Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Oversight and Practice of Oocyte Donation in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada

  • Published:
HEC Forum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In vitro fertilization using donated oocytes is an important medical technique that provides the only option for some infertile patients to have children. The technique remains ethically contentious, however, and, as a result of this controversy, different oversight approaches have been developed in countries around the world. This paper examines the oversight and practice of oocyte donation in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States to examine how policy choices have influenced the development and use of this medical technology. Examining per capita utilization of oocyte donation in these three countries provides evidence that supply-side policies—specifically policies affecting the compensation of potential oocyte donors—have substantially influenced the use of this technology. These results should provide useful insight for policymakers developing or revising oocyte donation policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja, K. K., Simons, E. G., Fiamanya, W., Dalton, M., Armar, N. A., Kirkpatrick, P., et al. (1996). Egg-sharing in assisted conception: Ethical and practical considerations. Human Reproduction, 11(5), 1126–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, P. (1995). Proceed with care: New reproductive technologies and the need for boundaries. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 12(8), 491–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F., & Herder, M. (2009). Policy design for human embryo research in Canada: A history (part 1 of 2). Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 6(1), 109–122. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9135-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, T. (2010, April 30). Fertility law leaves us in limbo, doctors say; oversight of burgeoning industry a ‘farce’. National Post.

  • Bryden, J. (1995, July 28). Reproductive technologies: ban cloning, baby sales, minister asks; Marleau calls sex engineering ‘unacceptable’. Ottawa Citizen, p. A1.

  • Carlson, K. B. (2010, March 13). Baby by stealth; reproduction law forcing ‘dangerous alternatives’. National Post, p. A1.

  • Craft, I., Flyckt, S., Heeley, G., Layland, S., Thornhill, A., & Kelada, E. (2005). Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10(3), 325–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, L. (2010, July 4). IVF couples forced abroad to find eggs: waiting times, not cost, the main reason for trend, say researchers. The Telegraph, p. 9.

  • Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society (1986). Ethical considerations of the new reproductive technologies. Fertility and Sterility, 46(3 Suppl 1), 1S–94S.

  • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2007). Financial compensation of oocyte donors. Fertility and Sterility, 88(2), 305–309. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.01.104.

  • Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2009). Interests, obligations, and rights of the donor in gamete donation. Fertility and Sterility, 91(1), 22–27. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.062.

  • Fidelman, C. (2010, March 4). Childless couples waiting for IVF funding. The Gazette, p. A6.

  • Gagne, L. M. (2006, March 5). Life for sale: Canadian women selling their eggs for up to $10Gs on black market. Toronto Sun, p. 5.

  • Gleicher, N., Weghofer, A., & Barad, D. (2006). A formal comparison of the practice of assisted reproductive technologies between Europe and the USA. Human Reproduction, 21(8), 1945–1950. doi:10.1093/humrep/del138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grobstein, C., Flower, M., & Mendeloff, J. (1983). External human fertilization: An evaluation of policy. Science, 222(4620), 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. (2010). Financing fertility. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 47(1), 115–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health Canada. (2008). A chronology of the assisted human reproduction act. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/reprod/hc-sc/general/chronolog-eng.php. Accessed 13 July 2010.

  • Holland, S. (2001). Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11(3), 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope, J. (2006, January 11). Rethink on IVF: Millions spent on multiple births could be used to help more childless couples, say doctors. Daily Mail, p. 35.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2005). Seed report: A report on the human fertilisation and embryology authority’s review of sperm, egg and embryo donation in the united kingdom. London: HFEA.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1998). Paid egg sharing to be regulated, not banned. London, UK: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2009). Statement regarding authority decision to review sperm, egg and embryo donation policies. London, UK: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  • Johnson, M. (1997). Payments to gamete donors: Position of the human fertilisation and embryology authority. Human Reproduction, 12(9), 1839–1842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, P., Nachtigall, R., & Showstack, J. (2002). The economic impact of the assisted reproductive technologies. Nature Cell Biology, 4(Suppl), s29–s32. doi:10.1038/ncb-nm-fertilityS29.

  • Kemp, P. (2007, August 11). NHS failings over IVF treatment. BBC News.

  • Kondro, W. (1995). Canada calls for moratorium on IVF technologies. Lancet, 346(8971), 367. doi:S0140-6736(95)92239-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. D. (2005). A case for government-sponsored monitoring of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the United States. Journal of Public and International Affairs, 16, 26–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, A. D. (2010). Self-regulation, compensation, and the ethical recruitment of oocyte donors. The Hastings Center Report, 40(2), 25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, S. (2005). Five-year waits in IVF postcode lottery. The Times, p. 13.

  • Lister, S. (2009, August 6). Infertile couples denied IVF treatment in postcode lottery: Trusts are ignoring eligibility guidelines. The Times, p. 14.

  • Lovell-Badge, R. (2008). The regulation of human embryo and stem-cell research in the United Kingdom. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology, 9(12), 998–1003. doi:10.1038/nrm2550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutjen, P., Trounson, A., Leeton, J., Findlay, J., Wood, C., & Renou, P. (1984). The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature, 307(5947), 174–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaughton, M. (2005). Regulation before the HFEA. Human Fertility (Cambridge), 8(2), 61–62. doi:10.1080/14647270500030738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacRae, F. (2009, July 28). Fertility chief wants egg donors to be paid. Daily Mail.

  • McLaren, A. (1990). Research on the human conceptus and its regulation in Britain today. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 83(4), 209–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medical Research International, & Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (1989). In vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in the United States: 1987 results from the national IVF-ET registry. Fertility and Sterility, 51(1), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motluk, A. (2010, April). The human egg trade. The Walrus. Available at http://www.walrusmagazine.com/archives/2010.04/.

  • National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2004). Assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  • Nisker, J. (2008). Distributive justice and infertility treatment in Canada. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 30(5), 425–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, M. (2009, November 21). The price of eggs: Canada’s fertility laws have created a black market in human ova, leaving donors and recipients vulnerable. Toronto Star, p. A1.

  • Ouellette, A., Caplan, A., Carroll, K., Fossett, J. W., Bjarnadottir, D., Shickle, D., et al. (2005). Lessons across the pond: Assisted reproductive technology in the United Kingdom and the United States. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 31(4), 419–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2008a). 2008 Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation: A practice committee report. Fertil Steril, 90(5 Suppl), S30–S44. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.090.

  • Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2008b). Repetitive oocyte donation. Fertility and Sterility, 90(5 Suppl), S194–S195. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.032.

  • Robertson, J. A. (1988). Technology and motherhood: Legal and ethical issues in human egg donation. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 39(1), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. A. (1989). Ethical and legal issues in human egg donation. Fertility and Sterility, 52(3), 353–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (1993). Proceed with care: Final report of the Royal Commission on new reproductive technologies. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, R. (2009, October 19). ‘Octomom’ doctor expelled from fertility group. USA Today.

  • Sauer, M. V., & Kavic, S. M. (2006). Oocyte and embryo donation 2006: Reviewing two decades of innovation and controversy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 12(2), 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbock, B. (2004). Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 71(4), 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steptoe, P. C., & Edwards, R. G. (1978). Birth after reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet, 2(8085), 366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warnock, M. (1985). A question of life: The Warnock Report on human fertilisation and embryology. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: B. Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Aaron D. Levine

Authors
  1. Aaron D. Levine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron D. Levine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levine, A.D. The Oversight and Practice of Oocyte Donation in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. HEC Forum 23, 15–30 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-010-9145-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-010-9145-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation