Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:39:05.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Disclosure and the Recruitment of Oocyte Donors: Are Advertisers Telling the Full Story?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Hillary B. Alberta ,
Roberta M. Berry  and
Aaron D. Levine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In vitro fertilization (IVF) using donated oocytes has proven to be an effective treatment option for many prospective parents struggling with infertility, and the usage of donated oocytes in assisted reproduction has increased markedly since the technique was first successfully used in 1984. Data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in the United States indicate that approximately 12% of all ART cycles in the country now use donated oocytes. The increased use of oocyte donation in the United States has prompted discussion regarding risks associated with the process and how best to ensure the safety of oocyte donors.

Physical risks associated with oocyte donation include bleeding, infection, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and a potential, although unconfirmed, increased risk of developing various forms of cancer, such as uterine, colon, breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , Summer 2014 , pp. 232 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lutjen, P. Trounson, A. Findlay, J. Wood, C. Renou, P., “The Establishment and Maintenance of Pregnancy Using In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Donation in a Patient with Primary Ovarian Failure,” Nature 307, no. 5947 (1984): 174–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “2010 Assisted Reproductive Technology,” National Summary Report (2012): 1–75.Google Scholar
Bercovici, M., “Biotechnology Beyond the Embryo: Science, Ethics, and Responsible Regulation of Egg Donation to Protect Women's Rights,” Women's Rights Law Reporter 29, no. 4 (2008): 193–227; Durrell, J., “Women's Eggs: Exceptional Endings,” Hastings Women's Law Journal 22, no. 1 (2011): 187–245; Sauer, M. V. Kavic, S. M., “Oocyte and Embryo Donation 2006: Reviewing Two Decades of Innovation and Controversy,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 12, no. 2 (2006): 153–164.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, “Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research,” Workshop Report (2007); Bodri, D., “Complications Related to Ovarian Stimulation and Oocyte Retrieval in 4052 Oocyte Donor Cycles,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 17, no. 2 (2008): 237–243; American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), “Repetitive Oocyte Donation,” Fertility and Sterility 90, Supp. 3 (2008): S194–S195; Jayaprakasan, K. Herbert, M. Moody, E. Stewart, J. A. Murdoch, A. P., “Estimating the Risks of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS): Implications for Egg Donation for Research,” Human Fertility 10, no. 3 (2007): 183–187; Althuis, M. D. Moghissi, K. S. Westhoff, C. Scoccia, B. Lamb, E. J. Lubin, J. H. Brinton, L. A., “Uterine Cancer after Use of Clomiphene Citrate to Induce Ovulation,” American Journal of Epidemiology 161, no. 7 (2005): 607–615; Schneider, J., “Fatal Colon Cancer in a Young Egg Donor: A Physician Mother's Call for Follow-up and Research on the Long-Term Risks of Ovarian Stimulation,” Fertility and Sterility 90, no. 5 (2008): 2016e1–2016e5; Skillern, A. A. Cedars, M. I. Huddleston, H. G., “Ooctye Donors' Comprehension as Assessed by the EDICT (Egg Donor Informed Consent Tool),” Fertility and Sterility 101, no. 1 (2014): 248–51; Stewart, L. M. Holman, C. D. Hart, R. Bulsara, M. K. Preen, D. B. Finn, J. C., “In Vitro Fertilization and Breast Cancer: Is There Cause for Concern?” Fertility and Sterility 98, no. 2 (2012): 334–340.Google Scholar
See Schneider, , supra note 4; Ahuja, K. K. Simons, E. G., “Cancer of the Colon in an Egg Donor: Policy Repercussions for Donor Recruitment,” Human Reproduction 13, no. 1 (1998): 227–231; Belkin, L., “An Egg Donor Responds,” New York Times, available at <http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/an-egg-donor-responds/?_r=0>(last visted April 8, 2014).(last+visted+April+8,+2014).>Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies, supra note 4; Althuis, , supra note 4; Bodri, , supra note 4; ASRM, supra note 4; Jayaprakasan, et al., supra note 4; Schneider, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Almeling, R., “Gender and the Value of Bodily Goods: Commodification in Egg and Sperm Donation,” Law and Contemporary Problems 72, no. 37 (2009): 37–58; Rao, R., “Coercion, Commercialization, and Commodification: The Ethics of Compensation for Egg Donors in Stem Cell Research,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 21, no. 3 (2006): 1055–1066; Sauer, Kavic, , supra note 3; Steinbock, B., “Payment for Egg Donation and Surrogacy,” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 71, no. 4 (2004): 255–265.Google Scholar
Holland, S., “Contested Commodities at Both Ends of Life: Buying and Selling Gametes, Embryos and Body Tissues,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11, no. 3 (2001): 263–284, at 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Rao, , supra note 7, at 1058.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. A. Lindheim, S. R. Sauer, M. V., “Donor Age Is Paramount to Success in Oocyte Donation,” Human Reproduction 14, no. 11 (1999): 2755–2758; see Steinbock, , supra note 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Steinbock, , supra note 7, at 262.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Kenney, N. J. McGowan, M. L., “Looking Back: Egg Donors' Retrospective Evaluations of Their Motivations, Expectations, and Experiences during Their First Donation Cycle,” Fertility and Sterility 93, no. 2 (2010): 455–466.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Skillern, Cedars, Huddleston, , supra note 4.Google Scholar
Id.; Daar, J. F., “Regulating the Fiction of Informed Consent in ART Medicine,” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Skillern, Cedars, Huddleston, , supra note 4; see Daar, , supra note 16; Belkin, , supra note 5; Cahn, N. Collins, J., “Fully Informed Consent for Prospective Egg Donors,” Virtual Mentor 16, no. 1 (2014): 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Daar, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
Lerner, S., “The Price of Eggs: Undercover in the Infertility Industry,” Ms. Magazine, March 1996.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), “Financial Compensation of Oocyte Donors,” Fertility and Sterility 88, no 2. (2007): 305–309, at 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Cahn, Collins, , supra note 17; The Egg Donor Center, “Egg Donor Process,” available at <http://www.theeggdonor.com/egg_donor_process.html> and <http://www.miami-ivf.com/index.php/en/services/becoming-an-egg-donor>both last visited April 8, 2014).+and+both+last+visited+April+8,+2014).>Google Scholar
Strong, C., “How Should IVF Programs Handle Initial Disclosure of Information to Prospective Ovum Donors?” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurmankin, A., “Risk Information Provided to Prospective Oocyte Donors in a Preliminary Phone Call,” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 3–13.Google Scholar
Cohen, C., “The Interests of Egg Donors: Who Is Deceiving Whom?” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 20–21; Stock, G., “Eggs for Sale: How Much Is Too Much?” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 26–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Cohen, , supra note 25; Gurmankin, , supra note 24; Strong, , supra note 23.Google Scholar
See Kenney, McGowan, , supra note 13.Google Scholar
Miller, F. G. Shorr, A. F., “Advertising for Clinical Research,” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 21, no. 5 (1999): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Klitzman, R. Albala, I. Siragusa, J. Patel, J. Appelbaum, P. S., “Disclosure of Information to Potential Subjects on Research Recruitment Web Sites,” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 30, no. 1 (2008): 15–20.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See ASRM, supra note 21, at 309.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Personal Communication from Sean Tipton to author (ADL) (January 10, 2014).Google Scholar
When collection of advertisements for this study was undertaken in November 2011 and when analysis of entities placing these advertisements was undertaken in 2012, ASRM made publicly available on its website a list of oocyte donor agencies that had registered with SART, signing an agreement to abide by ASRM guidelines. At the time of preparation of this article, ASRM no longer makes this list publicly available on its website. Our determination of the SART registration status of oocyte donor agencies that placed advertisements collected in November 2011 is based on the list that was publicly available on the ASRM website in June 2012.Google Scholar
Alberta, H. B. Berry, R. M. Levine, A. D., “Compliance with Donor Age Recommendations in Oocyte Donor Recruitment Advertisements in the USA,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26, no. 4 (2013): 400–405; Hawkins, J., “Financing Fertility,” Harvard Journal on Legislation 47, no. 1 (2010): 115–165; Keehn, J. Holwell, E. Abdul-Karim, R. Chin, L. J. Leu, C. S. Sauer, M. V. Klitzman, R., “Recruiting Egg Donors Online: An Analysis of In Vitro Fertilization Clinic and Agency Websites: Adherence to American Society for Reproductive Medicine Guidelines,” Fertility and Sterility 98, no. 4 (2012): 995–1000; Levine, A. D., “Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors,” Hastings Center Report 40, no. 2 (2010): 25–36; Luk, J. Petrozza, J. C., “Evaluation of Compliance and Range of Fees Among American Society for Reproductive Medicine-Listed Egg Donor and Surrogacy Agencies,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 53, no. 11 (2008): 847–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Keehn, et al., supra note 36; Carter, J. R. Cezinski, L. B. Karandikar-Chheda, S., “Comprehensive Review of Reproductive Egg Donation Web Sites,” Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 16, no. 1 (2012): 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Cahn, Collins, , supra note 17, at 49–50.Google Scholar
15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 CFR 1271 (2001).Google Scholar
SART, “National Summary,” available at <http://www.sart.org/find_frm.html>(last visited April 8, 2014); Miller, J., Analysis of AB 1317 (2009) for Committee on Health,” California State Assembly, available at <http://totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=200920100AB1317>(last visited April 8, 2014).(last+visited+April+8,+2014);+Miller,+J.,+Analysis+of+AB+1317+(2009)+for+Committee+on+Health,”+California+State+Assembly,+available+at+(last+visited+April+8,+2014).>Google Scholar
See supra note 35.Google Scholar
The one advertisement that contained the word “risk” and was coded as non-compliant with the ASRM guidelines used the term in reference to the possibility that a donor who had received a tattoo or body piercing in the last twelve months might pass infectious disease on to the intended mother or future child.Google Scholar
We note that, by its terms, the California law would require these “persons” to provide the specific risk disclosure set forth in the California law if they post the advertisements in California. We did not separately analyze whether or not these “personal” advertisements were posted in California and, if so, whether they included the risk disclosure required by California law.Google Scholar
See ASRM, supra note 21.Google Scholar
See <http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications/Ethics_Committee_Reports_and_Statements/financial_incentives.pdf>or the guidelines on the compensation of oocyte donors and <http://www.asrm.org/EthicsReports/>or a list of all ethics guidelines (both last visited April 8, 2014).or+the+guidelines+on+the+compensation+of+oocyte+donors+and+or+a+list+of+all+ethics+guidelines+(both+last+visited+April+8,+2014).>Google Scholar
Beeson, D., “Dangerous Harvest,” Council for Responsible Genetics, available at <http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=312>(last visited April 12, 2014); Block, M., “Assembly Member Block Sends Letter to California Attorney General Urging Egg Donor Label Law Investigation,” available at <http://sd39.senate.ca.gov/news/2010-08-23-assemblymember-block-sends-letter-california-attorney-general-urging-egg-donor-label>(last visited April 8, 2014); Vorzimer, A., “An Undercooked Egg: California's New Oocyte Donation Statute Falls Woefully Short,” The Spin Doctor, available at <http://www.eggdonor.com/blog/2009/10/28/an-undercooked-egg-cali-fornias-new-oocyte-donation-statute-falls-woefully-short/>(last visited April 8, 2014). Alberta, Berry, and Levine, supra note 36; Keehn, Holwell, Abdul-Karim, Chin, Leu, Sauer, Klitzman, , supra note 36; Luk, Petrozza, , supra note 36.(last visited April 8, 2014). Alberta, Berry, and Levine, supra note 36; Keehn, Holwell, Abdul-Karim, Chin, Leu, Sauer, Klitzman, , supra note 36; Luk, Petrozza, , supra note 36.' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Beeson,+D.,+“Dangerous+Harvest,”+Council+for+Responsible+Genetics,+available+at+(last+visited+April+12,+2014);+Block,+M.,+“Assembly+Member+Block+Sends+Letter+to+California+Attorney+General+Urging+Egg+Donor+Label+Law+Investigation,”+available+at+(last+visited+April+8,+2014);+Vorzimer,+A.,+“An+Undercooked+Egg:+California's+New+Oocyte+Donation+Statute+Falls+Woefully+Short,”+The+Spin+Doctor,+available+at+(last+visited+April+8,+2014).+Alberta,+Berry,+and+Levine,+supra+note+36;+Keehn,+Holwell,+Abdul-Karim,+Chin,+Leu,+Sauer,+Klitzman,+,+supra+note+36;+Luk,+Petrozza,+,+supra+note+36.>Google Scholar