Literature DB >> 31734858

Payment to gamete donors: equality, gender equity, or solidarity?

C Samorinha1, C De Freitas1,2,3, I Baía1,2, H Machado4, E Vale-Fernandes5, S Silva6,7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Regulation of payment to gamete donors varies substantially across countries. The development of an ethically sustainable governance system of payments in gamete donation demands that the preferences of different stakeholders be heard. This study intends to contribute to improving the understanding of payment to gamete donors by analysing the views of donors and recipients about the preferred form of payment and its associations with their sociodemographic characteristics.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 70 donors and 172 recipients recruited at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes (July 2017-June 2018). Participants completed a self-reported questionnaire. Views about the preferred form of payment were collected through a multiple-choice question and an open-ended item. Associations were quantified through χ2 tests; content analysis was conducted with the open-ended answers.
RESULTS: Both donors (48.6%) and recipients (40.7%) considered that reimbursement is the preferred form of payment to ensure solidarity-based motivations to donate. This option was followed by compensation for non-financial losses (41.4% of donors; 33.7% of recipients) based on gender equity. Preference for a fixed reward (22.7% of recipients; 8.6% of donors) was less frequent among younger donors and married/living with a partner or employed recipients, being based on the promotion of equality.
CONCLUSION: In the context of the search for cross-border reproductive care and gamete circulation across countries, the findings from this study claim for the need to create solutions for payment to gamete donors that take into account gender equity and are simultaneously sensitive to donor's actual expenses and further health complications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Compensation; Donor conception; Infertility; Reproductive techniques, assisted

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31734858      PMCID: PMC7000579          DOI: 10.1007/s10815-019-01625-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  23 in total

1.  III. Gamete and embryo donation.

Authors: 
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Giving or giving back: new psychosocial insights from sperm donors in France.

Authors:  Nikos Kalampalikis; Valérie Haas; Nicolas Fieulaine; Marjolaine Doumergue; Gaëlle Deschamps
Journal:  Psychol Health Med       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 2.423

3.  Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Should sperm donors be paid? A survey of the attitudes of the general public.

Authors:  H Lyall; G W Gould; I T Cameron
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 5.  Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review.

Authors:  Timothy Bracewell-Milnes; Srdjan Saso; Shabana Bora; Alaa M Ismail; Maya Al-Memar; Ali Hasan Hamed; Hossam Abdalla; Meen-Yau Thum
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 15.610

6.  Recipients' views on payment of sperm donors.

Authors:  An Ravelingien; Veerle Provoost; Elia Wyverkens; Ann Buysse; Petra De Sutter; Guido Pennings
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 3.828

Review 7.  Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences.

Authors:  S Purewal; O B A van den Akker
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 15.610

8.  Ethics of oocyte banking for third-party assisted reproduction: a systematic review.

Authors:  E M Kool; A M E Bos; R van der Graaf; B C J M Fauser; A L Bredenoord
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2018-09-01       Impact factor: 15.610

9.  Complications related to ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in 4052 oocyte donor cycles.

Authors:  Daniel Bodri; Juan José Guillén; Ana Polo; Marta Trullenque; Carolina Esteve; Oriol Coll
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.828

10.  Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus.

Authors:  Jonathan Ives; Michael Dunn; Bert Molewijk; Jan Schildmann; Kristine Bærøe; Lucy Frith; Richard Huxtable; Elleke Landeweer; Marcel Mertz; Veerle Provoost; Annette Rid; Sabine Salloch; Mark Sheehan; Daniel Strech; Martine de Vries; Guy Widdershoven
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  1 in total

1.  Male Reproductive Health - study of a sperm donor population.

Authors:  Ana Catarina Silva Fonseca; Márcia Barreiro; António Tomé; Emídio Vale-Fernandes
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2022-04-17
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.