Health fears over calls to end ban on egg and sperm donor payments

Published on Monday 27 July 2009 22:03

LIFTING the ban on payments for egg and sperm donors could encourage people to take part without considering the risks, experts warned yesterday.

The head of the government's fertility watchdog, Professor Lisa Jardine, said that the ban on selling sperm and eggs for fertility treatment needed to be reconsidered because of a shortage of donors.

But campaigners warned allowing payments could make people see donation as a way of solving their money problems without considering the risks involved in the procedure.

Currently only expenses, such as travel, are paid, plus a maximum of 250 to compensate for loss of earnings.

Prof Jardine, chairwoman of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA), said allowing payments to donors could cut the number of childless couples having to travel abroad for treatment.

She said: "I'm not saying the decision arrived at before I became chair wasn't the right one at the time. But given the evidence that egg shortage is driving women overseas, I feel a responsibility to look at it again."

Between 2004 and 2006, the number of women using donated sperm fell by 30 per cent. In April 2005, anonymity for sperm and egg donors was removed, though it is unclear whether this has contributed to the donor shortages.

Prof Jardine said the law already treated eggs, sperm and embryos differently from other human tissue, so there was no risk of setting a precedent which could lead to the sale of other organs such as kidneys.

Payment would also enable more women to be treated for infertility in the UK, rather than going to countries which have less stringent regulations.

In countries that allow payment – including the United States, Spain and Russia – women often donate to clear debts or to fund higher education.

Prof Jardine said she knew of students in the UK who had travelled to the US to donate eggs.

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said European directives prevented financial incentives for trade in tissue.

She added: "This (egg donation] is an invasive procedure with risks attached to it … You shouldn't be waving money in front of women so that they may ignore the risks."

Dr Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said the current expenses arrangements for donors were better than in the past.

"But I think most people would realise that given what egg donors go through 250 is not really in the right ball park.

"To have a debate about this is right and proper," he said.

Dr Pacey said society should be involved in the debate about what was the right level of expenses for donors.

He admitted there was a danger that people desperate for money would turn to donation as a way of tackling their financial problems.

"It has got to be done in a way that respects the fact that it is after all a donation," he said. "It has to be compensation for time off and discomfort, but it can't be seen as overt payment."

Over the next few months the HFEA will be evaluating its donation policies, with the possibility of more formal consultation on policies next year.

AN INVASIVE PROCEDURE

THE decision to cap expenses for egg and sperm donors came in a 2006 report by the fertility watchdog.

This meant that donors can only be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses, such as travel, and loss of earnings up to a maximum of 250.

But for egg donors in particular, the donation procedure is invasive, requiring the woman to have hormone treatment as well as the actual egg extraction.

This has led to calls for reimbursement to reflect the physical discomfort and time involved in the egg donation procedure.

Women having IVF are allowed to receive cheaper fertility treatment in return for donating spare eggs under egg-sharing arrangements.

There are concerns that a lack of eggs and sperm for fertility treatment in the UK has forced people to go overseas for IVF.