Here’s some news from the Guardian (UK): The HFEA (that’s the UK fertility regulator) is going to revise its rules governing egg and sperm donation. (A word about terminology: “donation” is the word used in the paper and in the HFEA materials, but I try to use “provider.” I think it is at best confusing to call people who are paid to provide materials “donors,” although I know this is a common practice.) Current practice allows for compensation of 250 pounds (which I think is under $800.) The proposal is to raise that sum to “several thousand pounds.”
The purpose of this increase is to increase the number of egg providers. I’ve written in the past about the sperm shortage in the UK and how the statistics puzzle me. Puzzling or not, there is a similar problem with a shortage of eggs. Increasing the money paid to egg providers will surely increase the number of egg providers–that’s the simplest equation of market economics.
The prospect of rising compensation for egg providers has raised some concerns. I’ve discussed most of these before but it’s still worth having a look at them.
Initially, the article says (rather vaguely), that “experts have warned the move would see women donating eggs purely for money.” The implication here is that when you pay women less they don’t do it purely for the money–some altruistic impulse must also be at work. Further, it’s clear that the experts think that being at least partly motivated by altruism is somehow better.
I’m inclined to think that most donors at all levels of payment have mixed motives–including financial gain and some degree of altruism–though the mix doubtless varies. But even if I am wrong and the experts are right, what does this matter? Why is it better that at least part of the motive be altruistic?
Later in the article, Dr. Tony Rutherford, chair of the British Fertility Society elaborates on this concern. He’s quoted as saying:
The issue here is that you are potentially straying into territory where financial inducement becomes the principal reason for donation. You are then accepting that it is morally and ethically right to “sell” gametes, and if that is the case, why put an artificial limit on the price and [instead] pay the going rate?
I’m having trouble with the first step in his logic. If financial inducement is a reason (but not the principle reason) for providing gametes, does this allow us to avoid the moral question? How? I understand that egg provider agreements are typically structured so that the compensation is for the time/trouble the providers endure rather than for the gametes, and that some take comfort from this distinction. But if this logic is satisfying to you, won’t it work just as well at the higher level of compensation?
I agree there is a moral question here. I think it is one we ought to face. Is it okay to buy/sell gametes? Even if the egg providers are not seen as selling the gametes, the fertility clinics surely are understood to be doing that, aren’t they? And if the clinics can sell eggs and sperm, why shouldn’t the actual providers be allowed to do the same?