Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:41:48.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conflicts of Interest and Effective Oversight of Assisted Reproduction Using Donated Oocytes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Valarie K. Blake ,
Michelle L. McGowan  and
Aaron D. Levine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a multibillion dollar market in the United States (U.S.), generating a continual demand for oocyte donors whose gametes contributed to 12.6% of all ART cycles in 2012. Oocyte donation is a variant of in vitro fertilization (IVF) that is typically used when an intended mother cannot produce healthy oocytes of her own and instead uses oocytes provided by a third party in an attempt to produce one or more children. When oocyte donation was first developed, oocyte donors were selected among family and friend groups but, increasingly, active solicitation of anonymous donors and brokering the relationship between donor and recipient has become part of the services offered by fertility clinics. In addition, recipients may choose to work with an independent donor agency to find a suitable donor before completing the IVF procedure at a fertility clinic.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 410 - 424
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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report (2014), available at <http://nccd.cdc.gov/DRH_ART/Apps/NationalSummaryReport.aspx> (last visited May 1, 2015).+(last+visited+May+1,+2015).>Google Scholar
Kalfoglou, A. L. Geller, G., “Navigating Conflict of Interest in Oocyte Donation: An Analysis of Donors' Experiences,” Women's Health Issues 10, no. 5 (2000): 226–239.Google Scholar
Kawwass, J. F. Monsour, M. Crawford, S. Kissin, D. M. Session, D. R. Kulkarni, A. D. Jamieson, D. J., “Trends and Outcomes for Donor Oocyte Cycles in the United States, 2000–2010,” JAMA 310, no. 22 (2013): 2426–2434.Google Scholar
National Research Council, “Two Principles for Identifying and Assessing Conflicts of Interest,” in Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Dickens, B. M. Cook, R. J., “Conflict of Interest: Legal and Ethical Aspects,” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 92, no. 2 (2006): 192–197.Google Scholar
See National Research Council, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Berg, J. W., “Risky Business: Evaluating Oocyte Donation,” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Dickenson, D., Property in the Body: Feminist Perspectives (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Waldby, C., “Oocyte Markets: Women's Reproductive Work in Embryonic Stem Cell Research,” New Genetics and Society 27, no. 1 (2008): 19–31.Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act, 42 U.S.C. § 263a(1)-a(7).Google Scholar
137 Cong. Rec. E4145–02 (1991) (statement of Rep. Wyden).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Klein, J. U. Sauer, M. V., “Ethics in Egg Donation: Past, Present, and Future,” Seminars in Reproductive Medicine 28, no. 4 (2010): 322–328; Daniels, C. R. Heidt-Forsythe, E., “Gendered Eugenics and the Problematic of Free Market Reproductive Technologies: Sperm and Egg Donation in the United States,” Signs 37, no. 3 (2012): 719–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “The Presumptive Primacy of Procreative Liberty,” in Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994): At 22–42.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Griswold v. Conn., 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar
See Robertson, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Rao, R., “Equal Liberty: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Equality,” George Washington Law Review 76, no. 6 (2008): 1457–1489.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, “State Laws Related to Insurance Coverage for Infertility Treatment” (updated June 2014), available at <http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/insurance-coverage-for-infertility-laws.aspx> (last visited May 1, 2015); Asch, A. Marmor, R., “Assisted Reproduction,” in Crowley, M., ed., From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns (Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, 2008): 5–10.Google Scholar
La. Rev. Stat § 9:122 (2011).Google Scholar
Ind.Code § 35-46-5-3 (2014).Google Scholar
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36–1702 (2011).Google Scholar
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 125325.15 (2009).Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “2006 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation,” Fertility and Sterility 86, no. 5 (2006): S38–S50.Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Financial Compensation of Oocyte Donors,” Fertility and Sterility 88, no. 2 (2007): 305–309 [hereinafter Financial Compensation].Google Scholar
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Repetitive Oocyte Donation,” Fertility and Sterility 90, no. 5, Supp. (2008): S194–S195 [hereinafter Repetitive Donation].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Using Family Members as Gamete Donors or Surrogates,” Fertility and Sterility 98 no. 4 (2012): 797–803 [hereinafter Family Members].Google Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Donating Spare Embryos for Stem Cell Research,” Fertility and Sterility 91, no. 3 (2009): 667–670 [hereinafter Spare Embryos].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Interests, Obligations and Rights of the Donor in Gamete Donation,” Fertility and Sterility 102, no. 3 (2012): 675–681 [hereinafter Rights of the Donor].Google Scholar
See Financial Compensation, supra note 28.Google Scholar
Levine, A. D., “Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors,” Hastings Center Report 40, no. 2 (2010): 25–36.Google Scholar
Alberta, H. B. Berry, R. M. Levine, A. D., “Compliance with Donor Age Recommendations in Oocyte Donor Recruitment Advertisements in the USA,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 26, no. 4 (2013): 400–405 [hereinafter Donor Age Recommendations].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberta, H. B. Berry, R. M. Levine, A. D., “Risk Disclosure and the Recruitment of Oocyte Donors: Are Advertisers Telling the Full Story?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 42, no. 2 (2014): 232–243 [hereinafter Risk Disclosure and Recruitment].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keehn, J. Holwell, E. Abdul-Karim, R. Chin, L. J. Leu, C. Sauer, M. V. Klitzman, R., “Recruiting Egg Donors Online: An Analysis of in Vitro Fertilization Clinic and Agency Websites' Adherence to American Society for Reproductive Medicine Guidelines,” Fertility and Sterility 98, no. 4 (2012): 995–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luk, J. Petrozza, J. C., “Evaluation of Compliance and Range of Fees among American Society for Reproductive Medicine-Listed Egg Donor and Surrogacy Agencies,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 53, no. 11 (2008): 847–852.Google Scholar
Kamakahi v. Am. Soc'y Reprod. Med., No. C 11–01781, 2013 WL 1768706 (U.S. Dist. N. Cal 2013).Google Scholar
Krawiec, K. D., “Egg-Donor Price Fixing and Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine,” The Virtual Mentor: VM 16, no. 1 (2014): 57–62.Google Scholar
Kenney, N. J. McGowan, M. L., “Looking Back: Egg Donors’ Retrospective Evaluations of Their Motivations, Expectations and Experiences During Their First Donation Cycle,” Fertility and Sterility 93, no. 2 (2010): 455–466.Google Scholar
Lindheim, S. R. Frumovitz, M. Sauer, M. V., “Recruitment and Screening Policies and Procedures Used to Establish a Paid Donor Oocyte Registry,” Human Reproduction 13, no. 7 (1998): 2020–2024.Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Financial Compensation, supra note 28.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Disclosure, Risk Recruitment, , supra note 36.Google Scholar
See Levine, , supra note 34.Google Scholar
See Keehn, et al., supra note 37.Google Scholar
Gurmankin, A. D., “Risk Information Provided to Prospective Oocyte Donors in a Preliminary Phone Call,” American Journal of Bioethics 1, no. 4 (2001): 3–13.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id; Cialdini, R. B. Cacioppo, J. T. Bassett, R. Miller, J. A., “Low-Ball Procedure for Producing Compliance: Commitment Then Cost,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, no. 5 (1978): 463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. Kahneman, D., “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, no. 4157 (1974): 1124–1131; Brewer, N. T. Chapman, G. B. Schwartz, J. A. Bergus, G. R., “The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on the Judgments and Choices of Doctors and Patients,” Medical Decision Making 27, no. 2 (2007): 203–211.Google Scholar
See Gurmankin, , supra note 49.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, “Recommendations for Gamete and Embryo Donation: A Committee Opinion,” Fertility and sterility 99, no. 1 (2013): 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Donor Age Recommendations, supra note 35.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 (June 2007): 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.; see Lindheim, Frumovitz, Sauer, , supra note 42.Google Scholar
See Lindheim, Frumovitz, Sauer, , supra note 42.Google Scholar
The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Analysis and Recommendations for Public Policy (New York: The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1998); Robertson, J. A., “Is There an Ethical Problem Here?” Hastings Center Report 40, no. 2 (2010): 3; see Rights of the Donor, supra note 32.Google Scholar
See Almeling, , supra note 56.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Kenney, McGowan, , supra note 41.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Skillern, A. A. Cedars, M. I. Huddleston, H. G., “Oocyte Donors' Comprehension as Assessed by the EDICT (Egg Donor Informed Consent Tool),” Fertility and Sterility 101, no. 1 (2014): 248–251.Google Scholar
Crockin, S. L. Daar, J., “American Society for Reproductive Medicine Updated Consent Forms,” Virtual Mentor 16, no. 4 (April 2014): 302–303.Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Rights of the Donor, supra note 32.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Schaefer, G. O. Sinaii, N. Grady, C., “Informing Egg Donors of the Potential for Embryonic Research: A Survey of Consent Forms from US in Vitro Fertilization Clinics,” Fertility and Sterility 97, no. 2 (2012): 427–433.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Bodri, D. Guillén, J. J. Polo, A. Trullenque, M. Esteve, C. Coll, O., “Complications Related to Ovarian Stimulation and Oocyte Retrieval in 4052 Oocyte Donor Cycles,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 17, no. 2 (2008): 237–243; Maxwell, K. N. Cholst, I. N. Rosenwaks, Z., “The Incidence of Both Serious and Minor Complications in Young Women Undergoing Oocyte Donation,” Fertility and Sterility 90, no. 6 (2008): 2165–2171.Google Scholar
Mayo Clinic Staff, “Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome,” 2014, available at <http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ovarian-hyperstimulation-syndrome-ohss/basics/definition/con-20033777> (last visited May 1, 2015).+(last+visited+May+1,+2015).>Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Kushnir, V. A. Khanna, P. Barad, D. A. Gleicher, N., “Establishment of Comparative Performance Criteria for IVF Centers: Correlation of Live Birth Rates in Autologous and Donor Oocyte IVF Cycles,” Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12, no. 1 (2014): 122.Google Scholar
See Financial Compensation, supra note 28.Google Scholar
See Kawwass, et al., supra note 3.Google Scholar
Sunkara, S. K. Rittenberg, V. Raine-Fenning, N. Bhattacharya, S. Zamora, J. Coomarasamy, A., “Association between the Number of Eggs and Live Birth in IVF Treatment: An Analysis of 400 135 Treatment Cycles,” Human Reproduction 26, no. 7 (2011): 1768–1774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodri, D., “Risk and Complications Associated with Egg Donation,” in Sauer, M. V., ed., Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation (Springer: London, 2013): At 205–219.Google Scholar
See Kawwass, et al., supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Almeling, , supra note 56.Google Scholar
See Financial Compensation, supra note 28.Google Scholar
See Keehn, et al., supra note 37.Google Scholar
See Repetitive Donation, supra note 29.Google Scholar
See Kenney, McGowan, , supra note 41.Google Scholar
Almeling, R., Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm (University of California Press, 2011): At 119.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 1395nn (1995).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Hudson, N. Culley, L., “Assisted Reproductive Travel: UK Patient Trajectories,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23, no. 5 (2011): 573–581.Google Scholar
42 CFR § 121 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Truog, R. D., “The Ethics of Organ Donation by Living Donors,” New England Journal of Medicine 353, no. 5 (2005): 444–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Family Members, supra note 30.Google Scholar
McKneally, M. F., “Beyond Disclosure: Managing Conflicts of Interest to Strengthen Trust in Our Profession,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 133, no. 2 (2007): 300–302.Google Scholar
See Financial Compensation, supra note 28.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Stiver v. Parker, 975 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1992).Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Family Members, supra note 30; Financial Compensation, supra note 28; Embryos, Spare, supra note 31.Google Scholar
See Rules 1.7–1.12, ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, available at <http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html> (last visited May 1, 2015).+(last+visited+May+1,+2015).>Google Scholar
See McKneally, , supra note 97.Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P2d 479 (S. Ct. Cal. 1990); Murthy v. Abbott Labs., 847 F. Supp. 2d 958, 972 n.5 (S.D. Tex. 2012).Google Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Dickenson, , supra note 10; Daniels, Heidt-Forsythe, , supra note 15; Kenney, McGowan, , supra note 40.Google Scholar
See McKneally, , supra note 97.Google Scholar
Cain, D. M. Loewenstein, G. Moore, D. A., “The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest,” Journal of Legal Studies 34, no. 1 (2005): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kalfoglou, Geller, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act, supra note 12.Google Scholar
See Financial Compensation, supra note 28.Google Scholar