Guest post by Lucy Cripes
Before the year 2005 in the United Kingdom,
both egg donors and sperm donors were, by law granted anonymity. However a change
of U.K. legislation in 2005 modified the rights of donors. Offspring’s of the
donors at aged 18 would now have access to their donor’s identity. There would
also be a cost neutrality law. This means that donors would neither make profit
nor lose from their donations.
There was concern that this change in legislation
could alter the numbers of people willing to make egg donations and sperm
donations. Would the levels of eggs available in the egg donor bank fall?
Therefore in 2004, before the change in legislation took place, the U.K.
department of health conducted a study. This study helped steer decision
making.
The study took place in the form of a
questionnaire, circulated to fertility clinics throughout the U.K. It asked
questions ranging from what was donors responses to the proposed change, did
they think it would alter willingness to donate and any suggestions they may
have to improve egg donations rates.
One third of the donors expressed concerns
about the removal of anonymity. Their concerns ranged from unfounded concerns
as would they be made legally and financially responsible for the offspring and
would the law be applied retrospectively. They also expressed concerns about
how their donors’ rights would be affected, and the emotional future turmoil that
may occur if the offspring would choose to make contact.
However, even though concerns about the changed
in legislation were very broad, there was a general consensus on how to keep
donors interested and to improve recruiting if this legislation was passed. The
egg donors agreed that education was the way forward.
It was agreed that education would increase
awareness of what exactly egg donation required of the donor. The role of gamete
donation could be explained, as its altruistic nature. The benefits of non-anonymous
donation could be highlighted along with its disadvantages. Also any un-founded
apprehensions towards egg donations could be ruled out. Better educated donors
would make more informed decisions and not have any false beliefs about what
non-anonymous donating could curtail.
The job of education, it was agreed should fall
mostly to the clinics that provide treatment to future donors. In interest of
good practice, each clinic should have a sound policy and practice that is
audited on a regular basis.
This legislation was passed 7 years ago,
therefore did the department of health carry out these suggestions to keep
donor numbers high, or the same as before 2005? It would appear so. According to
statistics from the Human Fertilization Embryology Authority. In 2005 the sperm and egg donation collective
number was 1222, in 2010 it was 1564. There does not appear to be any evident drop
in the number of donations. Actually there seems to be an increase.
Is it time the U.S. took a look at these
figures and implemented similar legislation? Would it improve the ethical problems
associated with “shopping” for egg donors and sperm? Hopefully this study will
at least raise some awareness of ethical issues around egg donation that need
to be addressed in the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment