Sauer, M. V. (1999). Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors. Fertility and sterility, 71(1), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00428-2
Sauer MV. Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(1):7-10. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00428-2
Sauer, Mark V. "Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors." Fertility and sterility, vol. 71, no. 1, 1999, pp. 7-10.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
License
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
There is a growing threat to the practice of oocyte donation in the United States and all of us should take careful notice. This threat is posed by the escalating fees paid to young women for providing these services. I was shocked by the decision of St. Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, New Jersey to double the compensation from the community standard of $2,500 to a startling $5,000 per cycle. These new fees were aggressively advertised throughout New Jersey and Manhattan in strategic periodicals, newspapers, and magazines. I was even more dismayed to see physicians and “ethicists” justifying the increase to the media (1) stating “there is nothing inherently wrong with bidding for human eggs.” For years, I have advocated compensation to oocyte donors based upon time, effort, and risk of involvement. I have addressed this topic at speaking engagements and in position papers, typically defending the belief that physicians are capable of responsible restraint (2, 3). However, I have been increasingly concerned over the encroachment upon the traditional practice by both commercial enterprises and physician-led groups who have inflated the cost of donor compensation 500% in the past decade. In most countries it is illegal to provide any compensation for oocyte donors. Many believe payment is inappropriate and many more agree that excessive compensation is ethically unacceptable, since it potentially exploits or even coerces young women to participate. Even if one considers the time spent traveling to the local office and waiting for an ultrasound exam to be “work,” donors now will be earning in excess of $300 per hour. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks this “reasonable compensation” according to the recommendations of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (4). If we are truly not guilty of “pimping for patients” (5) and if donors are not “selling eggs,” then we cannot justify another doubling of the compensation. I believe this is a flagrant violation of the Ethical Considerations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies issued in 1994 (4). What is most disappointing is that this violation comes from a highly respected group led by physicians held in esteem within our subspecialty, who stated in The New York Times “I’m not sure $5,000 is enough.” (1) I would ask them, “How much is enough?” Where does this stop and at what price to our patients and our profession? Inevitably, all of us will be forced to raise our compensation rates to meet this challenge. Most importantly, and most unfortunately, these expenses will have to be passed on directly to our patients, who are already spending considerable sums of money to seek this procedure. I have always opposed government regulation and intervention, and I have often taken a public stand in defending our right to administer our own practices. However, for the first time in my career I am rethinking my position. If physicians are forced to drastically modify their practices to keep pace with commercial ventures or to compete with doctors whose modus operandi is “what the market will bear,” an approach to medicine so flagrantly greedy as to threaten the existence of the field, then I do believe it is time for regulation. These are truly sad events, and if we stand by and allow these changes to become standard operating procedure then we as professionals deserve the public criticism that will inevitably follow.
Yamada R et al., 2024·Journal of internal medicine·Free to read
Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of maternal mortality, but the extent to which infertility treatment is implicated in heart disease remains unclear. To evaluate the association between infertility treatment and postpartum heart disease. We designed a retrospective cohort study of patients who delivered in the United States between 2010 and 2018. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 12-month post-delivery due to heart disease (including ischemic heart disease, atherosclerotic heart disease, cardiomyopathy, hypertensive disease, heart failure, and cardiac dysrhythmias). We estimated the rate difference (RD) of hospitalizations among patients who conceived with infertility treatment and those who conceived spontaneously. Associations were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), derived from Cox proportional hazards regression after adjustment for potential confounders. Infertility treatment was recorded in 0.9% (n = 287,813) of 31,339,991 deliveries. Rates of heart disease hospitalizations with infertility treatment and with spontaneous conception were 550 and 355 per 100,000, respectively (RD 195, 95% CI: 143-247; adjusted HR 1.99, 95% CI: 1.80-2.20). The most important increase in risk was observed for hypertensive disease (adjusted HR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.92-2.42). This increased risk was apparent as early as 30-day post-delivery (HR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.39-1.86), with progressively increasing risk up to a year. Although the absolute risk of postpartum heart disease hospitalization is low, infertility treatment is associated with an increased risk, especially for hypertensive disease. These findings highlight the importance of timely postpartum follow-ups in patients who received infertility treatment.
Sachdev D et al., 2023·JAMA network open·Free full text on PubMed Central
Stroke accounts for 7% of pregnancy-related deaths in the US. As the use of infertility treatment is increasing, many studies have sought to characterize the association of infertility treatment with the risk of stroke with mixed results. To evaluate the risk of hospitalization from hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes in patients who underwent infertility treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, This population-based, retrospective cohort study used data abstracted from the Nationwide Readmissions Database, which stores data from all-payer hospital inpatient stays from 28 states across the US, from 2010 and 2018. Eligible participants included individuals aged 15 to 54 who had a hospital delivery from January to November in a given calendar year, and any subsequent hospitalizations from January to December in the same calendar year of delivery during the study period. Statistical analysis was performed between November 2022 and April 2023. Hospital delivery after infertility treatment (ie, intrauterine insemination, assisted reproductive technology, fertility preservation procedures, or use of a gestational carrier) or after spontaneous conception. The primary outcome was hospitalization for nonfatal stroke (either ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke) within the first calendar year after delivery. Secondary outcomes included risk of stroke hospitalization at less than 30 days, less than 60 days, less than 90 days, and less than 180 days post partum. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate associations, which were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for confounders. Effect size estimates were corrected for biases due to exposure misclassification, selection, and unmeasured confounding through a probabilistic bias analysis. Of 31 339 991 patients, 287 813 (0.9%; median [IQR] age, 32.1 [28.5-35.8] years) underwent infertility treatment and 31 052 178 (99.1%; median [IQR] age, 27.7 [23.1-32.0] years) delivered after spontaneous conception. The rate of stroke hospitalization within 12 months of delivery was 37 hospitalizations per 100 000 people (105 patients) among those who received infertility treatment and 29 hospitalizations per 100 000 people (9027 patients) among those who delivered after spontaneous conception (rate difference, 8 hospitalizations per 100 000 people; 95% CI, -6 to 21 hospitalizations per 100 000 people; HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.35). The risk of hospitalization for hemorrhagic stroke (adjusted HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.61) was greater than that for ischemic stroke (adjusted HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.39). The risk of stroke hospitalization increased as the time between delivery and hospitalization for stroke increased, particularly for hemorrhagic strokes. In general, these associations became larger for hemorrhagic stroke and smaller for ischemic stroke following correction for biases. In this cohort study, infertility treatment was associated with an increased risk of stroke-related hospitalization within 12 months of delivery; this risk was evident as early as 30 days after delivery. Timely follow-up in the immediate days post partum and continued long-term follow-up should be considered to mitigate stroke risk.
Progesterone, supplied in a variety of formulations, is commonly used in assisted reproduction. However, even the commonly accepted uses of progesterone in fertility care are believed to be largely empirical, as are the current available treatment options. While a critical balance of estrogen and progesterone is necessary for successful embryo implantation, achieving that balance is subject to differences in prescribing practice. In evaluating recommendations for the use of progesterone, discussion of its role in assisted-reproduction procedures must distinguish between known therapeutic benefits and empirical benefits.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2016·Fertility and sterility
Financial compensation of women donating oocytes for infertility therapy or for research is justified on ethical grounds and should acknowledge the time, inconvenience, and discomfort associated with screening, ovarian stimulation, and oocyte retrieval, and not vary according to the planned use of the oocytes, the number or quality of oocytes retrieved, the number or outcome of prior donation cycles, or the donor's ethnic or other personal characteristics. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2007 (Fertil Steril 2007;88:305-9).
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2021·Fertility and sterility
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·Fertility and sterility
Financial "risk-sharing" fee structures in assisted reproduction programs charge patients a higher initial fee but provide reduced fees for subsequent cycles and often a partial or complete refund if treatment fails. This opinion of the ASRM Ethics Committee analyzes the ethical issues raised by these fee structures, including patient selection criteria, conflicts of interest, success rate transparency, and patient informed consent. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2013 (Fertil Steril 2013;100:334-6).
To assess the total costs of infertility coverage, determine the proportion of healthcare costs related to infertility, compare infertility costs to those of other diseases, and calculate a per member per month cost of an infertility benefit. Historical prospective analysis. A university-based, self-insured, fee-for-service healthcare plan. PATIENT(S): Healthcare policy members from January 1993 through December 1995. INTERVENTION(S): General and infertility-specific healthcare that included diagnostic tests for infertility, induction of ovulation, artificial insemination, donor gametes, in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration, embryo cryopreservation, and frozen embryo transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Healthcare costs, as calculated from the International Classification of Diseases, Volume 9 codes. RESULT(S): Total healthcare and infertility-specific costs of the university healthcare plan over a 3-year period were $86,445,642 and $680,921, respectively. Therefore, infertility accounted for 0.79% of the total university healthcare costs. The mean total and infertility-specific per member per month healthcare costs were $86.15 and $0.67, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): These data reveal that infertility costs account for only a small fraction of the total healthcare costs and can be attained at a nominal monthly fee.
Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › Third Party Reproduction
PMID 9935108 9935108 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00428-2 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00428-2 Sauer et al. 1999, Sauer 1999
Cite this article
Sauer, M. V. (1999). Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors. Fertility and sterility, 71(1), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00428-2
Sauer MV. Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 1999;71(1):7-10. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00428-2
Sauer, Mark V. "Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors." Fertility and sterility, vol. 71, no. 1, 1999, pp. 7-10.
Keywords
Adult, Female, Humans, Oocyte Donation/economics/trends, Pregnancy, United States
00hj8s172