Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Donor Oocytes

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

Abstract

Due to the shortage of oocyte donors, the waiting lists are lengthening. This raises the ethical question of how the available oocytes should be distributed among candidate recipients. The paper clarifies the ethical structure of the allocation process to find a set of rules that generates decisions that are acceptable for all people involved. The selection includes two steps: admission to the waiting list and ranking of those on the list. The following criteria can be used to decide about the admission of candidates: success rate, health risks, age, parental competence, nationality, primary versus secondary infertility, and capacity to pay. Four criteria may function to rank recipients who should have first priority for receiving oocytes: waiting time, medical urgency, phenotypic matching, and synchronization. The introduction of a point system is defended because it allows balancing of the different ethical principles involved and because it installs an objective system of operating rules which avoid favoritism and personal biases.

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

REFERENCES

  1. Schmidt VH: Selection of recipients for donor organs in transplant medicine. J Med Phil 1998;23:50-74

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gutmann T, Land W: The ethics of organ allocation: The state of debate. Transplant Rev 1997;11:191-207

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt VH: Selection of recipients for donor organs in transplant medicine. J Med Phil 1998;23:50-74

    Google Scholar 

  4. Savulescu J: Consequentialism, reasons, value and justice. Bioethics 1998;12:212-235

    Google Scholar 

  5. Robertson JA: Patient selection for organ transplantation: Age, incarceration, family support, and other social factors. Transplant Proc 1989;21:3397-3402

    Google Scholar 

  6. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: Proceed with Care. Ottawa, Minister of Government Services Canada, 1993

  7. Borini A, Bianchi L, Violini F, Maccolini A, Cattoli M, Flamigni C: Oocyte donation program: Pregnancy and implantation rates in women of different ages sharing oocytes from single donor. Fertil Steril 1996;65:94-97

    Google Scholar 

  8. Legro RS, Wong IL, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA, Sauer MV: Recipient's age does not adversily affect pregnancy outcome after oocyte donation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:69-100; Morris RS, Sauer MV: Oocyte donation in the 1990s and beyond. Assist Reprod Rev 1993;3:211-217

    Google Scholar 

  9. National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction: Report and recommendations. In New Ways of Making Babies: The Case of Egg Donation, CB Cohen (ed). Bloomington, Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 233-320

  10. Murray TH: Gifts of the body and the needs of strangers. Hastings Center Rep 1987;17:30-38

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harris J: Justice and equal opportunities in health care. Bioethics 1999;15:393-404

    Google Scholar 

  12. Strong C: Ethics in Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine: A New Framework. New Haven, London, Yale University Press, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bustillo M: Selection and screening of potential oocyte recipients. In Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation, MV Sauer (ed). New York, Berlin, Springer Verlag, 1998, pp 27-34.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Editorial: Too old to have a baby? Lancer 1993;341:344-345

  15. Baird P: Ethical issues of fertility and reproduction. Annu Rev Med 1996;47:107-116

    Google Scholar 

  16. Baird P: New reproductive technologies: The need to ensure that uses in Canada are safe, effective and in the public interest. Can med Assoc J 1994;151:1439-1442

    Google Scholar 

  17. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: Proceed with Care. Ottawa, Minister of Government Services Canada, 1993

  18. Purviance SM: Infertility treatment for postmenopausal patients: An equity-based approach. Ethics Behav 1995;5:15-24. Rieger D: Gamete donation: An opinion on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Can Med Assoc J 1994;151:1433-1435

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pennings G: Measuring the welfare of the child: In search of the appropriate evaluation principle. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1146-1150

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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;15:476-484

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gutmann T, Land W: The ethics of organ allocation: The state of debate. Transplant Rev 1997;11:191-207

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gutmann T, Land W: The ethics of organ allocation: The state of debate. Transplant Rev 1997;11:191-207 Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  23. Prottas JM: Nonresident aliens and access to organ transplant. Transplant Proc 1989;21:3426-3429

    Google Scholar 

  24. Applegarth L, Goldberg NC, Cholst I, McGoff N, Fantini D, Zellers N, Black A, Rosenwaks Z: Families created through ovum donation: a preliminary investigation of obstetrical outcome and psychosocial adjustment. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995;12:574-580.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sauer MV: Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not “reasonable compensation” for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril 1999;71:7-8

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ahuja KK, Simons EG, Fiamanya W, Dalton M, Armar NA, Kirkpatrick P, Sharp S, Arian-Schad M, Seaton A, Watters AJ: Egg-sharing in assisted conception: ethical and practical considerations. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1126-1131. Bergh PA: Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not “reasonable compensation” for oocyte donors-A reply. Fertil Steril 1999;71:9-10

    Google Scholar 

  27. Childress JF: The body as property: Some philosophical reflections. Transplant Proc 1992;24:2143-2148

    Google Scholar 

  28. Macklin R: Comment: Should selected patients ever be moved up? Transplant Proc 1989;21:3395-3396

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rhodes R, Miller C, Schwartz M: Transplant recipient selection: Peacetime vs. wartime triage. Cambr Q Healthcare Ethics 1992;4:327-331

    Google Scholar 

  30. Human Fertilisation and EmbryologyAuthority: Recent deliberations on the case of human fetal oocytes and on pregnancies in post-menopausal women. Hum Reprod 1995;10:239-244

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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;15:476-484

    Google Scholar 

  32. Raoul-Duval A, Letur-Konirsch H, Frydman R: Anonymous oocyte donation: A psychological study of recipients, donors and children. Hum Reprod 1992;7:51-54

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pennings G: The right to choose your donor: a step towards commercialization or a step towards empowering the patient? Hum Reprod 2000;15:508-514

    Google Scholar 

  34. Herpin N: Obstacles to sperm donation in France. In the Ethics of Medical Choice. J Elster, N Herpin (eds). London, Macmillan, 1994, pp 48-69

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Free University Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, Lok. 5 C 442, B-1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Guido Pennings

Authors
  1. Guido Pennings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pennings, G. Distributive Justice in the Allocation of Donor Oocytes. J Assist Reprod Genet 18, 56–63 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026570305919

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026570305919

Search

Navigation