1998
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.10.2671
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An assessment of the motives and morals of egg share donors: policy of 'payments' to egg donors requires a fair review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
19
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
19
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The authorities and other clinics were concerned that subsidized IVF treatment in return for donating a random portion of eggs could be seen as 'payment'. However, subse quent studies of the motivation of egg sharers indicate that financial reward is not their main incentive; a survey found egg sharers in the UK to be 'well informed women who carefully consider the issues involved' (Ahuja et al, 1998) and disapproved of cash rewards. They were also well educated, middle class and, as judged by their moving accounts and goodwill messages to the future children of their recipients, totally committed to the underlying theme of mutual help (Ahuja et al, 1998).…”
Section: Egg-sharingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The authorities and other clinics were concerned that subsidized IVF treatment in return for donating a random portion of eggs could be seen as 'payment'. However, subse quent studies of the motivation of egg sharers indicate that financial reward is not their main incentive; a survey found egg sharers in the UK to be 'well informed women who carefully consider the issues involved' (Ahuja et al, 1998) and disapproved of cash rewards. They were also well educated, middle class and, as judged by their moving accounts and goodwill messages to the future children of their recipients, totally committed to the underlying theme of mutual help (Ahuja et al, 1998).…”
Section: Egg-sharingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, subse quent studies of the motivation of egg sharers indicate that financial reward is not their main incentive; a survey found egg sharers in the UK to be 'well informed women who carefully consider the issues involved' (Ahuja et al, 1998) and disapproved of cash rewards. They were also well educated, middle class and, as judged by their moving accounts and goodwill messages to the future children of their recipients, totally committed to the underlying theme of mutual help (Ahuja et al, 1998). However, despite such repeated findings, the controversies were not resolved until 2004 when a review for the HFEA concluded that egg sharing was morally acceptable (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 2005).…”
Section: Egg-sharingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, providing financial incentives increases the number of oocyte donors, which in turn, allows more infertile persons to have children. Second, the provision of financial or in-kind benefits does not necessarily discourage altruistic motivations; indeed, in surveys of women receiving such benefits, most reported that helping childless persons remained a significant factor in their decisions to donate (4,(7)(8)(9). In a recent survey of donors who had been compensated up to $5,000, 88% of subjects reported that the best thing about the donation experience was ''being able to help someone'' (8).…”
Section: Concerns Raised By Oocyte Sharingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies also indicate that donors tolerate the procedures well, are largely satisfied with their experiences, have few (if any) regrets about donating, and have some willingness to donate eggs again. In the UK, where direct payment is banned but indirect monetary gain is a possibility, egg donors report both altruistic and self-interested motives (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). Comparison of statistics on the frequency of use of donor eggs in IVF cycles in the U.S. and in countries that limit or prohibit payment to egg donors suggests that the offer of direct remuneration increases the number of women participating in the process.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%