Abstract
This paper explores problems associated with using altruism as the central value in gamete donation, and in doing so draws on empirical data that sheds light on why gamete donors choose to donate. Donation of bodily material is, arguably, supposed to be motivated by altruism, and this is the view taken by many European governments. Other values are often ignored or rejected as morally inappropriate. This paper analyses some conceptual and practical problems with the use of altruism as the motivation to determine moral acceptability—drawing on empirical data that suggests gamete donors are not motivated purely by altruism, and that motivations are in fact quite complex. Two problems are first analysed: (1) how do we distinguish altruistic from non-altruistic donations and (2) how do we distinguish between removing barriers and providing incentives. A final question, triggered by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ report, is whether the meaning of the payment should be decided on the basis of an a priori definition or on the basis of the donors’ subjective experience. It is concluded that there are different legitimate core values in donation, which should be balanced. In order to value the good generated by donation, donors with mixed motives should be accepted, as long as helping others is an important motive and also features in their motivation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Badhwar, N.K. 1993. Altruism versus self-interest: Sometimes a false dichotomy. Social Philosophy and Policy 10: 90–117.
British Fertility Society. 2008. Working party on sperm donation services in the UK. Report and recommendations. Human Fertility 11: 147–158.
Danish Council of Ethics. 2013. International trade in human eggs, surrogacy and organs. Copenhagen: Danish Council of Ethics.
Egli, D., A.E. Chen, G. Saphier, D. Powers, M. Alper, K. Katz, et al. 2011. Impracticality of egg donor recruitment in the absence of compensation. Cell Stem Cell 9: 293–294.
European Parliament. 2004. Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. Official Journal of the European Union 102: 48–58.
European Parliament 2005. Planned egg cell trade. European Parliament resolution on the trade in human egg cells, P6 TA-PROV(2005)0074.
European Parliament. 2012. European Parliament resolution of 11 September 2012 on voluntary and unpaid donation of tissues and cells (2011/2193(INI)). P7_TA(2012)0320. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0320+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN Retrieved on 20 june 2014.
Ferguson, P.R. 2008. Clinical trials and healthy volunteers. Medical Law Review 16: 23–51.
Fiers, D. 2014. Minder bloeddonoren door afhaken van ambtenaren. http://deredactie.be Retrieved on 20 May 2014.
Goette, L., A. Stutzer, and U.B.W. Zentrum. 2008. Blood donations and incentives: evidence from a field experiment. Basel: Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Zentrum (WWZ) der universität Basel.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 2011. A review of the HFEA’s sperm and egg donation policies—2011. www.hfea.gov.uk/donationreview Retrieved on 25 May 2014.
Ide, L. 2012 Senaat Schriftelijke vraag nr. 5-7352 aan de staatssecretaris voor Ambtenarenzaken. De extra dag verlet voor de bloeddonatie van ambtenaren en de gevolgen hiervan voor de veiligheid van het bloed. Belgische Senaat, zitting 2012–2013, 22 Nov 2012.
Moorlock, G., J. Ives, and H. Draper. 2014. Altruism in organ donation: an unnecessary condition? Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 134–138.
Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie (2011). Gameetdonatie in een systeem van faire wederkerigheid. Oktober 2011. http://nvog-documenten.nl/index.php?pagina=/richtlijn/pagina.php&fSelectNTG_73=81&fSelectedSub=73 Retrieved on 20 Sept 2014.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2011. Human bodies: donation for medicine and research. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Pennings, G. 2001. The loss of sperm donor candidates due to the abolition of the anonymity rule: analysis of an argument. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 18: 617–622.
Pennings, G. 2005. Gamete donation in a system of need-adjusted reciprocity. Human Reproduction 20: 2990–2993.
Pennings, G. 2007. Mirror gametes donation. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 28: 187–191.
Pennings, G., and P. Devroey. 2006. Subsidized in vitro fertilization treatment and the effect on the number of egg sharers. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 13: 8–10.
Pennings, G., J. De Mouzon, F. Shenfield, A.-P. Ferraretti, T. Mardesic, A. Ruiz, and V. Goossens. 2014. Socio-demographic and fertility related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Human Reproduction 29: 1076–1089.
Purewal, S., and O.B.A. van den Akker. 2009. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Human Reproduction Update 15: 499–515.
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Saunders, B. 2012. Altruism or solidarity? The motives for organ donation and two proposals. Bioethics 26: 376–381.
Schweda, M., and S. Schicktanz. 2014. Why public moralities matter—the relevance of socioempirical premises for the ethical debate on organ markets. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39: 217–222.
Stevens, J.B., and C. Hayes. 2010. Perceptions regarding oocyte donation in a group of female college students. American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing 35: 40–46.
Vanackere, S., Bogaert, H. 2012 Koninklijk besluit tot wijziging van het koninklijk besluit van 19 Nov 1998 betreffende de verloven en afwezigheden toegestaan aan de personeelsleden van de Rijksbesturen. Belgisch Staatsblad, 05 Dec 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pennings, G. Central role of altruism in the recruitment of gamete donors. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 33, 78–88 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0019-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0019-x