Balancing ethical criteria for the recruitment of gamete donors

Payment to gamete donors: equality, gender equity, or solidarity?

“…In line with the results of our study, the compensation for the physical and emotional discomfort and further health complications were also previously highlighted [20,24]. The reimbursement of direct financial expenses and compensation for non-financial costs are thus compatible with the expression of an altruistic attitude [11,28].…”

“…Nevertheless, the need to establish strict limits for payment is widely recognized to avoid the commercialization of human reproductive cells [1][2][3][4], the exploitation of donors [3,5,6] and the concealment of relevant health information to be accepted as a donor [2,7], while ensuring solidarity-based motivations to donate, such as helping a childless couple [4,[8][9][10]. The non-differentiation of payment according to donors' characteristics or the number and quality of gametes has also reached a consensus, aiming to avoid 'positive eugenics' and the commodification of bodily material [3,11].…”

“…The conditions and regulation for payment to gamete donors vary substantially across countries, being largely determined by ethical and social frameworks linked to donorassisted reproduction that are context-bound and value-laden [12,13]. The system of payment defined by a country may influence, on the one side, the efficacy of donor recruitment and the increase (or decrease) in the number of treatments [11] and, on the other side, it may have an effect on the search for cross-border reproductive care or shape the way gamete circulation occurs across countries [14]. According to the reports published by the European Commission [15] and the International Federation of Fertility Societies [16], 68 countries have standardized data on national policies or guidelines regarding payment to gamete donors.…”

Rethinking “Commercial” Surrogacy in Australia

“…Payment of reasonable compensation could be understood as compensation for loss and for risk encompassing "burden" and "inconvenience" measures used for other health volunteers (Pennings, Vayena, and Ahuja 2012). These could take into account lost opportunities to earn money elsewhere, lost wages (average or actual), and the broader non-economic losses including opportunities sacrificed as a result of the time taken to travel to and attend multiple medical appointments, the burden of treatment, and inability to undertake a wide range of activities that are inhibited by pregnancy.…”

“…Very few scholars appear to have considered the question of setting a minimum payment for surrogates from either a labour rights or compensation perspective (although some have flagged these broad frameworks for potential future efforts at transnational regulation (see Brugger 2012) or have expressed support for a "wage model" for gamete donation (see Pennings, Vayena, and Ahuja 2012). Trimmings and Beaumont recently proposed a reimbursement model of minimum payment for surrogates (they also propose a maximum) in the context of a mooted international treaty on surrogacy.…”