Posted by Lisa Rosenthal on Fri, May 21, 2010 @ 06:28 AM
I promised that we would continue the conversation about egg donation with some thoughts from experts in the field. When I say experts, I mean people that work with donors in some capacity or another, or who have donated or been donated to. Those with real life experiences, both in the professional and the personal arenas. I am saying this badly, let me try again. This blog, about egg donation, is for "experts" who have had more than theoretical experiences with egg donation.
We are lucky enough to start off with Amy Demma, Esq., who is an attorney based in Massachusetts. Amy is the founder of Prospective Families and is a recognized expert in third party reproduction.
Here is what she has to say about questions that I raised in the blog earlier this week. I have not edited or shortened her comments.
Next week we will hear from Evelina W. Sterling PhD, creator of "Fertility Plan" and a public health professional for over 15 years. We also will hear from Sharon LaMothe, who in addition to founding and owning Infertility Answers and LaMothe Services, was also a gestational carrier of twins, twice.
Each week we will hear from someone who has a passionate interest in egg donation. If you are one of those people, please post here and let me know what you would like to share.
"Thanks, Lisa for creating a forum for discussion on this important issue for all those involved in alternative family building, professionals, patients, past patients, perhaps, even donors certainly can benefit from a summit, of sorts, and perhaps this blog can, hopefully, inspire a virtual summit.
A theme that I see developing in the dialogue around egg donation is a distinction between wanting to keep fees reasonable such that this family building option remains available for all those in need (coupled with the "coercion" argument...if we offer young women excessive compensation, are they more likely to consider and/or participate in egg donation) and making available to recipients a process by which they identify their ideal donor by offering a broad selection of desirable donor candidates. In recent discussions, these two matters were addressed almost as if they are and must be mutually exclusive. I don't agree. I can share that most of the clients I work with, despite that many Massachusetts residents have insurance coverage, simply do not present with budgets allowing for a $25,000.00 donor but may have equally as strong an interest in a donor with impressive academics, e.g.
One of the most compelling reasons for patients to go outside of their clinic's in-house pool for donor selection (if the clinic has such a program) is that agencies, generally, offer more information about each donor candidate. Most clinics offer limited information and, typically, at best, baby photos. Agencies offer 20-30+ pages of donor information and can usually accommodate parents with both child and adult photos and usually as many such photos as the recipient requests. Philosophy aside, the market tells us, by virtue of the number of agencies in operation across the country and the number of agencies each recipient may access in a donor search is that variety and selection amongst donor candidates is in demand.
Recently, those supporting the "free-market" discussion as justification for the higher-comped donors i.e. "the market can and should determine the terms between the parties" defend the option of paying higher comps for more attractive (not only in terms of physicality) donors by reminding us that partners are likely pick each-other (presumably with the intention to procreate) and that recipients of sperm donation have historically selected donors based on height, hair color, eye color, academic status...and all of this is true.
What I struggle with is why truly committing to a donor compensation cap (addressing both the affordability factor as well as the donor coercion concern) necessarily leads to limiting the selection or offering of diverse and impressive donor characteristics. I really do like that the larger institutional programs (at least those in the New York area) set a standard rate of compensation for all donors who cycle through their programs. If agencies (and I know of one NY agency that comps all donors registered with them at 10k) would consider either a set-comp or capping the comp range at an agreed upon industry standard (and for now the best such industry standard is the ASRM cap), we take out of the equation the subjective determination that an Ivy-League donor is "worth more" than a donor matriculating at a school of less prestige. If setting a reasonable ceiling on donor comps results in fewer models or fewer Harvard donors, then were those women who dropped out because of capped comps ever truly appropriate for the process?
I have not heard anyone expressing concern at the $25,000.00 donor suggest that donor identification based on preferred or ideal characteristics be discouraged or be deemed a bad thing. The mental health community reminds us that donor selection according to preferred or desired attributes is both valid and acceptable.
So, for this post, I am hoping not to muddy the waters with further discussion about donor selection based on how blonde or blue-eyed or tall or academically accomplished a donor may be. Frankly, in my experience, blonde-enough, tall-enough and or accomplished enough is a very subjective matter, any way.
I do, however, feel very strongly that by marketing to recipients that she/he/they should do business with an agency because that agency offers "Hot and Smart" donors does imply, I am sorry to say, that prettier donors or smarter donors are better donors, i.e. more likely to make a baby. This, I feel, is tremendously unfair to both the consumer as well as to every donor of average physicality and/or average academic credentials but with reliable fertility.
Can we envision self-regulating practices around donor recruitment (this year we saw several proposed state bills mandating that donor advertisements not highlight compensation but clearly define risks related to egg donation), donor compensation, donor tracking (how certain can we be, currently, that donors are maxing-out at 6 cycles?) and still offer to prospective parents a donor search experience that offers to them pools of donors who represent each and every recipient's ideal?
This is what I would like to talk about, how about you?"
Thanks Amy for continuing the conversation.
We would love to hear what you have to say.