Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:29:49.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Federalism and bioethics: Women's health and the regulation of oocyte donation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Alisa Von Hagel
Alisa Von Hagel*
Affiliation:
Social Inquiry Department, Swenson Hall 3061, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI 54880. avonhage@uwsuper.edu
Get access

Abstract

The absence of comprehensive federal oversight of human biotechnologies in the United States continues to stimulate academic discourse on the relative merits of European-style regulatory agencies as compared to the current, decentralized approach. Many American bioethicists support the latter, maintaining that the key features of federalism—policy experimentation and moral pluralism—allows for the efficient regulation of these complex and contentious issues. This paper examines state-level regulation of oocyte donation to assess claims regarding the superiority of this decentralized regulatory approach. Further, this paper introduces an additional element to this examination of state law, which concerns the degree to which the health and safety of key participants is addressed at the state level. This inquiry assesses one facet of fertility medicine and biomedical research law, oocyte donation, an analysis that can be used to inform the broader discourse regarding the regulation of human biotechnologies and bioethical issues by the states.

Keywords

Oocyte donationbioethicsfertility medicineassisted reproductive technologiesbiomedical research lawhuman embryonic stem cell (ESC) researchfederalism
Type
Perspective
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Spring 2014 , pp. 79 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

1. Ouellette, Alicia, Caplan, Arthur, Carroll, Kelly, Fossett, James, Bjarnadottir, Dyrleif, Shickle, Darren, McGeeg, Glenn, “Lessons from across the pond: Assisted reproductive technology in the United Kingdom and the United States,” American Journal of Law and Medicine, 2005, 31(4): 419–446.Google Scholar
2. Fossett, James, “Managing reproductive pluralism,” Hastings Center Report, 2007, 37(4): 20–22; Fossett, James, Ouellette, Alicia, Philpott, Sean, Magus, David, and McGee, Glenn, “States and moral pluralism,” Hastings Center Report, 2007, 37(6): 24–36; Ouellette, et al. 2005.Google Scholar
3. Mitchell Pickerill, J. and Chen, Paul, “Medical marijuana policy and the virtues of federalism,” Publius, 2007, 38(1): 22–55.Google Scholar
4. Fossett, 2007; Robertson, John, “Embryo stem cell research: Ten years of controversy,” Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2010, 38:191–203.Google Scholar
5. Maschke, Karen, “The federalist turn in bioethics?” Hastings Center Report, 2007, 37(6): 3.Google Scholar
6. Ellison, Brooke and Meliker, Jaymie, “Assessing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in egg donation: Implications for human embryonic stem cell research,” American Journal of Bioethics, 2011, 11(9): 22–30, at 27; Guidice, Linda, Santa, Eileen and Pool, Robert, eds., Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research: Workshop Report, National Research Council: National Academies Press, 2007.Google Scholar
7. Durrell, Justine, “Women's eggs: Exceptional endings,” Hastings Women's Law Journal, 2011, 22(1): 187–230.Google Scholar
8. Kalfoglou, Andrea and Gittelsohn, John, “A qualitative follow-up study of women's experiences with oocyte donation,” Human Reproduction, 2000, 15(4): 798–805; Kenney, Nancy and McGowan, Michelle, “Looking back: Egg donors' retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle,” Fertility and Sterility, 2008, 93(2): 455–466, at 462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Informing offspring of their conception by gamete or embryo donation: A committee opinion,” Fertility and Sterility, 2013, 100(1): 45–49; Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Interests, obligations, and rights of the donor in gamete donation,” Fertility and Sterility, 2009, 91(1): 22–27; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Recommendations for embryo and gamete donation: A committee opinion,” Fertility and Sterility, 2013, 99(1): 47–62.Google Scholar
10. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Financial compensation of oocyte donors,” Fertility and Sterility, 2007, 88(2): 305–309, at 305.Google Scholar
11. Levine, Aaron, “Self regulation, compensation and the ethical recruitment of egg donors,” Hastings Center Report, 2010, 40(2): 25–36, at 29, 31.Google Scholar
12. Luk, Janelle and Petrozza, John, “Evaluation of compliance and range of fees among American Society of Reproductive Medicine-listed egg donor and surrogacy agencies,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2008, 53(11): 847–852, at 850.Google Scholar
13. Keehn, Jason, Holwell, Eve, Abdul-Karim, Ruqayyah, Chin, Lisa, Leu, Cheng-Shium, Sauer, Mark and Klitzman, Robert, “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, 2012, 98(4): 995–1000.Google Scholar
14. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2007.Google Scholar
15. Keehn, et al. 2012; Luk and Petrozza 2008; Thomas Papadimos and Alexa Papadimos, “The student and the ovum: The lack of autonomy and informed consent in trading genes for tuition,” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 2004, 2(56).Google Scholar
16. Keehn, et al., 997.Google Scholar
17. Durrell, , 192–193; Uroz, Victoria and Guerra, Lucia, “Donation of eggs in assisted reproduction and informed consent.” Medicine and the Law, 2009, 28 (September): 565–575.Google Scholar
18. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2013; Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2009.Google Scholar
19. Beeson, Diane, “Dangerous harvest,” Gene Watch, 2010, 23(5): 42–45; Dickenson, Donna and Idiakez, Itziar Alkorta, “Ova donation for stem cell research: An international perspective.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 2008, 1(2): 125–144.Google Scholar
20. Daniels, Cynthia and Heidt-Forsythe, Erin, “Gendered eugenics and the problematic of the ‘free market’ reproductive choice: Sperm and egg donation in the U.S.,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 2012, 37(3): 719–747.Google Scholar
21. Kenney, and McGowan, , 459.Google Scholar
22. Daniels, and Heidt-Forsythe, 2012; Uroz, and Guerra, 2009.Google Scholar
23. Steinbock, Bonnie, “Payment for egg donation and surrogacy,” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 2004, 71: 255–265.Google Scholar
24. Bretherick, Karla, Fairbrother, Nichole, Avila, Luana, Harbord, Sara, Robinson, Wendy, “Fertility and aging: Do reproductive-aged women know what they need to know?” Fertility and Sterility, 2010, 93: 2162–2168.Google Scholar
25. Hawkins, Jim, “Doctors as bankers: Evidence from fertility markets,” Tulane Law Review, 2010, 84 (March): 841–897; Jacoby, Melissa, “The debt financing of parenthood,” Law and Contemporary Problems, 2009, 72(3): 147–176.Google Scholar
26. Parens, Erik and Knowles, Lori, “Reprogenetics and public policy: Reflections and recommendations,” Hastings Center Report, 2003, 33(4): S1–S24.Google Scholar
27. Maher, Brendan, “Egg shortage hits race to clone human stem cells,” Nature, 2008, 453: 828–829.Google Scholar
28. Robertson, , 192.Google Scholar
29. National Council of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org, August 25, 2011.Google Scholar
30. Beeson, , 44; Durrell, 206.Google Scholar
31. Ariz Rev Stat 36–1702, 2011.Google Scholar
32. Tuller, 2010.Google Scholar
33. California Health and Safety Code 125325.Google Scholar
34. California Health and Safety Code 125355.Google Scholar
35. Empire State Stem Cell Board, “Statement of the Empire State Stem Cell Board on the compensation for oocyte donation,” NYSTEM: New York Stem Cell Science, 2009. Online: http://stem-cell.ny.gov/statement-empire-state-stem-cell-board-compensation-oocyte-donorsGoogle Scholar
36. Brown, Edmund G. Jr., “Veto message: Assembly bill 926,” California Legislature 2013–2014 Regular Session.Google Scholar
37. North Dakota Cent Code 14-20-64.Google Scholar
38. California Penal Code 367g.Google Scholar
39. Maryland Econ Dev Code 10-428.Google Scholar
40. Louisiana Rev Stat 9:121–130.Google Scholar
41. Eastman, Christina, “Statutory regulation of legal parentage in cases of artificial insemination by donor: A new frontier,” McGeorge Law Review, 2010, 41: 371–406.Google Scholar
42. Eastman, 2010.Google Scholar
43. Terman, Sarah, “Marketing motherhood: Rights and responsibilities of egg donors in assisted reproductive technology agreements,” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 2008, 3 (Winter): 167–184.Google Scholar
44. Burgin, Eileen, “Human embryonic stem cell research and Proposition 71: Reflections on California's response to federal policy,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2010, 29(2): 73–95.Google Scholar
45. Eastman, 2010; Terman, 2008.Google Scholar
46. Keehn, , et al; Levine, ; Luk, and Petrozza, ; Papadimos, and Papadimos, .Google Scholar
47. Bonnicksen, Andrea, “In vitro fertilization: A women's political issue,” International Political Science Review, 1987, 8(2): 147–154.Google Scholar