Egg sharing in return for subsidized fertility treatment—ethical challenges and pitfalls

Abstract

Some pertinent ethical challenges in egg sharing have largely been overlooked. To maximize the number of retrievable oocytes, prospective egg-sharers are often restricted to younger women with indications for either male-factor or mild female-factor sub-fertility. Recently, there is increasing evidence that such group of patients would do better either with natural cycle or minimal ovarian stimulation. The quality of the fewer oocytes retrieved is better and there is also improved endometrial receptivity for embryo implantation. Moreover, high gonadotrophin dosages are associated with increased health risks and expensive medical fees. Hence, there could be an irony because such good prognosis patients may not require a discount if they had instead opted for nil or low dosages of expensive gonadotrophins. Secondly, there is a dire lack of guidelines and regulations specifying the appropriate discounts in medical fees given to egg-sharing patients. Perhaps, only the prescription price of gonadotrophins and medical fees for surgical retrieval of oocytes should be eligible for discount. Other medical fees such as for consultation and ART laboratory procedures should be borne separately by the egg-sharing and recipient patient. Thirdly, there must be rigorous auditing to ensure that the amount of financial subsidy given to the egg-sharing patient is exactly equal to the surplus medical fees billed to the recipient patient, or this might lead to profiteering by fertility clinics and doctors. Lastly, the abolishment of donor anonymity in many countries has potentially more ramifications for prospective egg-sharing patients, as compared to non-patient donors.