A Patient’s Right

Name:

Course:

Institution:

Instructor:

Date:

A Patient’s Right

Levine, D.A. (2010). Self-regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte

Donors. Hasting Center Report, 40 (2): 25-36.

Summary

Levine (2010) starts his article with a history of oocyte donations that he traces its first success to Australia. Initially, people requested relatives and friends for oocyte in circumstances where the prospective mothers failed to produce viable ovum. A new twist in the practice evolved in United States with the spread of anonymous donations of oocyte. Practice of anonymous egg donation caused an increase in this kind of reproduction, which has continued increasing even today. Women who agreed to donate their ovum receive compensation that is apparently meant for offsetting their donation expenses and do not buy oocytes themselves. According to Levine (2010), an appropriate solution to this situation would be establishing an ethical guideline specifying two principles. The first is that compensation may not exceed a certain threshold, for instance, $5,000. Secondly, compensation may not be determined based on personal characteristics of the donor.

The author’s stance is supported by the principle of non-maleficience, and the principle of the beneficence. On the principle of non-maleficience, the author argues that the practice of oocyte donation is morally questionable and problematic because it could cause psychological and genetic effects. There are religious concerns on the issue of non-coital conceptions such as the psychological and genetic effects of separating maternal and gestational aspects of motherhood (Krawiec, 2009). On the beneficence principle, author argues that the process of egg donation is even more unethical since it seeks to gain more benefits through compensation. The process of paying donors makes the reproduction through this method seem like a profitable business and allows parents to select good donors based on their personal characteristics. Thus, the ethical issue on this matter revolves around the harm caused by this kind of reproduction and the benefits sought by donors for donating their sperm.

Ethical stance: compensation of oocyte donors is unethical

This paper represents an ethical response on the reports of donor organizations and the couples that are seeking oocyte donors by offering them big compensation for their donations. This practice is itself morally questionable and faced with many problems. I do agree with the authors ethical stance stating that compensation of donors is unethical, making the whole process look like a business of making babies where donor are compensated depending on their characteristics. The main ethical issue is the misuse of this technological reproduction where no ethical standards are put in place for regulating compensation to prevent it from becoming a business. If compensation were not based on characteristics, donors would not make it a business where they know they can earn more. More so, the idea of recruiting people to become donors is quite unethical and distasteful as well as objectionable, since it makes it a business instead of a remedy to a problem.

The problem with the new assisted reproductive technologies is that the traditional ethical frameworks lack a moral and practical consideration of the new technology. However, the new technology creates a chance for reach people and infertile to exploit the egg donors. With the likely consequences of genetic and psychological effects, this reproductive method should be regulated and only done to allow socially adequate and capable heterosexual couples in a stable relationship to have a baby. Unfertile couples can receive other forms of remedy o their problems a part from anonymous paid oocytes that pose many moral questions. Thus, the ART should respect life as well and stop the reproduction of babies with certain desired characteristics.

Quote 1

“Compensation of oocyte donors raises questions about the commodification of human gametes….such commodification contributes to a diminished sense of human personhood and ought to be subject to government regulation” ( Levine, 2010, pg 27).

Quote 2

“To avoid putting a price on human gametes or selectively valuing particular human traits, compensation should not vary according to the planned use of oocytes (for example, research or clinical care), the number of quality of oocytes retrieved, the outcome of prior donation cycles or the donors ethnic or other personal characteristics” (Levine, 2010, pg 28)

Question 1

How can maximum level of compensation for oocyte donors be maintained without promoting commodification in the oocyte donation sector?

Question 2

Is it practical and ethical to institute guidelines stating that the level of compensation for oocyte donation cannot be changes based upon the personal characteristics of the donor?

References

Krawiec, K., D. (2009). Sunny Summaritans and Egomaniacs: Price-Fixing in the Gamete Market. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72: 59-90.

Levine, D.A. (2010). Self-regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte

Donors. Hasting Center Report, 40 (2): 25-36.