by Lisa Marsh, The AFA's London Correspondent
There are times when I feel very fortunate to live within easy commuting distance of central London and last night was one of those. Instead of the usual household chores and evening TV shows, I popped into London to attend a debate organized by the Progress Educational Trust (PET) at the Royal Society of Medicine: "Paying Egg Donors: A Child At Any Price." It was well worth the effort, to be privy to the information and opinion of several eminent speakers on the panel, as well as those audience members from the fields of medicine, counselling, government, related charities and scientific research.
One thing about which there is no debate is the extreme shortage of egg donors in the UK. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which currently regulates the providers of fertility treatment such as IVF using donor eggs, will be considering various models of compensation in January, 2011, as a possible means of boosting supplies of donor eggs. as well as reversing the increasingly popular choice among British residents to travel abroad for fertility treatment. At the last HFEA Open meeting on the 8th of September, 2010, which I attended, its chair, Prof. Lisa Jardine, made no bones about the fact that she is concerned that fertility treatment providers in foreign countries may not be subject to the same stringent oversight as in the UK, therefore creating a risk to patients. Others' objections to "fertility tourism" may be equally concerned about the loss of revenue to UK fertility clinics, exploitation of egg recipients' desperation for a baby, and the trading of human, genetic tissue (gametes) as a moral issue.
Currently, in the UK, egg donors are only compensated for their expenses, which include loss of earnings for days of work missed; a daily maximum of £61.28 or a total of £250. The questions regarding payment were these:
- Should compensation merely compensate for lost earnings, or for additional factors such as risk to the donor, drug treatment, sexual abstinence and/or pain and discomfort? If the latter, then how much compensation is reasonable, to leave the donor no worse off than she was before the egg donation, but no better off financially?
- Is egg sharing morally favourable because the donor is giving her eggs to another woman, or is it merely a financial transaction (trading of human eggs for financial gain) by another name (donors receive a discount on their IVF)?
- Should egg sharing be limited to altruistic donation in which the donor has no expectation of any financial payment, or other compensation?
- If there is no legal barrier to a woman giving her eggs to someone else, why shouldn't she be able to sell them?
One panel member, Brenda Almond of the Philosophical Society of England, likened the trading of genetic material, cells, to the slave trade. She cited libertarianism, as a philosophy holding that the vulnerable should be protected, to support her assertion that human eggs, which could one day become embryos and eventually, a living child, need protection. I assume what she meant is that the children who are born of those eggs are not able to assert free will over how the transaction takes place. She also posed the question of whether, by performing donor egg IVF, clinicians are violating the "do no harm" rule, as there is inevitably emotinal impact upon the donor, the recipient, the donor's children and the recipient's child.
While I don't doubt that Ms Almond holds sincere views on the subject, these controversial views, were, in my opinion, stated for effect last night. While I don't subscribe to her views, I was very open to hearing everyone, but found her to be the least persuasive of all the speakers. My belief is that the slave trade argument doesn't apply, as :
- the egg is not "human flesh;"
- if produced by the donor, but unused to create a pregnancy, it would otherwise go to waste; and
- there is no human child, if the egg is not fertilized with the intended father's sperm and carried in the intended mother's womb.
Opinions diverged widely during the debate, much of it focusing on what the donor could reasonably expect to receive for giving her eggs to intended parents. In egg sharing a woman, who is already planning to have an egg retrieval for her own IVF, can expect to receive £2 - 3,000 worth of fertility treatment as a benefit.Several people present last night voiced opinions that egg sharing is really egg trading because of the value of the benefit received, making it a financial transaction by another name.
But, what of the healthy, fertile woman who doesn't need IVF? She may want to give her eggs to a specific woman; a sister, friend or stranger, completely from a place of generosity. There are avenues for making this gift, such as Altrui - an egg donation scheme that matches donors and recipients. One such woman, Laura Witjens, Chair of the National Gamete Donation Trust, and a mother, sat on last night's panel, personally advocating a payment to egg donors of approximately £700. She believes that amount would be enough to cover the donor's costs, and constitute a gesture of appreciation for the value attached to the donation, without being potentially exploitative....not enough money to change the donor's life, pay off their debt, etc... Interestingly, while Witjens' twins were naturally conceived, she stated that if she had been infertile, she absolutely would have paid for eggs to become a mother.
Some of the people present at the PET debate, both on the panel and in the audience, batted back and forth the idea that knowing their biological mother received payment for the egg that created them would be psychologically damaging. Some people may have difficulty coping with the knowledge that they sprung from a donated egg, regardless of the issue of payment. How is this scenario any different from adoption, where adoptive parents must prepare themselves for educating their child about their origins in a sensitive and understandable way? Raanan Gillon, Chair of the Institute of Medical Ethics, countered that argument in the best way possible; saying "the alternative to having a donor-conceived child be upset about the egg being bought, would be that they don't exist at all." Quite right. How many people would wish they had never existed and their parents never having had children, rather than any payment being made to the donor?
In regard to the argument of almost-inevitable harm, I have to ask: "so what?" The donor should be provided with counselling prior to carrying out the egg retrieval and donation, to ensure that she understands the physical risks and emotional ramifications involved. Her existing or future children can be raised with the message that Mom did something generous to allow another woman to have a child who would not otherwise have been able to do so. The recipient is surely informed about all of the angles of the process and should be counselled up until she conceives, if not afterward as well. The donor-conceived child is the one who needs the most attention and sensitivity. Yes, there is a risk, especially in cases of anonymous egg donation, when there will be a loss of genetic connections with biological maternal relatives. This could cause feelings of not belonging, incomplete sense of identity. However, anonymous donation was not the topic of the evening.
In the case where the donor-conceived child will have the right to seek their biological mother at the age of 18, his parents have the responsibility of preparing their child adequately for what he may discover. Prof. Brian Lieberman, Medical Director of Manchester Fertility Services, called for all of the exchanges taking place in egg donation to be open and transparent. I believe it was he who said that his overriding concern for the donor-conceived child is that they are able to feel proud of who they are and how they are created. That, to me, is the goal in raising any child, conceived naturally, through assisted reproduction techniques or adopted. That message is one of love and belonging.
Much was made of the US free-market model for egg donation, the range being quoted as anywhere from £8 to £19,000. While Prof. Gillon did not see payment for eggs, in itself, morally objectionable, the consensus of most panel members and speakers from the audience was that if payment was made it should be a regulated, fixed fee, rather than a market-driven fee like in the US. Among that group, a lump-sum fee of an amount between the current £250 and Laura Witjen's suggested £700 seemed to be favoured; the amount resting on the difference between inducement and coercion. For those willing to embrace a fee at all, this amount was sufficient as an inducement to give something of value, the egg, to someone else which requires the donor to experience some physical risk and inconvenience. Anything more, in their opinion, could make a change in the donor's lifestyle, therefore running the risk of coercing that person to do something which they might otherwise believe immoral or otherwise wrong. Dr Sue Avery, Director of the Fertility Centre at the Birmingham Women's Hospital and a panel member, felt that the "lump sum argument is fallible, because any amount will be an incentive to someone to do something they would not otherwise wish to do."
You may be interested to hear my contribution to the debate. I had had no intention, whatsoever, of speaking; however at the end of the evening, I felt it necessary to point out that it was all well and good debating ethics in a vacuum, but it should not be forgotten that real people are involved here. The British government, associated with the Church of England, promotes family values. The evidence is undeniable that most people want to create families and they are not willing to let a diagnosis of infertility come between them and a baby. The country is proud of the breakthroughs in medical science that have occurred here, and more money has been made available for fertility treatment through the National Health Service (NHS). However, there are still many couples who find themselves shut out, some by the severe shortage of donor eggs available.
I shared with the PET audience that my husband and I never got to the point where I was told I couldn't go any further because of a shortage of donor eggs. We felt let down by the medical system here that moved at a snail's pace in responding to my infertility and then told us I was too old to qualify for IVF under NHS regulations. At 42 years old, with few quality eggs left, using donor eggs would have had to be my next step if we had gone further. (I am one who, like the cliche, miraculously conceived naturally 3 months after my failed IVF cycle.) I have clients who are in the same position now that I was in ten years ago. Faced with the probability that their own sub-standard eggs mean they will never conceive, I believe that most women would be willing to pay something in appreciation for this priceless gift from another woman.
As Laura Witjens pointed out, "patients vote with their feet." If they cannot get access to the assisted reproduction techniques they need to create their families in the UK, they will seek them out elsewhere, even if payment must be made. If the government wants those needing fertility treatment to stay in this country, it has to make concessions to the needs and desires of those concerned. It can't rely upon "in the best of all possible worlds..." but, instead, must make the world we live in as easy to negotiate as possible, in a positive way, aimed at a positive result.
If you have been an egg donor, used donor eggs or just have an opinion about whether payment should be made to an egg donor, and if so, how much, I would like to hear from you.
Lisa Marsh is an American fertility coach who lives and works out of London, U.K. and London correspondent for The American Fertility Association's blog page. You can find more information about Lisa’s work at http;//yourgreatlife.typepad.com or follow her fertility and miscarriage-related Tweets on Twitter @yourgreatlife.
Recent Comments