Since the announcement of the first successful egg donation resulting in human birth on Feb. 3, 1984, the miraculous science behind assisted reproductive technology has helped deliver more than 50,000 babies per year in the United States alone. For couples who are unable to conceive through traditional means, egg donations provides the chance for them to bear a child. Perhaps you've seen an advertisement for egg donations in the local newspaper, or in our newspaper. For years, advertisements directed towards young women at Brown and other Ivy League institutions have offered participants the opportunity to make thousands of dollars in exchange for a relatively simple procedure. The organizations that sponsor these ads in print publications and on the Internet are seeking female donors with elite pedigrees to donate their reproductive material to interested couples. While the motive is simple and altruistic, the means by which these advertisements are propositioning our peers for reproductive material is a cause for ethical concern.
The egg donations require female donors to undergo extensive medical examinations - including a pelvic exam, hormone and disease check and an ultrasound at the very least - prior to egg retrieval. The popularity of this procedure among infertile couples has gradually established a competitive market for oocyte donors.
According to a 2007 report from the American Society of Reproductive Medicine's Ethics Committee, a reasonable payment to oocyte donors is between $3,360 and $4,200. This accounts not only for the donation of the eggs themselves, which have been commoditized, but also for the "time, inconvenience and discomfort" associated with the retrieval process. The report states that sums beyond $5,000 require formal justification and sums in excess of $10,000 are not appropriate. Yet by 2005, some in vitro fertilization programs offered $8,000 for retrieval, while unverified ads in publications and Craigslist have offered tremendous sums in the tens of thousands. These are all targeted toward healthy young women who are demonstrably intelligent, athletic and successful. Some couples set parameters based on minimum height, ethnicity or even musical talent. These ads may appear more frequently on Brown student Facebook pages because young women here match a general elite personal criteria algorithm.
Though some religious or ethical groups disagree, it is not socially unacceptable to compensate for this kind of donation. Sperm donors are compensated for their time and oocyte donors for time and procedure. But can the oocyte be ethically placed on a market with such a high demand for it? This can easily be corrupting if financial incentives are stressed over altruistic ones. These advertisements are strictly created to appeal to young women's financial needs. Anyone who considers giving reproductive material should also evaluate the difference between compensation for health risks and time and selling oneself to the highest bidder. We are wary of a large, competitive market developing for genetic material, and the ethical issues raised by such a demand should be considered carefully. While people will undoubtedly come to different conclusions on whether to donate, there should be more than monetary concerns involved in the process.
Donor Concierge, a donor matching service, reports that Ivy Leaguers rarely donate in their program. Women at universities such as Brown may not have the immediate financial need to be egg donors. Another factor that deters women at elite institutions may be that the procedure is still somewhat foreign and therefore can be socially alienating. This need not be the case if someone believes they can help a couple with their dream of having a healthy child. Whatever the case, there is more to a fulfilling life than "ideal" genetics.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
