Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T02:38:23.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Collusion in the Oocyte Market

from Part IV - Buyer Cartels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2022

Roger D. Blair
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Christine Piette Durrance
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Tirza J. Angerhofer
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Get access

Summary

Collusion among buyers is every bit as objectionable on social welfare grounds as collusion among sellers. In this chapter, we focus on the antitrust claims in Kamakahi v. American Society of Reproductive Medicine, which arose from collusion among buyers of human eggs (oocytes), which were comprised of fertility clinics and donor agencies. Two closely related trade associations organized and orchestrated a price-fixing conspiracy aimed at depressing the fees paid to egg donors. The antitrust victims were women who were underpaid for the eggs that they donated to fertility clinics or donor agencies. The collusion among fertility clinics would seem to warrant harsh treatment under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. While this case raises important issues in medicine, public health, eugenics, and ethics, we focus our analysis on the merits of the antitrust claim and the effect on the competitive process.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law. (2017). Antitrust Law Developments. 8th ed. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip E., and Hovenkamp, Herbert (2021). Antitrust Law, 5th ed. Vol. VII. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip E., Hovenkamp, Herbert, Blair, Roger D., and Durrance, Christine Piette. (2021). Antitrust Law. 5th ed. Vol. IIA. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Blair, Roger D. and Durrance, Christine P. (2021). “Reducing the Price of Eggs: Collusion in the Oocyte Market,” Herbert Hovenkamp, Liber Amicorum in Nicolas Charbit et al, ed.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology: National Summary Report. www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2016-report/ART-2016-National-Summary-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Data: National Data. https://nccd.cdc.gov/drh_art/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=DRH_ART.ClinicInfo&rdRequestForward=True&ClinicID=9999&ShowNational=1.Google Scholar
Harrison, Jeffrey L. (1982). Price Fixing, the Professions, and Ancillary Restraints: Coping with Maricopa County. University of Illinois Law Review 4: 925950.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Carina. (2017). 16 Things You Need to Know about Donating Your Eggs. CCRM Fertility. www.ccrmivf.com/news-events/eggdonation/.Google Scholar
Gelinas, Luke, Largent, Emily A., Cohen, I. Glenn, Kornetsky, Susan, Bierer, Barbara, and Fernandez, Holly. (2018). A Framework for Ethical Payments to Research Participants. New England Journal of Medicine 378: 766771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knaub, Kelly. (2016). Egg Donors Get Pay Limits Axed with Antitrust Settlement. Law360. www.law360.com/articles/753389/egg-donors-get-pay-limits-axed-with-antitrust-settlement.Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberley D. (2009). Sunny Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price-Fixing in the Gamete Market. Law & Contemporary Problems 72: 5990.Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberley D. (2014). Egg-Donor Price Fixing and Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Virtual Mentor, American Medical Association Journal of Ethics 16: 5762.Google ScholarPubMed
Krawiec, Kimberly D. (2015). Markets, Morals, and Limits in the Exchange of Human Eggs. Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 13: 349365.Google Scholar
Levine, Aaron. (2012). Self-Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors. Hasting Center Report 40: 2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Erin P., and Walter, Jennifer K.. (2015). When Does the Amount We Pay Research Participants Become “Undue Influence”? American Journal of Medical Ethics 17: 11161121.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×