2845
S Klipstein, Cathy Hammack-Aviran, Kate Hammack-Aviran, C Hammack-Aviran, Cathy Racowsky, Kate Racowsky, C Racowsky, C Shannon, Dave Shalowitz, D Shalowitz, Liz Ginsburg, Beth Ginsburg, Betsy Ginsburg, E Ginsburg, Jen Kawwass, Jenny Kawwass, J Kawwass, Joe Davis, Joey Davis, J Davis, J Zweifel, Kathy Cameron, Kate Cameron, Katie Cameron, K Cameron, L Westphal, M Katz-Jaffe, M Samplaski, Pete Schlegel, P Schlegel, R Azziz, Bob Rebar, Rob Rebar, Bobby Rebar, R Rebar, R Farrell, S Tipton, Sue Crockin, S Crockin
PMID 33910756 33910756 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.040 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.03.040 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine et al. 2021, Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2021
