Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ahuja, K.K.
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, R.G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ahuja, K.K.
Right arrow Articles by Edwards, R.G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 2, 279-284, February 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Opinions

Money, morals and medical risks: conflicting notions underlying the recruitment of egg donors

K.K. Ahuja1,3, E.G. Simons1 and R.G. Edwards2

1 IVF and Fertility Centre, Cromwell Hospital, London SW5 0TU, and 2 Churchill College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

We suggest that the policy recommended for adoption by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) on altruistic donation is flawed. Many of the considerations involved are complex matters and wrong decisions could precipitate harmful effects that could have significant repercussions, not the least of which is litigious.

In a recent consultation paper, the HFEA (1998a), the government appointed panel which regulates the practice of assisted reproduction in the UK, concludes that: (i) gamete donations should be a gift, freely and voluntarily given after informed consent and that direct payments should be phased out; and (ii) that an arrangement involving benefits in kind, such as an egg sharing scheme in which a couple receive treatment at a reduced charge in exchange for donating surplus eggs should also be phased out. Accordingly, if the conclusions of this consultation paper are accepted, egg donation in the UK will in future depend wholly . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Evidence of clinical risk to donors of oocytes is ignored in the HFEA consultation paper

Failure to warn a donor properly of medical risks may lead to litigation

Studies show that donors clearly distinguish between cash rewards and subsidized fertility treatment

Equating egg and blood or organ donors is not justifiable

The HFEA consultation paper does not comment on what it may perceive as recipient motivation

The document ignores the proven advantages and benefits of shared egg treatment

ADDENDUM

Decision on withdrawal of payment to donors: HFEA statement 9.12.98
Payments for egg and sperm donors
Egg sharing
Notes

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. Blyth
Subsidized IVF: the development of 'egg sharing' in the UK
Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2002; 17(12): 3254 - 3259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
C. Murray and S. Golombok
Oocyte and semen donation: a survey of UK licensed centres
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2000; 15(10): 2133 - 2139.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Marina, R. Exposito, F. Marina, J. Nadal, M. Masramon, and A. Verges
Oocyte donor selection from 554 candidates
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 1999; 14(11): 2770 - 2776.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
M. H.Johnson
The medical ethics of paid egg sharing in the UK: Opinion
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 1999; 14(7): 1912 - 1918.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]