Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decisional authority of gamete donors over embryos created with their gametes

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 15 February 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

In the ongoing discussion on the rights and obligations of gamete donors, scant attention has been paid to the decisional authority of gamete donors over the disposition of the embryos created with their gametes. This paper analyses four different positions: three cases relate to the disposition options for surplus or unused embryos by the first recipients, and one case relates to the use of the embryos stored by the first recipients for procreation.

We conclude that the gamete donor causally contributes to the creation of the embryos and thus becomes indirectly responsible. To avoid that donors would become accomplices to an activity to which they morally object, a qualified generic consent mentioning types of research should be obtained. No consent from the donor is required for the destruction of the embryos.

The cancellation of the agreement by anonymous or identifiable gamete donors should not be possible for embryos in storage for reproduction by the recipients. The interests in not becoming a genetic parent against one’s wishes do not outweigh the damage done to recipients who would no longer be able to use their embryos. Known donors, on the contrary, should be able to withdraw their consent up to the moment of transfer of the embryos based on the greater harm caused to them as a consequence of attributional parenthood. They should also be able to veto transfer of the embryos to other people than the original recipients.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 15 February 2020

    The original article unfortunately contained a mistake. The name of the author should be listed as “Guido Pennings”.

  • 15 February 2020

    The original article unfortunately contained a mistake. The name of the author should be listed as ���Guido Pennings���.

  • 15 February 2020

    The original article unfortunately contained a mistake. The name of the author should be listed as ���Guido Pennings���.

References

  1. Cook H, Briton-Jones C, Hill D. Low utilization of extra embryos in donor oocyte in vitro fertilization cycles: an ethical dilemma to donor management. J Assist Reprod Gen. 2013;30:1031–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Knopman JM, Talebian S, Berkeley AS, Grifo JA, Noyes N, Licciardi FL. Fate of cryopreserved donor embryos. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1689–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schaefer GO, Sinaii N, Grady C. Informing egg donors of the potential for embryonic research: a survey of consent forms from U.S. in vitro fertilization clinics. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:427–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilkerson A,Wongsatittham K, Johnston J. The NIH Stem cell registry: an absence of gamete donor consent. Cell Stem Cell 2013;12:147–148.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalfoglou AL, Geller G. A follow-up study with oocyte donors exploring their experiences, knowledge, and attitudes about the use of their oocytes and the outcome of the donation. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:660–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zweifel JE, Christianson M, Jaeger AS, Fost N, Olive D, Lindheim SR. Oocyte donors’ perspectives regarding embryo disposition options: grandfathering embryos for stem cell research? Fertil Steril. 2006;86(suppl. 2):S510–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Klitzman R, Sauer MV. Payment of egg donors in stem cell research in the USA. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;18:603–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Adsuar N, Zweifel JE, Pritts EA, Davidson MA, Olive DL, Lindheim SR. Assessment of wishes regarding disposition of oocytes and embryo management among ovum donors in an anonymous egg donation program. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1513–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. National Institutes of Health. National Institutes of Health Guidelines for human stem cell research, 2009. https://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/2009-guidelines.htm Accessed 26/08/2019.

  10. National Research Council. Final report of the National Academies’ Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee and 2010 Amendments to the National Academies’ Guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research, Washington: National Academies Press, 2010.

  11. International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation. International Society for Stem Cell Research, 2016. http://www.isscr.org/docs/default-source/all-isscr-guidelines/guidelines-2016/isscr-guidelines-for-stem-cell-research-and-clinical-translationd67119731dff6ddbb37cff0000940c19.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Accessed 01/09/2019.

  12. NordForsk. Legislation on biotechnology in the Nordic countries - an overview 2018. Oslo: NordForsk, 2018.

  13. Siegel AW. Gamete donor consent and human embryonic stem cell research. Kennedy Inst Ethic J. 2015;25:149–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nelson E. Consent to embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell research. Health Law Rev. 2008;16:5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rothenberg KH, Ulrich MR. NIH guidelines on human embryonic stem cell research in context: clarity or confusion? World Stem Cell Report. 2010:89–98.

  16. Mackenney J. Should gamete donors be allowed to withdraw consent from embryo research? Asian Bioethics Rev. 2009;1:89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hart HLA, Honoré T. Causation in the law. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1985.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Kadish SH. Complicity, cause and blame: a study in the interpretation of doctrine. Calif Law Rev. 1985;73:323–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bazargan-Forward S. Accountability and intervening agency: an asymmetry between upstream and downstream actors. Utilitas. 2017;29:110–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moore MS. The metaphysics of causal intervention. Calif Law Rev. 2000;88:827–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lo B, Parham L, Cedars M, Fisher S, Gates E, Giudice L, et al. NIH guidelines for stem cell research and gamete donors. Science. 2010;327:962–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mykitiuk R, Nelson E, Nisker J. (SOGC) clinical practice guideline: informed consent to donate embryos for research purposes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:824–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Sutter P, Dhont M. The frozen embryo and its non-responding parents. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1980–4.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pennings G, Segers S, Debrock S, Heindryckx B, Kontozova-Deutsch V, Punjabi U, et al. Human embryo research in Belgium: an overview. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:96–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Isasi RM. Informed consent in embryonic stem cell research: are we following basic principles? Can Med Ass J. 2007;176:1722–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pennings G. Genetic databases and the future of donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:786–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Informed consent and the use of gametes and embryos for research: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:332–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sehnert B, Chetkowski RJ. Secondary donation of frozen embryos is more common after pregnancy initiation with donated eggs than after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer and gamete intrafallopian transfer. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:350–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Baetens P, Devroey P, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I. Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:476–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Laruelle C, Place I, Demeestere I, Englert Y, Delbaere A. Anonymity and secrecy options of recipient couples and donors, and ethnic origin influence in three types of oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:382–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Provoost V, Pennings G, De Suttter P, Gerris J, Van De Velde A, De Lissnyder E, et al. Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:896–905.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Burrell R. The first years of the Finnish act on assisted fertility treatments – observations from the viewpoint of a supervisory authority. Med Law. 2012;31:473–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Frith L, Blyth E. The point of no return: up to what point should we be allowed to withdraw consent to the storage and use of embryos and gametes? Bioethics. 2019;33:637–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Herrera MB. Arizona gamete donor law: a call for recognizing women’s asymmetrical property interest in pre-embryo disposition. Hastings Women’s Law J. 2019;30:118–42.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Draper H. Gametes, consent and points of no return. Hum Fertil. 2007;10:105–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fuscaldo G. Gamete donation: when does consent become irrevocable? Hum Reprod. 2000;15:515–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pennings G, Provoost V. The attitude of female students towards sperm donation by their partners. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1431–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cohen IG. The right not to be a genetic parent? Southern Calif L R. 2008;81:1115–96.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Morris A, Nott S. Rights and responsibilities: contested parenthood. J Social Welfare Fam L. 2009;31:3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Waldman E. The parent trap: uncovering the myth of “coerced parenthood” in frozen embryo disputes. Am Univ Int Law Rev. 2004;53:1021–62.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Goodenote E. Evans v. United Kingdom. Cornell Int Law J. 2007;40:571–88.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Bioethics Institute Ghent (BIG), Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Guido Pennings

Authors
  1. Guido Pennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Pennings.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The name of the author should be listed as “Guido Pennings”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pennings, G. Decisional authority of gamete donors over embryos created with their gametes. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 281–286 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01678-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01678-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation