Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Advanced Search

Search for

Print Page Follow BioNews on Twitter BioNews RSS feed

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook

King's College London - Health: More than a medical matter

Reflections on gamete donation

24 October 2011

By Professor Dame Marilyn Strathern

Appeared in BioNews 630
'How far should society go in encouraging people to donate their bodily material?' is the question at the heart of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics' report on the ethics of donation for medicine and research, which was published earlier this month (1).

The working party, which I chaired, was tasked with an extremely broad remit, taking in the complex issues of organ donation, gamete donation and 'first-in-human' clinical trials among others. Yet it was the very breadth of this enquiry that allowed us to compare how particular ethical ideas and concepts are used in different circumstances, and that helped us understand the importance of the context in which decisions and actions regarding the various encouragements and incentives in question could, and should, take place.

This comparative approach was particularly pertinent to our thinking about the ethical acceptability of encouraging women to donate eggs for others' treatment, or for scientific research purposes. Until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) decision last week to allow compensation at a flat rate of up to £750 per treatment cycle for expenses and lost earnings of egg donors (for others' treatment) (2) the amount women could claim for lost earnings was capped at £250, which left some donors out of pocket. We recommended that this cap should be removed and that lost earnings should be reimbursed in full, so we broadly welcome the HFEA's decision, although we remain firmly of the view that altruism should be the primary motivation for egg and sperm donation.

We note however that there is an important distinction to make between this type of donation and donating for research. Although the clinical process is the same, we felt that the motivations behind the act can be quite different. When donating for research, you are not trying to help a particular individual - you are more a participant in a research exercise, and the exact benefit that may emerge as a result is much less tangible than, for example, the possibility of being able to directly help another woman conceive a child.

A good comparison is that healthy volunteers in clinical trials are routinely paid for their time or inconvenience. Women who donate eggs for research go through considerable discomfort and inconvenience in order to benefit scientific progress and wider society, and we think it is only fair that their contribution is properly recognised. One of the key recommendations made in this report, therefore, is the suggestion of a pilot scheme to offer payment above and beyond expenses, to reward those willing to donate eggs for research purposes. Such a pilot should be accompanied with stronger welfare protection for donors. A national register of gamete donors would enable repeat donations to be limited, and for research to take place on the long-term health effects of repeat donation. The scheme should also guard against inappropriate targeting of potential donors in other countries.

That this recommendation falls at the top end of the Council's 'Intervention Ladder' – put forward as a tool for considering the ethical acceptability of various ways of encouraging people to donate – is rather an exception. A key conclusion of the report is that altruism should continue to be at the core of the donation process as far as possible, but that, in some circumstances, some form of reward may be ethically appropriate. The two need not be incompatible.

The six rungs of the 'Intervention Ladder' are as follows. Numbers one to four are all 'altruist-focused interventions', intended to stimulate people's altruistic motivation, whilst numbers five and six are non-altruist-focused interventions.

  1. Information about the need for the donation of bodily material for others' treatment or for medical research
  2. Recognition of, and gratitude for, altruistic donation, through whatever methods are appropriate both to the form of donation and the donor concerned
  3. Interventions to remove barriers and disincentives to donation experienced by those disposed to donate
  4. Interventions as an extra prompt or encouragement for those already disposed to donate for altruistic reasons
  5. Interventions offering associated benefits in kind to encourage those who would not otherwise have contemplated donating to consider doing so
  6. Financial incentives that leave the donor in a better financial position as a result of donating

In thinking about how more people could be encouraged to donate eggs and sperm, we also found that there were options geared towards facilitating altruistic donation that hadn't yet been tried.

For example, we recommended that a national or regional egg and sperm donor service should be established to co-ordinate recruitment of egg and sperm donors for fertility treatment, along the lines of the current system for organ and blood donation. The HFEA's proposal to set up a national strategy group to 'raise awareness, improve the care of donors and ensure that donation continues to take place within a safe and ethical environment' through working with the IVF sector seems to be a good starting point.

When it comes to 'egg-sharing', it seems likely that many women agree to do this to get treatment they would not otherwise be able to afford and cannot access through the NHS. However, there is some evidence that, once a woman has taken the decision to share eggs, she feels a sense of solidarity with the recipient she is helping. This fits into an altruistic model of donation, and given the likelihood that some women will continue to experience difficulties in accessing NHS IVF treatment, we did not see any reason to recommend a change to the current policy of permitting egg-sharing at this time.

Finally, the report endorses the importance of the donor's well being as the primary factor to consider in this area, for it is one where private concerns can also be a matter of public interest.


1) Human bodies: donation for medicine and research
Nuffield Council on Bioethics | 11 October 2011
HFEA website | 19 October 2011


- by Professor Stephen Wilkinson 
At a public meeting on 19 October, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) decided to move to a 'flat rate' system of monetary compensation for egg donors. The HFEA also decided to leave the regulations governing egg sharing substantially unchanged. Critics have already raised concerns about the quality of the discussion at the meeting, I want to look at a quite different issue: the use made by the HFEA of the idea of 'ethical principles'... [Read More]
09 July 2013 - by Siobhan Chan 
The majority of egg donors donate for altruistic reasons, although personal benefits such as financial compensation are also a factor, according to a large European study... [Read More]
23 July 2012 - by Dr Marilyn Crawshaw and Jennie Hunt 
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) recently announced membership of its newly formed National Donation Strategy Group, set up in response to the findings of its earlier Donation Review, which, it says, uncovered numerous barriers to gamete donation.... [Read More]
21 May 2012 - by Alison Bagshawe 
A recent article in the Daily Mail about Altrui's information campaign towards students at Cambridge University typifies popular press reporting at its worst and exemplifies some recurring myths about egg donation... [Read More]
02 April 2012 - by Rachel Lyons 
As I sit at my computer on this glorious Sunday morning to write this review, I suddenly realise the coincidence of the day: it is Mother's Day. Today of all days it seems very apt to be writing a review of Sarah Rayner's novel about two women and their quest to become mothers.... [Read More]

24 October 2011 - by Sandy Starr 
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has decided that donors should be paid fixed sums, and that these sums should be £35 per clinic visit for sperm donors and £750 per cycle of donation for egg donors... [Read More]
17 October 2011 - by Antony Blackburn-Starza 
A report on the donation of human bodily material for medicine and research has made several recommendations including removing the current cap on egg and sperm donor expenses in the UK... [Read More]
30 September 2011 - by Dr Kamal Ahuja 
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has already made two decisions following its public consultation and review of gamete donation policies in the UK: first, intra-familial gamete donation can continue as before (subject to certain provisions); and second, the number of families which a single donor might help create remains limited to ten. The bigger question on compensation and benefit in kind to donors will not be answered until later this year... [Read More]
26 September 2011 - by Jessica Ware 
The Human Fertility and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK's fertility regulator, has admitted breaches of the sperm donation limit have occurred, following news that one donor has fathered 17 families... [Read More]

Be the first to have your say.

You need to Login or Register to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions



- click here to enquire about using this story.

Printer Friendly Page

Published by the Progress Educational Trust
FREE public event in central London, 6.30pm on Thursday 8 May 2014 - find out more HERE

Please donate HERE, so that the Progress Educational Trust can continue throughout 2014 (and beyond) while keeping BioNews FREE for you to read

The Progress Educational Trust was shortlisted for the Charity Times Awards 2011

Advertise your products and services HERE - click for further details

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE, and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation