Payment to gamete donors: equality, gender equity, or solidarity?
Regulation of payment to gamete donors varies substantially across countries. The development of an ethically sustainable governance system of payments in gamete donation demands that the preferences of different stakeholders be heard. This study intends to contribute to improving the understanding of payment to gamete donors by analysing the views of donors and recipients about the preferred form of payment and its associations with their sociodemographic characteristics.
This cross-sectional study included 70 donors and 172 recipients recruited at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes (July 2017–June 2018). Participants completed a self-reported questionnaire. Views about the preferred form of payment were collected through a multiple-choice question and an open-ended item. Associations were quantified through χ2 tests; content analysis was conducted with the open-ended answers.
Both donors (48.6%) and recipients (40.7%) considered that reimbursement is the preferred form of payment to ensure solidarity-based motivations to donate. This option was followed by compensation for non-financial losses (41.4% of donors; 33.7% of recipients) based on gender equity. Preference for a fixed reward (22.7% of recipients; 8.6% of donors) was less frequent among younger donors and married/living with a partner or employed recipients, being based on the promotion of equality.
In the context of the search for cross-border reproductive care and gamete circulation across countries, the findings from this study claim for the need to create solutions for payment to gamete donors that take into account gender equity and are simultaneously sensitive to donor’s actual expenses and further health complications.
KeywordsDonor conception Compensation Reproductive techniques, assisted Infertility
The authors thank all donors and recipients who participated in the study, the health professionals and staff of the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes who collaborated in the participants’ recruitment and Liliana Abreu and Sandra Pinto da Silva for their contribution in data collection.
This work was supported by national funding from the Foundation for Science and Technology – FCT (Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education), the Operational Programmes Competitiveness and Internationalization (COMPETE 2020) and Human Capital (POCH), Portugal 2020, and the European Union, through the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund, under the project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016762, Ref. FCT PTDC/IVC-ESCT/6294/2014, the Unidade de Investigação em Epidemiologia - Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (EPIUnit) (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006862; Ref. FCT UID/DTP/04750/2013), the PhD grant SFRH/BD/111686/2015 (Baía I), the contract Ref. DL57/2016/CP1336/CT0001 (De Freitas C) and the FCT Investigator contract IF/01674/2015 (Silva S).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Human bodies: donation for medicine and research. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2011.Google Scholar
- 3.Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:e15–9.Google Scholar
- 12.European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. Opinion on the ethical implications of new health technologies and citizen participation Executive summary and Recommendations 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/research/ege/pdf/opinion-29_ege.pdf (14 November 2018, date last accessed).
- 15.European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document on the implementation of the principle of voluntary and unpaid donation for human tissues and cells. Brussels: European Commission; 2016. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0128&from=EN (2 October 2018, date last accessed).
- 16.Ory SJ, editor. IFFS Surveillance 2016. https://journals.lww.com/grh/Fulltext/2016/09000/IFFS_Surveillance_2016.1.aspx (2 July 2018, date last accessed).
- 17.Ministério da Saúde. Despacho n.° 3192/2017. Diário da República, 2.ª Série - N.°75; 2017; 7192–7193.Google Scholar
- 18.Assembleia da República. Artigo 205.°, Alteração ao Decreto-Lei n.° 113/2011, de 29 de novembro. Diário da República, 1.ª série - N.° 62; 2016; 1096-(70).Google Scholar
- 22.Espirito Santo E, Oliveira JBA, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Baruffi RLR, Franco JG Jr. A survey on public opinion regarding financial incentives for oocyte donation in Brazil. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2013;17:173–9.Google Scholar
- 26.Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
- 27.Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2001;7:1–9.Google Scholar
- 36.INE. Higher education rate of resident population aged between 25 and 64 years old by place of residence, sex and age group (date of Census 2011). Statistics Portugal. https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_indicadores&indOcorrCod=0006399&contexto=bd&selTab=tab2&xlang=en (26 September 2019, date last accessed).