The egg hunt.
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
|Author:||Macpherson, Cheryl Cox|
|Publication:||Name: The Hastings Center Report Publisher: Hastings Center Audience: Academic; Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Biological sciences; Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2010 Hastings Center ISSN: 0093-0334|
|Issue:||Date: Nov-Dec, 2010 Source Volume: 40 Source Issue: 6|
To the Editor: Conflicts of interest pervade medicine with
sometimes profound repercussions. The unethical recruitment of oocyte
donors, for example, reported by Aaron Levine in "Self-Regulation,
Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors"
(Mar-Apr 2010) threatens medical professionalism, societal trust in
medicine, and possibly the health of young women. Levine shows that in
violation of fertility industry standards, donors with high SAT scores
are often paid more than those with lower scores. Such payments are
deceptive and ethically problematic because neither intelligence nor SAT
score is proven to be genetically transmitted. Moreover, some question
the value of aptitude and intelligence tests because of inherent biases
toward people with particular educational, socioeconomic, and cultural
While intelligence cannot be accurately measured or predicted, genetic prescreening can predict the probability of transmission of certain genetic abnormalities before clinical symptoms or diagnosis occurs. In spite of the potential benefits to recipients and offspring, prescreening has financial and ethical costs. Uncertainties about prescreening include questions about the clinical significance and interpretation of results, whom findings may be shared with, and how this information is communicated. Disclosing these uncertainties to potential oocyte donors would cause some to back out.
Levine shows that a subset of the fertility industry is violating ethical standards for remuneration. This suggests that other violations and deceptions may be occurring within the industry. Potential donors are typically college-age students unlikely to anticipate the distress some of them will feel years later about the child they contributed to but may never know, or the loss they may feel decades later if for some reason they never have a child of their own. Few imagine that they may have or transmit a genetic abnormality, or that such transmission may lead to future inquiries by recipients or offspring about the donor's medical and family history.
Those in the business of promoting or conducting fertility treatments have little motivation to ensure that donors fully understand the physical and emotional stresses of fertility treatment, the absence of data regarding long-term health impacts, or the probability and repercussions of having an undiagnosed genetic abnormality. The financial and other interests of donor agencies and physicians involved render it unlikely that this information is routinely disclosed to and understood by potential donors, or recipients, during the informed consent process.
Cheryl Cox Macpherson
St. George's University
School of Medicine
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|