Does removal of the anonymity of egg donors decrease egg donations?

Guest post by Lucy Cripes

A U.K. study, 2007 has researched and reported on how to keep the number of egg donors constant after a change in U.K. legislation in 2005, which withdrew egg donor’s anonymity.

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.

Texas Woman Duped Into Surrogacy

This month, Texas courts reached a decision in an unusual custody battle between a gay man and a surrogate woman who claimed she was never a surrogate to begin with. The judge ruled that the woman who gave birth was in fact the legal mother. The case has drawn national attention because the basic argument rests on what the definition of a "mother" is.

Only July 27, 2012, Cindy Close, 48, gave birth for her first time to twins at the Texas Children’s Hospital. Shortly after successfully delivering the children, she was visited by a social worker regarding the “surrogacy situation”. Close was taken aback, as this was the first time she had heard that she was a surrogate. 

No, this is not a case of mild amnesia or a cruel prank. Rather, Close had been duped by her “friend”, Marvin McMurrey.

McMurrey had covered the costs of infertile Close’s in vitro fertilization (IVF) and used his own sperm in addition to the anonymous donor egg. He promised that they would raise the children together as partners. Although Close and McMurray were not in love, or even in a romantic relationship together, her understanding was that they would parent the children together. She was under this assumption up until the day she delivered.

However, McMurrey's promise was just in words, and there was never a written contract. When the children were born, McMurrey quikcly claimed custody of the twins with his male partner. That’s right, he’s gay - another fact he kept secret from Close.

Since Close was not linked to the children genetically, as the twins were a product of female egg donation and his sperm, McMurrey alleged they were not legally hers. He rapidly filed a suit for adjudicate parentage outside of the Texas family code in addition to a temporary restraining order that was used to deny Close maternal rights. 

The twins were sent home with McMurrey, and up until the court case, Close has been granted visitation rights for only two hours a day, six days a week.

Close made a statement that the ruling in her case could have implications for other women who use donor eggs in IVF treatment. If McMurrey had won the case, then the situation could have made it so that any woman who uses donor eggs to have children would have to have her maternity proven by law.

Lucky for Close, the judge ruled that she - along with McMurrey - was the legal parent of the twins and the two will share custody. The conditions of the joint custody are yet to be determined, but one thing is for sure, it will be awkward.