To give or sell human gametes - The interplay between pragmatics, policy and ethics

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 206-211

  Daniels, K R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Ethics; Gametes; Gifting; Policy; Selling

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EMBRYO; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GAMETE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; REVIEW; SPERM DONOR;

ADULT CHILDREN; CANADA; COMMODIFICATION; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GIFTS; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY; INCENTIVES; INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS; MALES; OVUM DONORS; PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; REMUNERATION; SCARCITY; SEMEN DONORS;

ADULT CHILDREN; COMMODIFICATION; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FAMILY; GERM CELLS; GIFT GIVING; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; OOCYTE DONATION; PERSONHOOD; PHILOSOPHY, MEDICAL; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES; SPERMATOZOA; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; TISSUE DONORS;

EID: 0034043796     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.26.3.206     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Second annual report. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 1993.
2. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Seventh annual report. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 1998.
3. Deech R. Payments to gamete and embryo donors [letter]. Journal of Fertility Counselling 1999;6,1:6-7.
4. Gregoire AT, Mayer RC. The impregnators. Fertility and Sterility 1965;16,1:130-4.
5. Daniels KR, Lewis G. Donor insemination: the gifting and selling of semen. Social Science and Medicine 1996; 42,11:1521-36.
6. Cooper SL, Glazer ES. Choosing assisted reproduction. Indianapolis, USA: Perspective Press, 1998: 4.
7. Daniels KR. Information sharing in DI - a conflict of needs and rights. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1995;4:217-24.
8. Daniels KR, Taylor K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics & the Life Sciences 1993;12,2:155-70.
9. Daniels KR, Lewis GM, Ruth C. Information sharing in semen donation: the views of donors. Social Science & Medicine 1997; 44,5:673-80.
10. Daniels KR, Haimes E, eds. Donor insemination: international social science perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
11. McWhinnie AM. Families following assisted conception. What do we tell our child? Dundee: Inglis Allen (Kirkcaldy) Ltd, 1996.
12. Spiers J. Children's rights to know their identity: social work perspective. In: Bruce N, Mitchell A, Priestley K, eds. Truth and the child: a contribution to the debate on the Warnock report. Edinburgh: Family Care, 1988.
13. Knoppers B, Sloss E. Recent developments: legislative reforms in reproductive technology. Ottawa Law Review 1986;18:663-719.
14. Walters L. Ethics and new reproductive technologies: an international review of committee statements. Hastings Center Report 1987;Jun:3-9.
15. Lui SC, Weaver SM, Robinson H, Debono M, Neiland M, Kilick SR, et al. Attitudes and motives of semen donors and non-donors. Human Reproduction 1996;11:2061-6.
16. Craft I. Should egg donors be paid? British Medical Journal 1997; 314:1400-1.
17. Hunt J. HFEA conference on payment for donors - 1 June 1995. Journal of Fertility Counselling 1995;2,2:19-20.
18. Lockwood G. Donating life: practical and ethical issues in gamete donation. In: Shenfield F, Sureau C, eds. Ethical dilemmas in assisted reproduction. New York: Parthenon Publishing Group Inc, 1997.
19. See reference 18: 29.
20. See reference 18: 30.
21. Gazvani MR, Wood SJ, Thomson AJM, Kingsland CR, Iwan LJ. Payment or altruism? The motivation behind gamete donation. Human Reproduction 1997;12,9: 1845-6.
22. See reference 21: 1845.
23. See reference 21: 1846.
24. Lyall H, Gould GW, Cameron IT. Should sperm donors be paid? A survey of the attitudes of the general public. Human Reproduction 1998;13,3:771-5.
25. See reference 24: 772.
26. See reference 24: 771.
27. Health Canada. New reproductive and genetic technologies. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1996.
28. See reference 27: 40.
29. Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. Response to Bill C-47. Prepared for the parliamentary standing committee on health. 1997 Jan 24.
30. See reference 29: 1.
31. See reference 29: 4.
32. Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. Information sheet. 1996 Jun 14.
33. Cheney P. Human egg trade lures elite students. The Globe 1998 July 9: A1 and A12.
34. See reference 33: A1.
35. New Zealand Government. Assisted Human Reproduction Bill, 1998. Wellington: New Zealand government, 1998.
36. Glover J. Fertility and the family. The Glover report on reproductive technologies to the European Commission. The European Commission, 1989.
37. Walters L. Current and future issues in assisted reproduction. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1996;6,4:383-7.
38. See reference 37: 384.
39. Baird PA. Ethical issues of fertility and reproduction. Annual Review of Medicine 1996;47:107-16.
40. See reference 39: 107.
41. See reference 39: 108.
42. See reference 39: 109.
43. See reference 28: 5.
44. Daniels KR. Gamete donation and its impact on relationships. Reproductive Technology Council annual report 1996 (West Australia). Perth: 1996: appendix 4, ii - xi.
45. Freeman M. The new birth right? Identity and the child of the reproduction revolution. The International Journal of Children's Rights 1996;4:273-97.
46. Johnson M. Payment to gamete donors: position of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Human Reproduction 1997;12,9:1839-46.
47. See reference 46: 1840.
48. Daniels KR, Hall DJ. Semen donor recruitment strategies - a non-payment based approach. Human Reproduction 1997; 12,10: 2330-35.
49. See reference 48: 2330.
50. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Consultation on the implementation of withdrawal of payments to donors. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 1998.
51. See reference 50: 2.
52. See reference 50: 1.
53. See reference 3: 6.
54. Radin MJ. Market-inalienability. Harvard Law Review 1987; 100:1849-937.
55. Robertson JA. Ethical and legal issues in human egg donation. Fertility and Sterility 1989;52,3: 353-63.
56. See reference 55: 360.
57. Macklin R. What is wrong with commodification. In: Cohen C, ed. New ways of making babies. A case of egg donation. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996: 106-21.
58. See reference 57: 106.
59. Shenfield F, Steele SJ. A gift is a gift is a gift, or why gamete donors should not be paid. Human Reproduction 1995;10:253-5.
60. Murray TH. New reproductive technologies and the family. In: Cohen CB, ed. New ways of making babies: the case of egg donation. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996:51-69.
61. See reference 60: 52.
62. See reference 60: 68.
63. See reference 5: 1527.
64. Daniels KR. Gamete donation and its impact on relationships. In: Reproductive Technology Council annual report 1996 (West Australia). Perth: The Reproductive Technology Council (West Australia), 1996: appendix 4, ppii-xi.
65. Daniels KR, Gunby J, Legge M, Williams TH, Wynn-Williams DR. Issues and problems for the infertile couple. New Zealand Medical Journal 1984;97:185-7.
66. Purdie A, Peek JC, Adair V, Graham F, Fisher R. Attitudes of parents of young children to sperm donation - implications for donor recruitment. Human Reproduction 1994:9,7:1355-8.
67. See reference 66: 1358.
68. Novaes S. Giving, receiving, repaying: gamete donors and donor policies in reproductive medicine. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 1989;5:639-57.
69. Rubin S. A sperm donor baby grows up. In: Zimmerman A, ed. The technological woman: interfacing with tomorrow. New York: Praeger, 1983:211-15.