Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:37:44.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Agencies Market Egg Donation on the Internet: A Qualitative Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jason Keehn ,
Eve Howell ,
Mark V. Sauer  and
Robert Klitzman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Oocyte donation has been used to treat human infertility for nearly 30 years, and remains particularly popular in helping women of advanced reproductive age, yet it also poses ethical concerns. Due to increasing demand and undersupply of available oocyte (or egg) donors, a niche business has developed in which “agencies” assist physician practices in advertising, recruiting, screening and even “matching” donors to recipients in need of such services. The advent of the Internet has increased the number and visibility of these services, creating a market in which programs bid for women perceived as having desired traits and superior pedigrees. A few questionable ethical aspects of these agencies have been examined by ourselves and others, including patterns of monetary compensation that directly conflict with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's (ASRM) ethical guidelines, but many questions remain unexamined.

For-profit agencies that recruit and often match egg donors with intended parents exist alongside licensed, professional fertility clinics that actually perform the medical procedures.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , Autumn 2015 , pp. 610 - 618
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sauer, M. V., “History of Cocyte and Embryo Donation,” in Sauer, M. V., ed., Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation, 2nd ed. (London: Springer-Verlag, 2013): At 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberta, H. Berry, R. Levine, A., “Compliance with Donor Age Recommendations in Oocyte donor Recruitment Advertisements in the USA,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26, no. 4 (2013): 400–405; Holster, K., “Making Connections: Egg Donation, the Internet, and the New Reproductive Technology Marketplace,” Advances in Medical Sociology 10, no. 5 (2008): 53–73; Johnson, K. M., “Fertility Clinic, Egg Donation Agency, and Sperm Bank Policies,” Fertility and Sterility 96, no. 4 (2011): 877–879; Keehn, J. E. Holwell, E. Abdul-Karim, R. Chin, L. J. Leu, C. S. Sauer, M. V. Klitzman, R., “Recruiting Egg Donors Online: An Analysis of In Vitro Fertilization Clinic and Agency Websites' Adherence to ASRM Guidelines,” Fertility and Sterility 98, no. 4 (2012): 995–1000; Levine, A. D., “Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors,” Hastings Center Report 40, no. 2 (2010): 25–36; Luk, J. Petrozza, J. C., “Evaluation of Compliance and Range of Fees among American Society of Reproductive Medicine Listed Egg Donor and Surrogacy Agencies,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 53, no. 11 (2008): 847–852; Gezinski, L. B. Karandikar, S. Carter, J. R., “The Use of Emotional Imagery and Language in Egg Donation Websites,” Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 16, no. 4 (2012): 390–402; Hobbs, P., “Miracles of Love: The Use of Metaphor in Egg Donor Ads,” Journal of Sociolinguistics 11, no. 1 (2007): 24–52.Google Scholar
Levine, (id.); Luk, Petrozza, (id.); American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) website, available at <http://www.asrm.org/ASRM_homepage/> (last visited on September 2, 2015).+(last+visited+on+September+2,+2015).>Google Scholar
See Keehn, et al. , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Howell, E. Keehn, J. Leu, C.-S. Sauer, M. V. Klitzman, R., “Egg Donation Brokers: An Analysis of Agency vs. IVF Clinic Websites,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine (in press).Google Scholar
See Keehn, et al. , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Howell, et al. , supra note 6.Google Scholar
See ASRM website, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Eysenbach, G. Powell, J. Kuss, O. Eun-Ryoung, S., “Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web: A Systematic Review,” JAMA 287, no. 20 (2002): 2691–2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Luk, Petrozza, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Almeling, R., “Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material,” American Sociological Review 72, no. 3 (2007): 319–340.Google Scholar
See Hobbs, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Gezinski, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Carter, J. R. Gezinski, L. B. Karandikar-Chheda, S., “A Comprehensive Review of Reproductive Egg Donation Web Sites,” Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet 16, no. 1 (2012): 53–65.Google Scholar
The American Medical Association (AMA) website, available at <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama> (last visited September 11, 2015).+(last+visited+September+11,+2015).>Google Scholar
See Gezinski, , supra note 2; Klitzman, R. Albala, I. Siragusa, J. Patel, J. Appelbaum, P. S. “Disclosure of Information to Potential Subjects on Research Recruitment Web Sites,” IRB: Ethics and Human Research 30, no. 1 (2008): 15–20; Reavley, N. J. Jorm, A. F., “The Quality of Mental Disorder Information Websites: A Review,” Patient Education and Counseling 85, no. 2 (2011): E16–e25; Stinson, J. N. White, M. Breakey, V. Chong, A. L. Mak, I. Low, K. K. Low, A. K., “Perspectives on Quality and Content of Information on the Internet for Adolescents with Cancer,” Pediatric Blood & Cancer 57, no. 1 (2011): 97–104; Hargrave, D. R. Hargrave, U. A. Bouffet, E., “Quality of Health Information on the Internet in Pediatric Neurooncology,” Neuro-Oncology 8, no. 2 (2006): 175–182; Charnock, D. Shepperd, S. Needham, G. Gann, R., “DISCERN: An Instrument for Judging the Quality of Written Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 53, no. 2 (1999): 105–111.Google Scholar
See ASRM website, supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Keehn, et al. , supra note 2; Howell, et al. , supra note 6.Google Scholar
Google, available at <https://www.google.com/> (last visited on September 2, 2015).+(last+visited+on+September+2,+2015).>Google Scholar
Infertility Resources, available at <http://www.ihr.com/infertility/> (last visited September 2, 2015).+(last+visited+September+2,+2015).>Google Scholar
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, available at <http://www.sart.org/> (last visited September 2, 2015).+(last+visited+September+2,+2015).>Google Scholar
See ASRM website, supra note 10.Google Scholar
Klock, S. C. Stout, J. E. Davidson, M., “Psychological Characteristics and Factors Related to Willingness to Donate Again among Anonymous Oocyte Donors,” Fertility and Sterility 79, no. 6 (2003): 1312–1316; Braverman, A., “Exploring Ovum Donor's Motivations and Needs,” AJOB Empirical Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 16–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, N. McGowan, M. “Looking Back: Egg Donors' Retrospective Evaluations of Their Motivations, Expectations, and Experiences during Their First Donation Cycle,” Fertility and Sterility 93, no. 2 (2010): 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See ASRM website, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Krawiec, K., “Altruism and Intermediation in the Market for Babies,” Washington & Lee Law Review 66, no. 1 (2009): 203–257.Google Scholar
See Almeling, supra note 12.Google Scholar
Cohen, P., “Economists Dissect the ‘Yuck’ Factor,” New York Times, January 31, 2008, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/arts/31gross.html?pagewanted=all> (last visited September 2, 2015).+(last+visited+September+2,+2015).>Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. Tversky, A., “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, no. 2 (1979): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See American Health, supra note 17; Eysenbach, , supra note 10; Reavley, , supra note 17; Stinson, , supra note 28; Hargrave, , supra note 17; Charnock, , supra note 17.Google Scholar
See ASRM website, supra note 3.Google Scholar