Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Egg donation
View on Wikipedia
| Egg donation | |
|---|---|
| MeSH | D018587 |
Egg donation (also referred to as "oocyte donation") is the process by which a woman donates eggs to enable another woman to conceive as part of an assisted reproduction treatment or for biomedical research. For assisted reproduction purposes, egg donation typically involves in vitro fertilization technology, with the eggs being fertilized in the laboratory; more rarely, unfertilized eggs may be frozen and stored for later use. Egg donation is a third-party reproduction as part of assisted reproductive technology.
In the United States, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued guidelines for these procedures, and the Food and Drug Administration has a number of guidelines as well. There are boards in countries outside of the US which have the same regulations. However, egg donation agencies in the U.S. can choose whether to abide by the society's regulations or not.
History
[edit]The first child born from egg donation was reported in Australia in 1983.[1] In July 1983, a clinic in Southern California reported a pregnancy using egg donation, which led to the birth of the first American child born from egg donation on 3 February 1984.[2] This procedure was performed at the Harbor UCLA Medical Center and the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine.[3] In the procedure, which is no longer used today, a fertilized egg that was just beginning to develop was transferred from one woman in whom it had been conceived by artificial insemination to another woman who gave birth to the infant 38 weeks later. The sperm used in the artificial insemination came from the husband of the woman who bore the baby.[4][5]
Before this development, thousands of infertile women, single men and same-sex male couples had adoption as the only path to parenthood. The donation of human oocytes and embryos has since become a common practice similar to other donations such as blood and major organ donations. The practice of egg donation has sparked media attention and public debate, and has had a substantial impact on the field of reproductive medicine.[4][5]
This scientific breakthrough changed the possibilities for those who were unable to have children due to female infertility and for those at high risk for passing on hereditary disorders. As IVF developed, the procedures used in egg donation developed in parallel: the egg donor's eggs are now harvested from her ovaries in an outpatient surgical procedure and fertilized in the laboratory, the same procedure used on IVF patients. The resulting embryo or embryos are then transferred into the intended mother instead of into the woman who provided the egg. Donor oocytes thus give women a mechanism to become pregnant and give birth to a child that will be their biological child, but not their genetic child. In cases where the recipient's womb is absent or unable to carry a pregnancy, or in cases involving gay male couples, the embryos are implanted into a gestational surrogate, who carries the embryo to term, per an agreement with the future parents. The combination of egg donation and surrogacy has enabled gay men, including singer Elton John and his partner, to have biological children.[6] Oocyte and embryo donation now account for approximately 18% of in vitro fertilization recorded births in the US.[7][8]
This work established the technical foundation and legal-ethical framework surrounding the clinical use of human oocyte and embryo donation, a mainstream clinical practice, which has evolved over the past 25 years.[4][9] Since the initial birth announcement in 1984, there have been well over 47,000 live births resulting from donor oocyte embryo transfer recorded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)[10] in the United States to infertile women, who would not have been able to have children by any other existing method.
The legal status and cost/compensation models of egg donation vary significantly by country. It may be totally illegal (e.g., Italy, Germany, Austria);[11][12] legal only if anonymous and gratuitous—that is, without any compensation for the egg donor (e.g., France);[13] legal only if non-anonymous and gratuitous (e.g., Canada); legal only if anonymous, but egg donors may be compensated (the compensation is often described as being to offset her inconvenience and expenses) (e.g., Spain, Czech Republic, South Africa, Greece); legal only if non-anonymous, but egg donors may be compensated (e.g., the UK);[14] or legal whether or not it is anonymous, and egg donors may be compensated (e.g., the US).
Indication
[edit]A need for egg donation may arise for a number of reasons. Infertile couples may resort to egg donation when the female partner cannot have genetic children because her own eggs cannot generate a viable pregnancy, or because they could generate a viable pregnancy but the chances are so low that it is not advisable or financially feasible to do IVF with her own eggs. This situation is often, but not always based on advanced reproductive age. It can also be due to early onset of menopause, which can occur as early as their 20s. In addition, some women are born without ovaries, while some women's reproductive organs have been damaged or surgically removed due to disease or other circumstances. Another indication would be a genetic disorder on part of the woman that either renders her infertile or would be dangerous for any offspring, problems that can be circumvented by using eggs from another woman. Many women have none of these issues, but continue to be unsuccessful using their own eggs—in other words, they have undiagnosed infertility—and thus turn to donor eggs or donor embryos. As stated above, egg donation is also helpful for gay male couples using surrogacy (see LGBT parenting).
- Congenital absence of eggs
- Acquired reduced egg quantity / quality
- Oophorectomy
- Premature menopause
- Chemotherapy
- Radiation therapy
- Autoimmunity
- Advanced maternal age
- Compromised ovarian reserve
- Other
- Diseases of X-Sex linkage
- Repetitive fertilization or pregnancy failure
- Ovaries inaccessible for egg retrieval
Types of donors
[edit]Donors includes the following types:
- Donors unrelated to the recipients who do it for altruistic and/or monetary reasons. In the US they are anonymous donors or semi-anonymous donors recruited by egg donor agencies or IVF clinics. Such donors may also be non-anonymous donors, i.e., they may exchange identifying and contact information with the recipients. In most countries other than the US and UK, the law requires such donors to remain anonymous. US donors are often recruited by agencies who act as intermediaries, typical with promises of money and altruistic rewards.[15]
- Designated donors, e.g. a friend or relative brought by the patients to serve as a donor specifically to help them. In Sweden and France, couples who can bring such a donor still get another person as a donor, but instead get advanced on the waiting list for the procedure, and that donor rather becomes a "cross donor".[16] In other words, the couple brings a designated donor, she donates anonymously to another couple, and the couple that brought her receives eggs from another anonymous donor much more quickly than they would have if they had not been able to provide a designated donor.
- Patients taking part in shared oocyte programmes. Women who go through in vitro fertilization may be willing to donate unused eggs to such a program, where the egg recipients together help paying the cost of the In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) procedure.[17] It is very cost-effective compared to other alternatives.[18] The pregnancy rate with use of shared oocytes is similar to that with altruistic donors.[19]
Procedure
[edit]After being recruited and screened, an egg donor must give informed consent before participating in the IVF process. Once the egg donor is recruited, she undergoes IVF stimulation therapy, followed by the egg retrieval procedure. After retrieval, the ova are fertilized by the sperm of the male partner (or sperm donor) in the laboratory, and, after several days, the best resulting embryo(s) is/are placed in the uterus of the recipient, whose uterine lining has been appropriately prepared for embryo transfer beforehand. If a large number of viable embryos are generated, they can be cryopreserved for future implantation attempts. The recipient is usually, but not always, the person who requested the service and then will carry and deliver the pregnancy and keep the baby.
The egg donor's process in detail
[edit]Before any intensive medical, psychological, or genetic testing is done on a donor, they must first be chosen by a recipient from the profiles on agency or clinic databases (or, in countries where donors are required to remain anonymous, they are chosen by the recipient's doctor based on their physical and temperamental resemblance to the recipient woman). This is due to the fact that all of the mentioned examinations are expensive and the agencies must first confirm that a match is possible or guaranteed before investing in the process.[20] Each egg donor is first referred to a psychologist who will evaluate if she is mentally prepared to undertake and complete the donation process. These evaluations are necessary to ensure that the donor is fully prepared and capable of completing the donation cycle safely and successfully. The donor is then required to undergo a thorough medical examination, including a pelvic exam, a blood test to evaluate hormone levels (notably Anti-Müllerian hormone), infection risk, Rh factor, blood type, drug use, and an ultrasound to examine her ovaries, uterus and other pelvic organs. A family history of approximately the past three generations is also required, meaning that adoptees are usually not accepted because of the lack of past health knowledge.[20] Genetic testing is also usually done on donors to ensure that they do not carry mutations (e.g., cystic fibrosis) that could harm the resulting children; however, not all clinics automatically perform such testing and thus recipients must clarify with their clinics whether such testing will be done.
Once the screening is complete and a legal contract signed, the donor will begin the donation cycle, which typically takes between three and six weeks. An egg retrieval procedure comprises both the Egg Donor's Cycle and the Recipient's Cycle. Birth control pills are administered during the first few weeks of the egg donation process to synchronize the donor's cycle with the recipient's, followed by a series of injections which halt the normal functioning of the donor's ovaries. These injections may be self-administered on a daily basis for a period of one to three weeks. Next, follicle-stimulating hormones (FSH) are given to the donor to stimulate egg production and increases the number of mature eggs produced by the ovaries. Throughout the cycle the donor is monitored often by a physician using blood tests and ultrasound exams to determine the donor's reaction to the hormones and the progress of follicle growth.
Once the doctor decides the follicles are mature, they will establish the date and time for the egg retrieval procedure. Approximately 36 hours before retrieval, the donor must administer one last injection of HCG hormone to ensure that her eggs are ready to be harvested. This hormone will produce a LH hormone concentration peak and induce follicular development. The oocytes are then retrieved from developed follicles via ovarian punction. This extraction must occur before ovulation, as oocytes are too small to be identified once they leave the follicle, and if the appropriate time window is missed the donation cycle will need to be repeated.[citation needed]
The egg retrieval itself is a minimally invasive surgical procedure lasting 20–30 minutes, performed under sedation by an anesthetist, to ensure the donor is kept completely pain free. Egg donors may also be advised to take a pain-relieving medicine one hour before egg collection, to ensure minimum discomfort after the procedure.[21] A small ultrasound-guided needle is inserted through the vagina to aspirate the follicles in both ovaries, which extracts the eggs. After resting in a recovery room for an hour or two, the donor is released. Most donors resume regular activities by the next day.
Results
[edit]In the United States, egg donor cycles have a success rate of over 60% (see statistics at http://www.sart.org.) When a "fresh cycle" is followed by a "frozen cycle", the success rate with donor eggs is approximately 80%.
With egg donation, women who are past their reproductive years or menopause can still become pregnant. Adriana Iliescu held the record as the oldest woman to give birth using IVF and donated egg, when she gave birth in 2004 at the age of 66, a record passed in 2006.[22] According to a 2002 study, egg donations had a 38% success rate in cases of women past their reproductive years.[23]
Egg donation process in European countries is more cost effective compared to the US, especially in Cyprus where the success rates are higher.
Recipient and donor motivation
[edit]Intended parent motivation
[edit]Women may resort to egg donation because their ovaries may not be able to produce a substantial number of viable eggs. Women may experience premature ovarian failure and stop producing viable eggs during their reproductive years. Some women may be born without ovaries. Ovaries damaged by chemotherapy or radiotherapy may also no longer produce healthy eggs. Older women with diminished ovarian reserves or older women who are going through menopause could also become pregnant with egg donation.[24]
Women who produce healthy eggs may also elect to use a donor egg so they will not pass on genetic diseases.
Two men who are in a homosexual relationship and wish to have a biological child may choose to fertilize a donor egg so as to have a child without a woman's involvement.
Donor motivation
[edit]An egg donor may be motivated to donate eggs for altruistic reasons. A survey of 80 American women showed that 30% were motivated by altruism alone, another 20% were attracted only by monetary compensation, while 40% of donors were motivated by both reasons. The same study found that 45% of egg donors were students the first time they donated and averaged $4,000 for each donation.[25]
Although the donors may be motivated by both monetary and altruistic reasons, egg agencies desire and prefer to choose donors that are strictly providing eggs for altruistic reasons.[20] The European Union limits any financial compensation for donors to at most $1500. In some countries, most notably Spain and Cyprus, this has limited donors to the poorest segments of society.[26] In the United States, donors are paid regardless of how many eggs she produces. A donor's compensation may increase for each additional time she provides eggs, especially if the donor's eggs have a history of reliably resulting in the recipient becoming pregnant.[20] In the United States, egg-broker agencies are known for advertising to college students who are more likely to be in financial situations that motivate them to participate for the financial compensation. It is not unusual for one student to donate many times. Often, this is done without consideration of potential long-term health consequences. Such a student is arguably not making the decision to donate her eggs autonomously due to her unfavorable financial situation.[27]
Risks
[edit]Egg donor
[edit]The procedures for the donor and the medication given to her are identical to the procedures and medications used in autologous IVF (i.e., IVF on patients who are using their own eggs). The egg donor thus has the same risk of complications from IVF as an autologous IVF patient would, such as bleeding from the oocyte recovery procedure and reactions to the hormones used to induce hyperovulation (producing more than one egg), including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and, rarely, liver failure.[28]
According to Jansen and Tucker, writing in the same assisted reproductive technologies textbook referenced above,[28] the risk of OHSS varies with the clinic administering the hormones, from 6.6 to 8.4% of cycles, half of them "severe". The most severe form of OHSS is life-threatening. Recent studies have found that donors were at less risk of OHSS when the final maturation of oocytes was induced by GnRH agonist than with recombinant hCG. Both hormones were comparable in the number of mature oocytes produced and fertilization rates.[29][30] A larger study in the Netherlands found 10 documented cases of deaths from IVF, with a rate of 1:10,000. "All of these patients were treated with GnRH agonists and none of these cases have been published in the scientific literature."
The long-term effect of egg donation on donors has not been well studied, but because the same medications and procedures are used, it is likely similar to the long-term effects (if any) of IVF on patients using their own eggs. The evidence of increased cancer risk is equivocal; some studies have found a slightly increased risk, particularly for those with a family history of breast cancer, while other studies have found no such risk or even a slightly reduced risk in most patients. [31][32] 1 in 5 women report psychological effects—which may be positive or negative—from donating their eggs, and two-thirds of egg donors were happy with the decision to donate their eggs. The same study found that 20% of women did not recall being aware of any physical risks.[25] In accordance with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine guidelines, female donors are given a limit of 6 cycles that they may donate in order to minimize the possible health risks.[20] Initial evidence suggests that repetitive oocyte donation cycles does not cause accelerated ovarian aging, evidenced by absence of decreased anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in such women.[33]
Intended parent
[edit]The recipient has a minimal risk of contracting a transmittable disease. While the donor may test negative for HIV, such testing does not exclude the possibility that the donor has contracted HIV very recently, so the recipient faces a residual risk of exposure. In the US, the FDA requires full infectious disease testing no more than 30 days prior to retrieval and/or transfer. Many clinics require that donors be retested a few days prior to retrieval so the risk to the recipient is minimal. Intimate partners of both the egg donor and the recipient are also tested.
The recipient must also trust that the medical history provided by the donor and her family is accurate. As American donors are paid thousands of dollars, such compensation may drive deceptive behaviors from donors. However, a full psychological evaluation is required by most IVF clinics, providing some evaluation of donor trustworthiness.
In most cases, there is no ongoing relationship between the donor and recipient following the cycle. Both the donor and recipient agree in formal legal documents that the donation of the eggs is final at the time of retrieval, and typically both parties would like any "relationship" to conclude at that point; if they prefer continued contact, they may provide for that in the contract. Even if they prefer anonymity, however, it remains theoretically possible that in the future, some children may be able to identify their donor(s) using DNA databanks and/or registries (e.g., if the donor submits her DNA to a genealogy site and a child born from her donation later submits its DNA to the same site).
Multiple birth is a common complication. Incidence of twin births is very high. At the present time, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends that no more than 1 or 2 embryos be transferred in any given cycle. Remaining embryos are frozen, whether for future transfers if the first one fails, for siblings, or for eventual embryo donation.
There appears to be a slightly higher risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension in pregnancies of egg donation.[34]
Fetus
[edit]Pregnancies with egg donation are associated with a slightly increased risk of placental pathology.[34] The local and systemic immunologic changes are also more pronounced than in natural pregnancies, so it has been suggested that the association is caused by reduced maternal immune tolerance towards the fetus, as the genetic similarity between the carrier and fetus from an egg donation is less than in a natural pregnancy.[34] In contrast, the incidence of other perinatal complications, such as intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth and congenital malformations, is comparable to conventional IVF without egg donation.[34]
Custody
[edit]Generally legal documents are signed renouncing rights and responsibilities of custody on the part of the donor. Most IVF doctors will not proceed with administering medication to any donor until these documents are in place and a legal "clearance letter" confirming this understanding is provided to the doctor.[citation needed]
Legality and financial issues
[edit]The legal status and cost/compensation models of egg donation vary significantly by country. It may be totally illegal (e.g., Italy, Germany);[11][12] legal only if anonymous and gratuitous—that is, without any compensation for the egg donor (e.g., France);[13] legal only if non-anonymous and gratuitous (e.g., Canada); legal only if anonymous, but egg donors may be compensated (the compensation is often described as being to offset her inconvenience and expenses) (e.g., Spain, Czech Republic, South Africa); legal only if non-anonymous, but egg donors may be compensated (e.g., the UK);[14] or legal whether or not it is anonymous, and egg donors may be compensated (e.g., the US). Because most countries prohibit the sale of body parts, egg donors generally are paid for undergoing the necessary medical procedures rather than for their eggs. In other words, if they complete the cycle, they will be paid the agreed price regardless of how many (or how few) eggs are retrieved.
In countries that prohibit compensation there is an extreme dearth of young women willing to go through this procedure. Additionally, in most countries where it is legal and compensated, the law places a cap on the compensation and that cap tends to be in the vicinity of $1000–$2000. In the US, no law caps the compensation, but the American Society for Reproductive Medicine requires member clinics to abide by their standards, which provide that "sums of $5,000 or more require justification and sums above $10,000 are not appropriate."[35] The "justification" for payments over $5000 may include previous successful donations, unusually good family health history, or membership in minority ethnicities for which it is more difficult to find donors.
As a result of these legal and financial differences around the world, egg donation in the US is much more expensive than it is in other countries. For instance, at one top US clinic it costs more than $26,000 plus the donor's medications (another several thousand dollars).[36]
Having an attorney draft a contract is recommended in order to ensure that the donor has no possible legal rights or responsibilities over the child or any frozen embryos. Hiring an attorney who specializes in reproductive law is thus strongly recommended, at least in the United States; other countries may have other procedures for clarifying the parties' rights, or may simply have legislation that defines the parties' rights. In the US, before the egg donor's IVF cycle begins she typically must sign the Egg Donor Contract, which specifies the rights of the donor and the recipient(s) with respect to the retrieved eggs, the embryos, and any children conceived from the donation. Such contracts should specify that the recipients are the legal parents of the child and the legal owners of any eggs or embryos resulting from the cycle; in other words, while the donor has the right to cancel the cycle at any time prior to egg donation (although if she does so the contract generally provides that she will not be paid), once the eggs are retrieved they belong to the recipient(s). In individual cases the donors and parents may also wish to negotiate terms relating to any unused embryos (e.g., some donors would prefer that unused embryos be destroyed or donated to science, while others would prefer or allow them to be donated to another infertile couple). Some states have also adopted the Uniform Parentage Act, which provides that the recipient or recipients have complete parental responsibility of the conceived child.
In Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 72 Cal. Rptr.2d 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998), the court held that both the recipient and the father of a child conceived through anonymous sperm and egg donation and carried by a surrogate were the legal parents of the child by virtue of their procreative intent. Therefore, the father was required to pay child support even though he sought a divorce before the child was born.[37]
Donor registries
[edit]A donor registry is a registry to facilitate donor conceived people, sperm donors and egg donors to establish contact with genetic kindred. They are mostly used by donor conceived people to find genetic half-siblings from the same egg- or sperm donor.
Some donors are non-anonymous, but most are anonymous, i.e. the donor conceived person does not know the true identity of the donor. Still, they may get the donor number from the fertility clinic. If that donor had donated before, then other donor conceived people with the same donor number are thus genetic half-siblings. In short, donor registries match people who type in the same donor number.
Alternatively, if the donor number is not available, then known donor characteristics, e.g. hair, eye and skin color may be used in matching.
Donors may also register, and therefore, donor registries may also match donors with their genetic children.
The largest registry is the Donor Sibling Registry- with more than 25,000 members, the DSR has matched almost 7,000 donor conceived people with their egg and sperm donors, as well as with their half siblings. Alternate methods of providing an information link between the donor and recipient (both agreeing to stay registered on the DSR) are often provided for in the legal document (referred to as the "Egg Donor Agreement".)
Embryo donation
[edit]An alternative to egg donation in some couples, especially those in whom the male partner cannot provide viable sperm, is embryo donation. Embryo donation is the use of embryos remaining after a couple's IVF treatments have been completed, to another individual or couple, followed by the placement of those embryos into the recipient woman's uterus, to facilitate pregnancy and childbirth. Embryo donation is more cost-effective than egg donation on a "per live birth" basis.[38] Another study has found that embryos created for one couple, using an egg donor, are often made available for donation to another couple if the first couple chooses not to use them.[39]
Psychological and social issues
[edit]Quality of Parent-Infant Relationships
Quality of parent-child attachment in early infancy has been recognized as a crucial factor of a child's socioemotional development. The formation of a quality and secure attachment is largely influenced by parental representations of the parent-child relationship.[40] Concern regarding relationship quality and attachment security in egg donor families is understandable and typically stems from the absence of genetic material shared between the mother and child. However, it has been discovered that the mother's endometrium can generate epigenetic changes in the embryo. Therefore, the embryo from an oocyte donation will have something from the mother who has received the donated oocyte. Specifically, embryos can uptake miRNAs from exosomes secreted by endometrium, so, Hsa-miR-30d secreted by the human endometrium, is taken up by the pre-implantation embryo and might modify its transcriptome. In recent years, researchers have begun to question if lack of genetic commonality between mother and child inhibits the ability to form a quality attachment.
In a recent study, quality of infant-parent relationships was examined among egg donor families in comparison to in vitro fertilization families.[40] Infants were between the ages of 6–18 months. Through use of the Parent Development Interview (PDI) and observational assessment, the study found few differences between family types on the representational level, yet significant differences between family types on the observational level.[40] Egg donation mothers were less sensitive and structuring than IVF mothers, and egg donation infants were less emotionally responsive, and involving than IVF infants.[40] No differences were found in relationship quality between egg donor fathers and IVF fathers representationally or observationally. Due to the developmental implications of forming healthy parent-child relationships in early infancy, the finding that egg donor mothers were less sensitive and structuring towards their infants raises concern about attachment styles among egg donor families, and the impacts it may have on infants' future socioemotional development.
Telling the child
[edit]Most psychologists recommend being open and honest with children from an early age. Groups for donor conceived children make a strong case for the rights of children to have access to information about their genetic background. For donor conceived children who find out after a long period of secrecy, their main grief is usually not the fact that they are not the genetic child of the mother who raised (and, usually, gave birth to) them, but the fact that their parents lied to them, causing loss of trust.[41] Furthermore, assuming that egg-donor conceived children have essentially the same reaction as sperm-donor conceived children, the overturning of one's lifelong understanding of who one's genetic parents were may cause a lasting sense of imbalance and loss of control.
Telling the children that they were donor conceived is recommended, based on decades of experience with adoption (and more recent feedback from donor-conceived children) showing that not telling children is harmful to the parent-child relationship and to the child psychologically.[42][43] Even parents who would normally be extremely reluctant to tell the child should consider telling if any of the following scenarios applies:
- When anyone other than the parents know about the donation, such that the child might find it out from somebody else.[41]
- When the recipient carries a significant genetic disease, since telling the child will reassure the child that they do not carry the disease.[41]
- Where the child is found to have a genetically transmitted disorder and it is necessary to take legal action which then identifies the donor.
Conversely, when the child is being raised in a religion or a culture that strongly disapproves of donor conception (e.g., a Catholic country where egg donation is illegal), that may counsel against telling the child, at least until the child is much older and clearly capable of understanding why they were not told earlier and of keeping that information to themself.
A systematic review of factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception has shown that parents cite the child's best interest as the main factor they use to make the decision.[44] Parents who disclose donor conception to the child emphasize the importance of an honest parent-child relationship, while parents who do not disclose express their desire to protect the child from social stigma or other trauma. Health care staff and support groups have been demonstrated to affect the decision to disclose the procedure.[44] It is generally recommended that parents who disclose should do so in age-appropriate ways, ideally starting well before the age of five with a discussion of the fact that their parents needed help to have a child because certain things are needed to make a child—namely, sperm and eggs—and because the parents did not have one of those things, a nice woman gave it to them.[42][43][45]
Families sharing same donor
[edit]Having contact and meeting among families sharing the same donor generally has positive effects.[46][47] It gives the child an additional extended family and may help give the child a sense of identity[47] by answering questions about the donor.[46] It is more common among open identity-families headed by single men/women.[46] Less than 1% of those seeking donor-siblings find it a negative experience, and in such cases it is mostly where the parents disagree with each other about how the relationship should proceed.[48]
Other family members
[edit]Parents of donors may regard the donated eggs as a family asset and may regard the donor conceived people as grandchildren.[49]
Donor marketing
[edit]For a donor to be accepted by an agency and repeatedly used she must be marketable and appealing to the recipients. Although egg donation is a significant, life-giving act, the companies participating in this industry still have to operate with an economical mind-set. Matches between egg recipients and egg donors are what make the profit for the company and achievable to continue these processes for others. The most sought-after donors tend to be those who are (1) proven (i.e., have donated before and produced a pregnancy from it, proving themselves both fertile and reliable); (2) conventionally attractive; (3) healthy, with good family health histories; and (4) smart, well educated.
Donor profiles presented on agency websites are their primary marketing tool to find recipients and learn what these future consumers want. On the donor profiles listed on the agency website for recipients, or "clients", to peruse for their desired egg match, "physical characteristics, family health history, educational attainment (in some cases, standardized test scores, GPA, and IQ scores are requested), as well as open-ended questions about hobbies, likes and dislikes, and motivations for donating"[20] are included. Donors are encouraged to submit attractive photos and are advised of what the recipient finds as desirable. Profiles that are at some point deemed unacceptable are deleted, whether it be because their personalities did not stand out or their portrayals were viewed as negative in some way. Overweight volunteers for donation are also most often not accepted, not just because of conventional views on physical attractiveness but also because women with a higher body-mass index tend to respond differently (less well) to ovarian stimulation drugs and IVF clinics thus generally recommend that patients not use donors with higher BMIs. Egg donors also have a higher standard of physical appearance than sperm donors; many sperm donors are not required to provide adult photographs of themselves, or in some cases, any photographs.[20]
Religious views
[edit]Some[who?] Christian leaders indicate that IVF is acceptable (provided that no fertilized embryos are discarded in the process). Many Christian couples who cannot have children thus can go for IVF, with both the husband's sperm and the wife's egg and this is in line with the church's teaching. However, the issue is more problematic with donor eggs.
There are also some Christian leaders (especially Catholic) who are concerned about all in vitro fertility therapies because they disrupt the natural act of conceiving a child where gamete donations, both egg and sperm donations, are seen to "compromise the marital bond and family integrity".[50] and they encourage infertile couples to consider adoption instead.
In the Orthodox Jewish community there is no consensus as to whether an egg donor needs to be Jewish in order for the child to be considered Jewish from birth.[51] In the 1990s religious authorities said that if the birth mother was Jewish that the child would be Jewish as well, but in the past few years rabbis in Israel have begun to reconsider, which in turn is causing more debate around the world. Conservative Rabbi Elliot Dorff has suggested that there are arguments for both sides (birth mother or genetic mother) in religious scripture. Dean of the Center for the Jewish Future at Yeshiva University believes that any child where the birth mother or the genetic mother isn't Jewish should go through a conversion process in infancy, to be sure that their Judaism isn't questioned later in life.[52] This is not an issue in the reform community for two reasons. First, only one parent must be Jewish for the child to be considered Jewish; thus, if the father is Jewish, the mother's religion is irrelevant. Second, if the mother who carries the pregnancy and gives birth is Jewish, reform Jews will generally consider that child to be Jewish from birth because it was born of a Jewish mother.[53]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "Monash IVF History". Monash IVF. Retrieved 17 February 2020.
- ^ Blakeslee S (4 February 1984). "Infertile Woman Has Baby Through Embryo Transfer". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 November 2009.
- ^ "HUMC - Celebrating 50 Years of Caring". Humc.edu. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ a b c Friedrich O, Constable A, Samghabadi R (10 September 1984). "Medicine: A Legal, Moral, Social Nightmare". Time. Archived from the original on 16 February 2009. Retrieved 1 May 2010.
- ^ a b Wallis C (10 September 1984). "The New Origins of Life". Time. Archived from the original on 14 January 2005. Retrieved 5 November 2009.
- ^ Craig O (2 January 2011). "Elton John baby: 'Thanks to Zacahary, gay surrogacy will become more acceptable'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 3 January 2011.
- ^ "Clinic Summary Report". Sartcorsonline.com. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ Richards SE (24 August 2013). "Get Used to Embryo Adoption". Time. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ Friedrich O, Constable A, Samghabadi R (10 September 1984). "Medicine: A Legal, Moral, Social Nightmare". Time. Archived from the original on 16 February 2009. Retrieved 1 May 2010.
- ^ Buster JE (2008). "The first live birth donation" (PDF). Sexuality, Reproduction & Menopause. 6 (4): 22–8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 February 2009.
- ^ a b "Fertility treatment bans in Europe draw criticism". Fox News. 13 April 2012.
- ^ a b "Germany′s Egg Donation Prohibition Is Outdated, Experts Say - Germany - DW.DE - 12.12.2007". DW.DE. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ a b "Ce que dit la loi - Don d'ovocytes". Dondovocytes.fr. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ a b "Donation and the Law". Malvern, Worcestershire, UK: National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT). Archived from the original on 5 November 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ Hartman AE, Coslor E (1 December 2019). "Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for navigating multiple institutional logics in reproductive commodification". Journal of Business Research. 105: 405–419. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.010. hdl:11343/223022. ISSN 0148-2963. S2CID 197826643.
- ^ cross donor is termed korsdonator in Swedish.
- ^ Check JH (2002). "The shared donor oocyte program: the advantages and insights it provides in determining etiologic factors of infertility" (PDF). Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology. 29 (4): 229–34. PMID 12635736. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 July 2011.
- ^ Peskin BD, Austin C, Lisbona H, Goldfarb JM (September 1996). "Cost analysis of shared oocyte in vitro fertilization". Obstetrics and Gynecology. 88 (3): 428–30. doi:10.1016/0029-7844(96)00184-6. PMID 8752253. S2CID 5952810. Archived from the original on 19 April 2013.
- ^ Oyesanya OA, Olufowobi O, Ross W, Sharif K, Afnan M (September 2009). "Prognosis of oocyte donation cycles: a prospective comparison of the in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles of recipients who used shared oocytes versus those who used altruistic donors". Fertility and Sterility. 92 (3): 930–936. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.1769. PMID 18829002.
- ^ a b c d e f g Almeling R (June 2007). "Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material". American Sociological Review. 72 (3): 319–40. doi:10.1177/000312240707200301. S2CID 59570455.
- ^ "Does It Hurt? | Egg Donation Process". Altrui. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
- ^ Hopkin, Michael (17 January 2005). "Woman becomes mother at 66". Nature. doi:10.1038/news050117-4. ISSN 1476-4687.
- ^ Antinori S, Gholami GH, Versaci C, Cerusico F, Dani L, Antinori M, et al. (March 2003). "Obstetric and prenatal outcome in menopausal women: a 12-year clinical study". Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 6 (2): 257–61. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61718-X. PMID 12676011.
- ^ "Why people choose to proceed with egg donation? - Egg Donation". London: Dunya IVF Treatment Clinic. 11 November 2014. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
- ^ a b Maxwell KN, Cholst IN, Rosenwaks Z (December 2008). "The incidence of both serious and minor complications in young women undergoing oocyte donation". Fertility and Sterility. 90 (6): 2165–71. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.065. PMID 18249368.
- ^ Carney S (13 August 2010). "It's not Altruism, It's Selling". Washington, DC: Pulitzer Center. Archived from the original on 5 November 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ Beeson D, Lippman A (October 2006). "Egg harvesting for stem cell research: medical risks and ethical problems". Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 13 (4): 573–9. doi:10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60647-5. PMID 17007682.
- ^ a b Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, eds. (2001). Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques, Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-85317-870-2.
- ^ Galindo A, Bodri D, Guillén JJ, Colodrón M, Vernaeve V, Coll O (January 2009). "Triggering with HCG or GnRH agonist in GnRH antagonist treated oocyte donation cycles: a randomised clinical trial". Gynecological Endocrinology. 25 (1): 60–6. doi:10.1080/09513590802404013. PMID 19165664. S2CID 5993269.
- ^ Bodri D, Guillén JJ, Galindo A, Mataró D, Pujol A, Coll O (February 2009). "Triggering with human chorionic gonadotropin or a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist-treated oocyte donor cycles: findings of a large retrospective cohort study". Fertility and Sterility. 91 (2): 365–71. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.11.049. PMID 18367175.
- ^ Kenney NJ, McGowan ML (February 2010) [December 2008]. "Looking back: egg donors' retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle". Fertility and Sterility. 93 (2): 455–66. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.081. PMID 19022427.
- Lay summary in: Gordon S (26 December 2008). "Risks and Benefits of Egg Donation Reported". abc News.
- ^ Salhab M, Al Sarakbi W, Mokbel K (November 2005). "In vitro fertilization and breast cancer risk: a review". International Journal of Fertility and Women's Medicine. 50 (6): 259–66. PMID 16526416.
- ^ Bukulmez O, Li Q, Carr BR, Leader B, Doody KM, Doody KJ (August 2010). "Repetitive oocyte donation does not decrease serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels". Fertility and Sterility. 94 (3): 905–12. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.017. PMID 19631321.
- ^ a b c d van der Hoorn ML, Lashley EE, Bianchi DW, Claas FH, Schonkeren CM, Scherjon SA (2010). "Clinical and immunologic aspects of egg donation pregnancies: a systematic review". Human Reproduction Update. 16 (6): 704–12. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmq017. PMID 20543201.
- ^ "Financial compensation of oocyte donors" (PDF). Asrm.org. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ "San Diego IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) Guarantee". Sdfertility.com. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ Lisko EA (8 April 1998). "California Appellate Court Holds Divorcing Spouses Who Were Intended Parents of Child Resulting from Anonymous Egg and Sperm Donors and Brought to Term by Surrogate to Be Legal Parents of Child". Health Law & Policy Institute. University of Houston Law Center. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ Finger R, Sommerfelt C, Freeman M, Wilson CK, Wade A, Daly D (February 2010). "A cost-effectiveness comparison of embryo donation with oocyte donation". Fertility and Sterility. 93 (2): 379–81. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.019. PMID 19406398.
- ^ Hill GA, Freeman MR (March 2011). "Embryo disposition: choices made by patients and donor oocyte recipients". Fertility and Sterility. 95 (3): 940–3. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.002. PMID 20850720.
- ^ a b c d Imrie S, Jadva V, Fishel S, Golombok S (July 2019). "Families Created by Egg Donation: Parent-Child Relationship Quality in Infancy". Child Development. 90 (4): 1333–1349. doi:10.1111/cdev.13124. PMC 6640047. PMID 30015989.
- ^ a b c Barratt CL, Cooke ID, eds. (1993). Donor insemination. Cambridge (England): Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-40433-4.
- ^ a b Weinshel M. "Where did I come from? Answering kids' questions about donor eggs or sperm". Aboutourkids.org. New York, NY: Langone Medical Center, New York University. Archived from the original on 6 February 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ a b "Making Progress- Telling the Kids in Sperm & Egg Donation". Creating a Family. Creatingfamily.org. June 2013. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ a b Indekeu A, Dierickx K, Schotsmans P, Daniels KR, Rober P, D'Hooghe T (2013). "Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review". Human Reproduction Update. 19 (6): 714–33. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmt018. PMID 23814103.
- ^ Lieber-Wilkins C. "Talking to Kids About Donor Conception - PVED". Parents Via Egg Donation Organization. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ a b c Scheib JE, Ruby A (July 2008). "Contact among families who share the same sperm donor". Fertility and Sterility. 90 (1): 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.058. PMID 18023432.
- ^ a b Freeman T, Jadva V, Kramer W, Golombok S (March 2009). "Gamete donation: parents' experiences of searching for their child's donor siblings and donor". Human Reproduction. 24 (3): 505–16. doi:10.1093/humrep/den469. PMID 19237738.
- ^ Haley M (26 February 2009). "Contact with donor siblings a good experience for most families". CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. Archived from the original on 11 March 2009.
- ^ Motluk A (13 September 2009). "My scattered grandchildren". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 5 November 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ "AlbertMohler.com". Archived from the original on 13 January 2009. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ "Egg Donation". Yoatzot.org. Archived from the original on 5 November 2014. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
- ^ Chesler C (3 June 2013). "What Makes a Jewish Mother". The New York Times.
- ^ Committee on Patrilineal Descent (March 1983). "Reform Movement's Resolution on Patrilineal Descent". Jewish Virtual Library. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.
External links
[edit]Egg donation
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Overview
Core Process and Indications
Egg donation, also known as oocyte donation, serves as a reproductive treatment for individuals or couples unable to use the recipient's own eggs due to conditions such as premature ovarian insufficiency, where ovarian function ceases before age 40, affecting approximately 1% of women under 40.[12] Other primary indications include advanced maternal age leading to diminished ovarian reserve, defined by low antral follicle counts or elevated follicle-stimulating hormone levels, which reduces the quantity and quality of viable eggs; and recurrent IVF failures attributed to poor oocyte or embryo quality despite adequate uterine conditions.[1] Genetic disorders transmissible through maternal gametes, such as certain mitochondrial diseases, also warrant egg donation to avoid inheritance risks, though preimplantation genetic testing may complement rather than replace it in some cases.[13] The core process begins with rigorous donor screening to ensure health and genetic compatibility, followed by controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using gonadotropin injections over 8-14 days to recruit and mature multiple follicles, monitored via transvaginal ultrasound and serum estradiol levels to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, a potential complication occurring in up to 20% of stimulated cycles.[14] Oocytes are then retrieved transvaginally under light sedation or anesthesia through ultrasound-guided aspiration of follicular fluid from mature follicles, yielding an average of 10-20 eggs per cycle in healthy donors aged 21-35.[15] Retrieved oocytes are immediately fertilized in vitro via intracytoplasmic sperm injection or conventional insemination with the recipient's partner's or donor sperm, forming embryos that are cultured for 3-5 days before transfer to the recipient's prepared endometrium or cryopreservation for deferred use.[14] Recipient preparation synchronizes endometrial receptivity through hormone replacement therapy, typically estrogen and progesterone, to mimic a natural cycle, enabling implantation despite the absence of corpus luteum support from the recipient's ovaries. Success rates, measured by live birth per transfer, reach 50-60% with young donors, surpassing autologous IVF outcomes for older recipients, though risks include multiple gestation from embryo transfer policies allowing more than one embryo.[1] The procedure's efficacy stems from utilizing high-quality gametes from fertile donors, bypassing age-related aneuploidy increases in recipient eggs, which rise from 20% in women under 35 to over 80% by age 43.[13]Global Prevalence and Market Trends
Egg donation represents a significant and expanding segment of assisted reproductive technology (ART) worldwide, with procedures increasingly utilized to address age-related infertility and diminished ovarian reserve. Globally, at least 6% of eggs employed in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles originate from donors, based on data from the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) excluding certain high-volume markets like India.[16] Total ART cycles exceed 3 million annually, though precise donor egg cycle counts remain elusive due to inconsistent reporting across jurisdictions; estimates suggest tens of thousands of such cycles occur yearly in major markets.[17] Prevalence varies sharply by region: in Europe, egg donation accounts for about 15% of ART procedures, with over 700,000 total cycles performed annually across the continent.[18] In the United States, more than 24,000 donor egg cycles were conducted in recent reporting periods, comprising roughly 5-7% of all IVF cycles amid 435,000+ total ART procedures in 2022.[19] [20] Key hubs for egg donation include Spain, the Czech Republic, and the United States, where permissive regulations facilitate higher volumes; for instance, Spain and Eastern European nations report the largest numbers of donor oocyte aspirations in Europe, driven by allowances for anonymous and compensated donation.[21] In contrast, countries like Germany and Italy prohibit or severely restrict donor egg use, limiting prevalence to near zero through bans on third-party gametes or compensation.[22] Medical tourism bolsters volumes in affordable destinations such as Ukraine and Greece, where cycles cost 7,000 compared to 25,000 in the US, attracting recipients from regulated markets.[23] Growth rates reflect rising demand: US IVF births reached 95,860 in 2023, with donor eggs contributing disproportionately to successes in older recipients, while European cycles dipped slightly post-2021 but stabilized with steady pregnancy rates around 33% per transfer.[24] [25] The global egg donation market, encompassing donor recruitment, medical procedures, and ancillary services, was valued at approximately US$3.4 billion in 2024, projected to expand to US$4.6 billion by 2030 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 5%.[26] Alternative estimates place it lower at US$523 million in 2024, growing to US$1.38 billion by 2034, reflecting definitional variances between pure donation facilitation and full IVF integration.[27] In the US, the donor egg segment alone reached $400 million in 2024, forecasted to hit $520 million by 2030, fueled by private agency models offering compensation up to $10,000 per donor cycle.[28] Market expansion is propelled by demographic shifts—such as delayed childbearing and infertility affecting 10-15% of couples—technological improvements in cryopreservation yielding 50-60% live birth rates per donor egg transfer, and liberalization in Asia-Pacific regions like India and Taiwan, despite ethical debates over donor exploitation in low-regulation settings.[29] Constraints include regulatory heterogeneity, with 20+ countries banning commercial donation, and health risks to donors prompting calls for stricter oversight.[28] Overall, the sector's trajectory indicates sustained growth, albeit unevenly distributed toward compensation-permissive economies.Historical Development
Pioneering Cases and Early Techniques
The first documented successful pregnancy via oocyte donation occurred in 1983 in Melbourne, Australia, led by researchers Alan Trounson and Carl Wood at Monash University.[30] The recipient, a woman with bilateral oophorectomy and premature ovarian failure, received embryos derived from oocytes donated by fertile women undergoing IVF treatment for their own infertility.[31] This case marked the initial clinical application of donor eggs to bypass genetic maternal contributions, building on the foundational IVF success of 1978.[32] Early techniques relied on rudimentary assisted reproduction methods available in the nascent field. Oocytes were retrieved from donors via laparoscopy under general anesthesia, typically from excess follicles produced during controlled ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropins or clomiphene citrate.[2] Retrieved eggs were fertilized in vitro with the recipient's partner's sperm using basic insemination protocols, without intracytoplasmic sperm injection, which was not yet developed. Recipient uteri were prepared through cycle synchronization—aligning the donor's follicular phase with artificial hormonal priming using estrogen and progesterone to mimic endometrial receptivity, especially critical for recipients lacking ovarian function.[33] Embryos, usually at the cleavage stage, were transferred fresh without cryopreservation, limiting flexibility and success rates to around 20-30% per cycle based on contemporaneous reports.[2] Subsequent pioneering births reinforced these methods. The first live birth from donor oocytes in Australia followed in late 1983, confirming viability for women with ovarian insufficiency.[34] In the United States, a team in Long Beach, California, reported the first donor egg birth on February 3, 1984, involving a similar protocol: laparoscopic oocyte retrieval from a donor, IVF fertilization, and transfer to a recipient with premature menopause.[35] These cases highlighted procedural risks, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in donors and the need for precise endocrine monitoring, but demonstrated causal efficacy in establishing gestation through non-genetic maternal hosting.[30] Donors were initially limited to known IVF patients post-childbearing, emphasizing ethical sourcing amid regulatory voids.[31]Expansion and Technological Advances
The first successful clinical pregnancies via oocyte donation were reported in 1983 in Australia, marking the transition from experimental to viable practice, with subsequent U.S. successes in 1984 enabling broader adoption.[36] By the mid-1980s, procedures proliferated as IVF clinics integrated donation protocols, driven by rising demand from women with ovarian failure or diminished reserve; by 2001, donor oocyte cycles comprised approximately 11% of all U.S. assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures, reflecting regulatory approvals and clinic expansions.[37] Worldwide, this led to over 50,000 live births from donated eggs by the early 2010s, with annual cycles growing from fewer than 1,000 in the 1980s to tens of thousands by the 2020s, facilitated by commercialization including the establishment of the first North American egg bank in 2003.[38][39] Key technological advancements underpinned this expansion. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols evolved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists introduced in the 1980s, boosting average oocyte yields from 2-3 to 10-15 per cycle and elevating pregnancy rates to 30-50% per transfer in donor programs.[40] GnRH antagonists, approved around 2001, further optimized stimulation by minimizing premature ovulation risks and shortening treatment durations without compromising efficacy.[40] Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), refined in the 1990s, enhanced fertilization rates in donation cycles, particularly for male factor infertility, achieving success rates exceeding 70% in compatible cases.[41] Cryopreservation breakthroughs accelerated scalability. Early slow-freezing methods yielded low survival rates (under 50%), but vitrification—rapid cooling without ice crystal formation—emerged in the late 1990s and matured by the 2000s, attaining post-thaw survival rates above 90% and comparable live birth outcomes to fresh transfers (around 40-50% per cycle).[40] This enabled frozen oocyte banking, decoupling donation from recipient cycles and expanding access via agencies and banks, with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines in 2012 affirming vitrified donor eggs' equivalence to fresh.[42] Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), integrated from the 2000s, further improved selection by screening embryos for aneuploidy, reducing miscarriage rates in donation pregnancies to under 10%.[36]Donor Selection and Types
Screening Criteria and Eligibility
Egg donors undergo rigorous screening to minimize health risks to donors, recipients, and offspring, as well as to optimize oocyte quality and fertilization success. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) recommends that donors be in excellent health with no history of hereditary or communicable diseases, and ideally between 21 and 34 years of age to ensure reproductive viability.[14] [13] Proven fertility is desirable but not mandatory, with a pelvic ultrasound often used to assess ovarian reserve.[14] Medical eligibility requires a comprehensive physical examination, detailed personal and three-generation family medical history review, and testing for infectious diseases per U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations under 21 CFR part 1271, which mandate screening for risk factors and laboratory tests for HIV-1/2, hepatitis B and C, syphilis, HTLV-I/II, and West Nile virus.[43] [44] Donors must lack clinical evidence of relevant communicable diseases and undergo retesting within 30 days prior to oocyte retrieval.[43] Conditions disqualifying candidates include active infections, malignancies, autoimmune disorders, or untreated endocrine issues like uncontrolled diabetes or thyroid disease.[13] Genetic screening involves evaluating family history for inheritable conditions such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, or chromosomal abnormalities, with expanded carrier testing recommended for ethnic-specific risks; ASRM advises against donation if significant genetic risks cannot be mitigated.[14] [45] Psychological evaluation assesses motivation, mental health stability, and capacity for informed consent, screening out those with untreated psychiatric disorders, substance abuse history within five years, or coercion indicators.[13] [46] Lifestyle factors further define eligibility: donors must maintain a body mass index (BMI) typically between 19 and 29 to avoid stimulation complications, abstain from smoking, recreational drugs, and excessive alcohol, and demonstrate reliable access to medical care.[14] [47] Ovarian reserve markers like anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels are assessed to predict response to stimulation, disqualifying those with critically low reserves.[48] International variations exist, but U.S. standards emphasize these criteria to balance efficacy and safety, with clinics maintaining donor records for at least 10 years per FDA rules.[14]Categories of Donors: Known, Anonymous, and Commercial
Egg donors are classified into categories primarily based on the degree of identity disclosure to recipients and offspring, as well as the presence of financial compensation, with known (also termed directed or identified) donors involving direct acquaintance or selected identity release, anonymous (non-identified) donors maintaining confidentiality, and commercial donors receiving payment beyond reimbursement of expenses.[49][14] Known donors are typically family members, friends, or acquaintances of the intended parents whose identities are fully disclosed, allowing for potential ongoing relationships but requiring rigorous screening equivalent to anonymous donors to mitigate genetic risks and ensure informed consent.[50][51] These arrangements often involve legal contracts that explicitly waive the donor's parental rights, though relational dynamics can introduce emotional complexities, such as blurred boundaries or family disputes, as evidenced in case reports from fertility clinics.[52] In the United States, known donation comprises a minority of cases, estimated at less than 10% based on clinic data, due to the interpersonal commitments required.[53] Anonymous donors, recruited through agencies or clinics without identity disclosure to recipients or offspring, represent the majority of egg donations in the U.S., facilitating access to a broader pool of screened candidates but facing challenges from advancing direct-to-consumer DNA testing that has led to unintended identity revelations in up to 20-30% of donor-conceived individuals in surveyed cohorts.[54][5] The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) advises programs to inform all parties of anonymity's limitations, including potential breaches via genetic databases, and recommends counseling on psychological impacts, as studies show higher rates of identity-seeking among anonymous donor-conceived offspring compared to known arrangements.[49][55] Legally, U.S. federal regulations under FDA guidelines mandate infectious disease screening but do not prohibit anonymity, though some states require disclosure counseling; internationally, countries like the UK and Sweden have banned anonymous donation since 2005 to prioritize offspring rights.[14][56] Commercial donors receive financial compensation, typically $8,000 to $15,000 per cycle in the U.S. as of 2024, in addition to medical expense reimbursement, distinguishing them from altruistic donors who donate without direct payment to avoid commodification concerns, though ASRM deems reasonable compensation ethical to reflect time, discomfort, and risks involved in ovarian stimulation and retrieval.[7][57] This model predominates in commercial agencies, which handle recruitment and matching, but guidelines prohibit payments varying by donor traits like ethnicity or IQ to prevent eugenic incentives, with violations noted in 34% of analyzed agency practices in a 2012 study.[28][58] Empirical data indicate mixed motivations, with surveys of donors reporting altruism alongside finances, but critics argue high payments may coerce young women into underinformed risks, as long-term health outcomes remain understudied despite short-term complication rates of 0.5-5% for procedures.[59][14] Altruistic models, prevalent in countries like Canada where payment is illegal, yield fewer donors, potentially limiting access, per global policy analyses.[56][22] Commercial arrangements often overlap with anonymous or known categories, but require explicit contracts addressing compensation caps and repeat donation limits (up to six live births recommended by ASRM to minimize genetic concentration).[5]Medical Procedure
Ovarian Stimulation and Egg Retrieval
Ovarian stimulation in egg donation involves administering exogenous gonadotropins to induce the development of multiple ovarian follicles, typically aiming for 10-20 mature oocytes per cycle.[60] This process mirrors controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF but is optimized for young, healthy donors to maximize yield while minimizing risks like ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).[61] Donors usually begin with oral contraceptives for 2-4 weeks to suppress endogenous hormones and synchronize the cycle with the recipient, followed by gonadotropin injections starting on menstrual cycle day 2-3.[62] Common regimens include recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH, e.g., Gonal-F or Follistim at 225-450 IU daily) combined with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG, e.g., Menopur providing FSH and luteinizing hormone activity) for 8-12 days.[62] [63] Progress is monitored via transvaginal ultrasound to assess follicle size (targeting 18-22 mm diameter) and serum estradiol levels (typically 200-400 pg/mL per mature follicle) every 1-3 days, adjusting doses to prevent premature luteinization.[5] Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists (e.g., cetrorelix or ganirelix) are often added from stimulation day 5-6 to inhibit endogenous luteinizing hormone surges, reducing cancellation rates to under 5%.[62] Final oocyte maturation is triggered with GnRH agonist (e.g., leuprolide) rather than human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to lower OHSS incidence, as agonists induce a shorter luteinizing hormone surge without sustained receptor stimulation.[60] Retrieval is scheduled 35-36 hours post-trigger, yielding an average of 15-25 oocytes in donors under 30.[5] Egg retrieval, or transvaginal oocyte aspiration, is an outpatient procedure performed under conscious sedation or general anesthesia to collect mature oocytes.[64] The donor lies in lithotomy position as a transvaginal ultrasound probe guides a 16-17 gauge needle through the posterior vaginal fornix into each ovarian follicle, aspirating follicular fluid (which contains the oocyte) via suction into collection tubes.[64] [65] The process targets 10-30 follicles per ovary, lasting 20-30 minutes, with immediate lab processing to recover and culture oocytes.[65] Complications are rare (1-2% incidence), including vaginal bleeding, infection, or ovarian puncture, but require informed consent due to procedural invasiveness.[5] Post-retrieval, donors experience mild cramping and are advised rest for 24-48 hours, with most resuming normal activities within days.[5]Fertilization, Embryo Creation, and Transfer
Following retrieval of mature oocytes from the donor, fertilization occurs in a laboratory setting through in vitro fertilization (IVF), where the oocytes are combined with sperm from the recipient's partner or a sperm donor.[15] Two primary methods are employed: conventional insemination, in which sperm are placed in proximity to the oocytes for natural penetration, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), involving the direct injection of a single spermatozoon into each oocyte using a micromanipulation technique.[66] ICSI is frequently utilized in egg donation cycles, even absent male-factor infertility, to achieve fertilization rates exceeding 70-80% per oocyte, as it circumvents potential barriers such as zona pellucida thickness or subtle sperm deficiencies.[67] Successful fertilization typically yields zygotes within 16-18 hours, which are then cultured in an incubator under controlled conditions mimicking the fallopian tube environment, including optimal temperature, pH, and nutrient media.[66] Embryos develop over 3-5 days to the cleavage stage (day 3, 6-8 cells) or blastocyst stage (day 5-6, with distinct inner cell mass and trophectoderm), with blastocyst culture preferred in many protocols to enhance selection of viable embryos capable of implantation.[66] Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) may be performed on biopsied trophectoderm cells to screen for aneuploidy or specific genetic conditions, reducing transfer of non-viable or affected embryos, though its routine use remains debated due to potential biopsy risks.[66] Excess embryos can be cryopreserved via vitrification for future use.[15] Embryo transfer involves catheter placement through the cervix to deposit one or more selected embryos into the recipient's uterine cavity, guided by abdominal ultrasound in most cases to confirm positioning.[68] In fresh cycles, transfer occurs 3-5 days post-retrieval, requiring synchronization of the recipient's endometrial cycle with the donor via exogenous estrogen and progesterone to achieve receptivity.[15] Frozen embryo transfers predominate in many egg donation programs, allowing quarantine of gametes for infectious disease testing or decoupling of donor and recipient cycles, with vitrification enabling survival rates over 90% upon thawing.[15] Guidelines recommend single embryo transfer in younger recipients or with high-quality donor-derived embryos to minimize multiple gestation risks, though practices vary by jurisdiction and clinic policy.[68]Post-Procedure Monitoring
Following egg retrieval, donors undergo immediate recovery under medical supervision, typically involving rest for the remainder of the procedure day and avoidance of strenuous activities to mitigate risks such as ovarian torsion or bleeding.[69] Most donors resume normal activities within one to two days, though high-impact exercises should be avoided for several weeks until ovarian size normalizes, approximately one month post-procedure.[70] Abstinence from intercourse is recommended for at least three weeks to prevent unintended pregnancy and support cycle resumption.[70] Primary monitoring focuses on detecting ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), which arises from exaggerated ovarian response to stimulation hormones and can manifest within a week of retrieval, potentially worsening if pregnancy occurs in recipients.[71] Donors are instructed to track daily weight and report gains exceeding 2-3 pounds in 24-48 hours, alongside symptoms including abdominal bloating, pain, nausea, vomiting, reduced urination, or shortness of breath.[72][69] Mild cases, common in up to 20-33% of stimulated cycles, are managed outpatient with rest, electrolyte-rich fluids, anti-nausea medications, and cabergoline to curb vascular permeability; severe OHSS, affecting about 1% of cycles, necessitates hospitalization for intravenous fluids, paracentesis for ascites, and monitoring via ultrasound for ovarian enlargement and fluid accumulation, plus blood tests for hematocrit and electrolytes.[70][72][69] Follow-up typically includes a clinic visit or ultrasound around the onset of menstruation, about 14 days post-retrieval, to confirm ovarian recovery and rule out persistent complications like infection or cyst formation.[70] Symptoms such as bloating and discomfort generally resolve by the next menstrual cycle, but programs vary in providing structured long-term surveillance, with many lacking mandatory extended follow-up beyond immediate risks.[70] Donors planning subsequent cycles are generally advised by fertility clinics to wait at least 2–3 months between retrievals to allow full recovery from hormonal stimulation and the procedure, with the exact timing determined by the overseeing physician, ideally involving follow-up bloodwork and ultrasound to confirm the ovaries have returned to baseline.[73] For recipients, post-embryo transfer monitoring entails continued progesterone supplementation to support implantation, with serial ultrasounds and blood tests if early pregnancy is suspected, culminating in a beta-hCG assay 10-14 days after transfer to detect viable gestation.[74] Until transfer to obstetric care, recipients remain under fertility specialist oversight for signs of ectopic pregnancy or other implantation issues, though egg donation-specific protocols align with standard IVF practices without unique mandates.[75][14]Health Risks and Empirical Outcomes
Short- and Long-Term Risks to Donors
Egg donation involves ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins to produce multiple oocytes, followed by transvaginal ultrasound-guided aspiration under sedation or anesthesia, exposing donors to both acute procedural hazards and potential chronic effects. Short-term risks primarily stem from hormonal overstimulation and invasive retrieval, with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) being the most documented complication; moderate OHSS occurred in 39% of self-reporting donors across cycles, while severe cases affected 12%, manifesting as abdominal pain, ascites, and thrombosis requiring hospitalization.[76] Severe OHSS incidence varies by egg yield, reaching 5-7% in cycles retrieving 10-49 oocytes and 26% with 50 or more, though professional guidelines estimate 1-2% per cycle overall in controlled settings.[77][5] Procedural risks include bleeding (incidence <1%), infection (<0.5%), and anesthesia-related events, with major complications under 0.5% but including rare fatalities from OHSS-induced complications like thromboembolism.[78][5] These acute effects typically resolve within weeks, but donor underreporting and variable monitoring protocols may underestimate true prevalence.[76] Long-term risks remain understudied, with cohort data limited by short follow-up periods, small samples, and reliance on self-reports rather than mandatory registries, potentially biasing toward null findings due to industry incentives to minimize concerns. In a Dutch cohort followed over nine years, over 90% of donors reported no adverse general or reproductive health outcomes, including preserved fertility and absence of chronic pelvic pain.[79] However, 9.6% noted subsequent fertility difficulties, and gaps persist in tracking repetitive donors, who face cumulative exposure to supraphysiologic hormone levels.[80] Oncologic risks, such as breast or ovarian cancer from repeated stimulation, lack conclusive elevation in large IVF cohorts, with some analyses showing neutral or reduced breast cancer hazard ratios (HR 0.77 for poor responders), though donor-specific data are sparser and nulliparous women may carry slightly higher borderline tumor risks.[5][81][82] Anecdotal cases of early-onset cancers in donors highlight causal uncertainty, as pre-existing factors like genetic predispositions confound attribution.[83] Psychological sequelae include transient regret or grief, particularly among known donors informed of offspring outcomes, with some experiencing lingering distress years later despite overall positive recollections; studies report neutral-to-positive affect in most but underscore inadequate pre-donation counseling on emotional impacts.[84] Longitudinal advocacy emphasizes the need for prospective tracking to address these evidentiary voids, as current voluntary reporting may overlook subclinical harms in young, healthy donors selected for short-term resilience.[85]Risks to Recipients and Resulting Offspring
Recipients of donor eggs undergoing IVF face elevated obstetric risks compared to those using autologous oocytes, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy such as preeclampsia, which occur at rates up to 2-3 times higher in oocyte donation cycles.[86][87] This increased incidence is attributed to factors like the absence of immunotolerance between the recipient's immune system and the donor-derived trophoblast, leading to higher rates of placental dysfunction and early-onset severe cases requiring interventions like preterm delivery.[87] Gestational diabetes and cesarean deliveries are also more common, with studies controlling for maternal age and multiple gestations confirming oocyte donation as an independent risk factor.[88][89] Additional complications for recipients include preterm labor, recurrent miscarriage, infections, and placental diseases, observed in systematic reviews of donor egg pregnancies.[6] In women over 50 using donor eggs, pregnancy-related hypertension affects approximately 35%, compounded by advanced maternal age risks such as cardiovascular strain. Cancer survivors using donor eggs show heightened preterm birth and preeclampsia rates, suggesting procedural and uterine factors exacerbate underlying vulnerabilities.[90] Offspring from donor egg IVF exhibit increased perinatal risks, including preterm birth (rates 10-20% higher in singletons versus autologous IVF), low birth weight, and stillbirth, linked to placental insufficiency and IVF techniques rather than donor genetics alone.[91] Birth defects occur at slightly elevated rates in assisted reproductive technologies broadly, with donor egg conceptions sharing these due to embryo culture and transfer processes, though long-term data specific to donor origins remain limited.[92] Small for gestational age infants and hypertensive disorder-related outcomes in utero further contribute to neonatal morbidity.[86] Empirical studies indicate no substantial excess in major congenital anomalies beyond general IVF risks (1.5-2% vs. 2-3% spontaneous), but gaps persist in longitudinal tracking of donor-conceived children for epigenetic or imprinting disorders, with calls for dedicated follow-up to assess causality beyond procedural artifacts.[92][85] Psychological adjustment appears comparable to peers, though donor anonymity may influence identity formation in adulthood, warranting further investigation.[93]Success Rates and Verifiable Data Gaps
Success rates for egg donation are typically reported as live birth rates per embryo transfer using donor oocytes, averaging 50% across U.S. cycles, with variations by cycle type and clinic.[94] In fresh donor egg cycles, live birth rates reach approximately 54%, outperforming autologous IVF due to oocytes from donors under age 35, whose eggs exhibit higher quality and quantity.[95] [96] CDC data from 2014 indicate a 53.6% birth rate per fresh embryo transfer, a figure consistent with subsequent reports despite procedural refinements like frozen cycles, which yield 52.3% clinical pregnancy rates but slightly lower live births.[97] [96] Recipient factors modestly affect outcomes: live birth rates decline for women over 45 compared to those under 45, with implantation and pregnancy rates dropping alongside higher miscarriage risks, though donor egg use mitigates age-related oocyte decline.[98] Other influences include recipient BMI, embryo stage at transfer, and oocyte yield per donor retrieval, where higher numbers correlate with improved per-cycle success.[99] Cumulative live birth rates over multiple transfers approach 80-90%, emphasizing the value of repeated cycles for non-responders.[100] Verifiable data gaps persist, particularly in long-term empirical outcomes. Short-term perinatal metrics, such as low malformation rates comparable to natural conceptions, are well-documented via registries like SART and CDC, but longitudinal tracking of donors reveals scant evidence: no large-scale studies quantify risks like ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome sequelae, cancer incidence, or diminished future fertility beyond self-reported surveys averaging over nine years post-donation.[85] Experts note that repeated ovarian stimulation's causal effects remain unknown, as voluntary follow-up yields incomplete data without mandatory registries.[101] [102] For offspring, while early developmental and psychological studies show no elevated abnormalities or attachment issues relative to controls, adult-onset health data—encompassing potential epigenetic alterations from superovulation or donor-specific genetic risks—is absent, limited to small cohorts without causal controls.[93] These lacunae stem from decentralized reporting, ethical barriers to randomization, and industry focus on per-cycle metrics over lifetime tracking, potentially underestimating rare adverse events in a procedure lacking centralized, prospective databases.[85][103]Motivations and Incentives
Donor Motivations: Altruism vs. Financial
Egg donors commonly report a combination of altruistic and financial motivations, with empirical surveys indicating that the desire to help infertile individuals or couples build families ranks as the most frequently cited primary reason, though financial compensation plays a pivotal role in recruitment and participation. A multinational study of oocyte donors from 38 European countries in 2008 revealed that while altruism was a key driver, 68% of respondents identified financial remuneration as a significant motivator, and compensation levels varied widely by jurisdiction, influencing donor availability.[104] In the United States, where donors typically receive $5,000 to $10,000 per cycle—escalating to $50,000 for donors with desirable traits like high academic achievement or specific ethnic backgrounds—surveys confirm that monetary incentives facilitate entry into donation programs without negating altruistic sentiments.[105][28] Altruistic motivations predominate in self-reports, with 70-90% of donors in various studies emphasizing the emotional satisfaction of aiding reproduction, often describing it as "giving the gift of life" or fulfilling a personal ethic of generosity. For instance, a 2016 systematic review of psychosocial factors in oocyte donation found that donors frequently highlight helping others as the core impetus, corroborated by qualitative data showing sustained positive retrospective evaluations even years post-donation.[106] However, financial factors are not merely supplementary; jurisdictions restricting compensation to expenses only, such as the United Kingdom, experience chronic donor shortages and extended waiting lists, underscoring that altruism alone insufficiently sustains supply to meet demand.[107] In contrast, compensated systems like the U.S. generate robust recruitment, with industry analyses estimating a $400 million annual market driven by payment structures that correlate directly with donor volume.[28] The interplay between these motivations raises questions of causal influence, as higher compensation correlates with increased donor pools but may attract participants prioritizing economic gain over pure benevolence, potentially skewing demographics toward younger, college-educated women seeking to offset tuition or lifestyle costs. Peer-reviewed analyses note that while donors often downplay financial aspects in interviews—possibly due to social desirability bias—quantitative data from recruitment patterns reveal compensation as a necessary condition for scalability, with altruism serving more as a rationalization or secondary satisfier.[108] This dynamic persists across contexts, as evidenced by a 2021 study where 89% of donors expressed willingness to continue even under reduced anonymity, yet baseline participation hinged on remuneration exceeding mere reimbursement.[104] Empirical gaps remain in longitudinally tracking whether initial financial drivers evolve into enduring altruistic fulfillment, though available evidence prioritizes compensation's role in enabling widespread donation.[109]Recipient Motivations and Family Structures
Recipients pursue egg donation primarily to address infertility stemming from impaired oocyte production or quality, enabling them to gestate and nurture a child despite ovarian limitations. Common indications include advanced maternal age with diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian insufficiency, surgical oophorectomy, chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage, or recurrent IVF failure due to poor egg quality.[110][111][1] In these scenarios, recipients often seek to maintain a gestational bond with the offspring while leveraging younger, healthier donor oocytes to improve IVF success rates, which can exceed 50% per transfer for women under 45 using fresh donor eggs.[14] Demographically, egg donation recipients are typically older than standard IVF patients, with many in their late 30s to mid-40s, reflecting age-related fertility decline as a key driver; for instance, 25% of U.S. IVF mothers over 40 incorporate donor eggs.[95] Family structures vary but are dominated by heterosexual couples facing female-factor infertility, where the male partner's sperm is used to fertilize donor eggs, preserving partial genetic continuity.[112] Increasingly, single women and lesbian couples utilize egg donation to form families, often pairing it with donor sperm; in jurisdictions like the UK and parts of Europe, such non-traditional recipients represent a growing minority, motivated by the desire for parenthood without viable personal gametes.[113] Longitudinal studies indicate these diverse structures achieve comparable parenting outcomes to naturally conceived families, though recipient age correlates with higher perinatal risks independent of donation.[112]Ethical Controversies
Commodification and Potential Exploitation
The commercialization of egg donation involves treating human oocytes as marketable goods, with donors receiving financial compensation typically ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 per cycle in the United States, though payments can exceed these amounts through agencies that offer premiums for desirable traits such as height, education, or ethnicity.[7][114] This market dynamic raises concerns about commodification, as agencies advertise donor profiles akin to consumer products, potentially reducing the altruistic framing of donation to a transactional exchange.[115] Critics argue that such practices erode the intrinsic value of reproductive cells, fostering a system where eggs from younger, healthier women command higher prices, akin to selective breeding markets.[116] Potential exploitation arises from the asymmetry between compensation and the medical risks borne by donors, who are predominantly young women aged 20-29 from lower socioeconomic backgrounds seeking quick financial relief, such as college students funding tuition.[28][117] The oocyte retrieval process entails hormonal hyperstimulation and surgical extraction, carrying a documented 1-2% risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), which can lead to severe abdominal pain, fluid accumulation, and hospitalization, alongside risks of infection, bleeding, and anesthesia complications.[28] Long-term effects remain understudied, with some evidence suggesting associations with diminished ovarian reserve and elevated cancer risks, yet donors often receive incomplete disclosures, as agencies prioritize recruitment over exhaustive risk education.[11][118] Financial incentives may exert undue influence, bordering on coercion for economically vulnerable donors, as payments—while substantial—do not proportionally reflect the procedure's invasiveness or potential for repeat cycles, which amplify cumulative health burdens.[119] In unregulated agency models, marketing emphasizes earnings and minimal downtime while minimizing hazards, leading to informed consent deficits where donors underestimate lifelong implications like fertility impairment.[115] Bioethics analyses highlight that this setup exploits power imbalances, with clinics and agencies profiting disproportionately from donor cycles costing recipients 30,000, while donors absorb uncompensated externalities.[7][120] Empirical gaps exacerbate exploitation risks, as longitudinal data on donor outcomes are sparse due to minimal regulatory oversight; for instance, U.S. federal guidelines cap payments ethically but lack enforcement, allowing circumvention via "exceptional compensation" clauses.[114] Internationally, disparities intensify, with donors in developing nations receiving far lower sums—sometimes 2,000—amid weaker protections, heightening coercion from poverty.[22] Proponents of stricter limits, including ASRM ethics opinions, contend that uncapped markets incentivize riskier behaviors, such as multiple donations, without adequate safeguards, underscoring the need for evidence-based caps tied to verified risks rather than market demand.[7][121]Eugenics in Donor Selection and Marketing
Egg donation agencies frequently market donors by emphasizing traits presumed to be heritable, such as high intelligence, athletic prowess, physical attractiveness, and specific ethnic or phenotypic characteristics, in addition to standard medical screening for health and fertility. Recipients are presented with donor profiles highlighting academic achievements like Ivy League attendance or SAT scores exceeding 1400, as well as attributes including above-average height (e.g., 5'5" or taller) and verified athletic or artistic talents.[51][122] These criteria serve as proxies for genetic quality, allowing intended parents to select eggs based on desired offspring outcomes, with studies showing a shift toward prioritizing cognitive and performance traits over mere appearance.[123][124] Compensation structures reinforce this selective process, with payments escalating for donors exhibiting premium traits—ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 or more—creating a market where "high-demand" profiles command premiums based on perceived genetic value.[125] Agencies facilitate matching on ethnicity, eye/hair color, and height to align with parental preferences, effectively enabling phenotypic customization while acknowledging partial heritability of complex traits like intelligence and stature.[126][127] This commercial approach has drawn comparisons to positive eugenics, as it incentivizes reproduction of gametes from individuals deemed genetically superior, though enacted through private consumer choice rather than state policy.[128] Bioethicists and reproductive scholars contend that such practices constitute a "new eugenics," perpetuating stratified reproduction by privileging donors from higher socioeconomic or educational backgrounds, potentially exacerbating inequalities in access to "optimized" offspring.[37] The American Society for Reproductive Medicine's Ethics Committee has noted that donor selection for enhancement purposes troubles some observers, as it risks objectifying future children by assigning value based on engineered traits rather than inherent dignity.[7] In the United States, these dynamics are more overt than in jurisdictions like Spain, where donor anonymity and regulated compensation temper explicit trait-based marketing, yet subtle preferences persist.[129] Critics argue this market-driven selection echoes eugenic legacies by promoting the idea of heredity's dominance over intelligence and capability, without coercive elements but with empirical outcomes favoring "desirable" genetic lineages.[115][130]Genetic Anonymity and Child Welfare
In egg donation, genetic anonymity traditionally shields donors from contact by recipients or offspring, predicated on assumptions that it safeguards donor privacy, reduces legal entanglements, and boosts donation rates by minimizing perceived long-term responsibilities. This framework, prevalent in jurisdictions like the United States where anonymous donation remains legal, contrasts with offspring interests in accessing genetic heritage for identity construction, kinship networks, and hereditary health data, such as risks for conditions like BRCA mutations absent from family medical records. Empirical scrutiny reveals that while anonymity does not precipitate widespread psychological deficits, it can impede welfare through informational deficits, particularly as direct-to-consumer DNA testing—utilized by over 30 million individuals globally by 2023—routinely circumvents barriers, enabling unintended donor identification and sibling matches that provoke distress or relational complexities for unprepared families.[78] Longitudinal assessments of donor-conceived children underscore comparable psychological adjustment to naturally conceived peers, with no significant disparities in emotional or behavioral functioning at age 7 across egg donation, sperm donation, and natural conception cohorts in a UK study of 118 families. Specifically, only 1.7% exhibited abnormal scores on maternal reports of strengths and difficulties, mirroring population norms, though non-disclosing families displayed reduced mother-child mutuality and positivity (effect sizes -0.70 and -0.69, respectively), suggesting secrecy—often tied to anonymity—may subtly erode relational quality more than genetic disconnection itself. Among young adults conceived via egg donation (predominantly anonymous, n=11), 73% viewed their origins as uniquely positive or neutral, with minimal relational strain to mothers (only 1 case), yet 55% expressed interest in donor contact for curiosity or heritage closure, indicating latent welfare benefits from optional identifiability without implying inherent trauma from anonymity.[131][132] Offspring perspectives, drawn from surveys of 419 donor-conceived individuals, evince heightened opposition to anonymity—31% strongly endorsing its abolition, escalating with age (mean agreement score dropping to 2.1 among those over 30 versus 2.7 for teens)—outpacing parental or donor support, potentially reflecting retrospective identity perturbations akin to adoption literature where genetic discontinuity correlates with elevated search behaviors for origins. This discord informs policy evolution: Sweden pioneered non-anonymous gamete donation in 1984, followed by Australia (2004 onward for comprehensive release at majority), the UK (2005 for post-2005 donors), and France (effective 2025), prioritizing offspring rights to biographical data upon adulthood request, with evidence from identity-release programs showing sustained child well-being sans anonymity's veil, albeit with donor recruitment dips of up to 20-30% in transitioned systems. Critics, however, note scant causal proof that mandated disclosure enhances net welfare, as voluntary early parental telling—feasible under anonymity via non-identifying registries—yields similar relational outcomes, while forced openness risks donor shortages exacerbating infertility access inequities.[133][134][135][136]Legal and Regulatory Landscape
National Variations and Key Jurisdictions
In jurisdictions such as Germany, Italy, Austria, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey, egg donation remains illegal, primarily due to ethical concerns over the commercialization of human gametes and potential risks to donors, with prohibitions enshrined in national laws like Germany's Embryo Protection Act of 1990, which bans all forms of gamete donation for reproductive purposes.[56][137] The United States permits compensated egg donation under federal guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration for screening and state-level contract enforcement, with no outright bans; payments typically range from $5,000 to $15,000 per cycle, though the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) cautions against excessive incentives to avoid coercion, recommending donors aged 21-34 undergo rigorous medical and psychological evaluation.[14] Anonymity is contractual and often maintained unless specified otherwise, but donor-conceived offspring in states like California may access non-identifying information via registries.[138] In the United Kingdom, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 regulates egg donation through the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), mandating non-anonymous donation since 2005—donor identities must be disclosed to offspring at age 18—while prohibiting payments beyond reasonable expenses (capped at £750 as of 2018 guidelines, adjusted for inflation).[139] Donors must be 18-35, and clinics face strict reporting requirements, with over 1,500 donor eggs used annually as of HFEA's 2023 data.[138] Spain's Law 14/2006 on Assisted Human Reproduction Techniques allows anonymous egg donation with compensation limited to verified expenses (typically €800-1,200), attracting international patients due to shorter wait times and donor pools; recipients can be up to age 50, but donors are restricted to 18-35, with mandatory genetic testing under the Spanish Fertility Society standards.[22][140] France, under its 2021 bioethics law updating the 1994 framework, permits egg donation altruistically without financial incentives, requiring donors to be 18-37 and recipients under 43 for single women or 43 for couples; anonymity is preserved, but a national registry tracks origins for medical purposes, reflecting a balance between access and ethical oversight amid debates on extending to posthumous use.[141] Canada enforces altruistic donation via the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004, banning payments except expense reimbursement (up to CAD 2,000-3,000 typically), with non-anonymous options encouraged; provincial variations exist, but Health Canada oversees screening, and donor age limits align with 18-35. Australia's states (e.g., New South Wales under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007) similarly prohibit compensation, mandating counseling and non-anonymous disclosure for offspring born after 2004, with federal oversight via the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee limiting donors to under 35.[138]| Jurisdiction | Legality | Anonymity | Compensation | Donor Age Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Legal (state-regulated) | Optional (contractual) | Allowed (15,000 typical) | 21-34 recommended[14] |
| United Kingdom | Legal (HFEA-regulated) | Non-anonymous (disclosure at 18) | Expenses only (≤£750) | 18-35[139] |
| Spain | Legal | Anonymous | Expenses only (€800-1,200) | 18-35[22] |
| Germany | Banned | N/A | N/A | N/A[56] |
| France | Legal (altruistic) | Anonymous (with registry) | None | 18-37[141] |
| Canada | Legal (altruistic) | Optional/non-anonymous encouraged | Expenses only | 18-35[138] |
