Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
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 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 (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sauer, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Paulson, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sauer, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Paulson, R. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 726-728, 1992
© 1992 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

other

Oocyte donors: a demographic analysis of women at the University of Southern California

Mark V. Sauer1 and Richard J. Paulson

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA, USA

Correspondence: 1To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Women's Hospital, 1240 N. Mission Road, Room L946, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA

A summary is presented of 3 years' experience with donors in an oocyte donation programme. During this interval, 50 women participated as gamete donors. All proffered their services without solicitation from the programme. Most were college-educated, working mothers. The majority stated that the primary motivation for participation was concern for others' infertility. Oocyte donors generally found the required use of parenteral medication taxing but tolerable. In most cases, injections were administered to the donor by her husband or by the female recipient. The majority of donations were performed without anonymity (66%). Cycles were performed at ~3-month intervals. This approach was well tolerated by donors and allowed predictable scheduling of cases. All women felt their participation was of great significance and each was willing to donate oocytes again if asked.

Key words: oocyte donation/ovarian failure


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 Reprod UpdateHome page
S. Purewal and O.B.A. van den Akker
Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2009; 15(5): 499 - 515.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
O. van den Akker
A review of family donor constructs: Current research and future directions
Hum. Reprod. Update, March 1, 2006; 12(2): 91 - 101.
[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]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.