Egg Sharing

[Meralia]

Hi everyone,

It’s my first time posting on this board. I’ve seen a few threads relating to surrogacy and all the surrounding issues with regards to the exploitation of women, but something I’ve been thinking about recently is egg sharing for IVF. I had IVF with my last child (didn’t egg share though as I had the funds and am on the end of the upper age range for acceptance).

I’m sure most people know how egg share works but just in case, if you offer to give half of your eggs to a recipient at the clinic you get your ivf cycle for free (or heavily subsidised). I was just wondering what others thought about this? I understand that there are women that are very happy to do this to give other women the opportunity of becoming a mother, but a bit of me also feels that some women who don’t have the funds (and don’t qualify for nhs funding) may feel this is their only way to have a baby, by giving some of their eggs away when in other circumstances it wouldn’t be something they would consider.

Hmmm, I really had to think about this. My initial reaction was that I wasn’t comfortable with it, as I wholeheartedly disagree that there should be any situation where women are compensated financially or paid for any part of their body. That applies to commercial surrogacy, prostitution - any situation where women’s bodies or any part of those bodies is for sale. There’s a big but coming though. I’ve thankfully never been in a situation where my only option to have a baby is via IVF. If I was in that heartbreaking situation, probably at the end of years of trying and all the heartache that involves, would I want the option to reduce the cost? Absolutely. So although I feel instinctively that I don’t agree, I couldn’t say that I wouldn’t consider it, and so why should I have any right to deny it to other women who are in that situation. It’s hugely complicated and emotional isn’t it?

I hadn't heard of this, and it sounds like a way to get around the ban on selling eggs. It doesn't seem ethical.

Personally I think its awful. I understand that some women might indeed be "happy to" - but I would put that in context of women in vulnerable and complicated emotional positions.

I have done egg freezing so have gone through at least part of the process. I was horrified to read about it.

And it certainly doesn't seem to have a rigorous counselling or oversight process with it.

So - it may indeed be understandable that someone does it because it is the only way they can do IVF. But I think that means it is the wrong answer to the question of how to make IVF more affordable and accessible.

I imagine it would be devastating if you didn't succeed in a cycle but donated eggs and would always wonder if those eggs had been successful.

So my view is it shouldnt be allowed and egg donation should be separated entirely from the process of someone going through their own cycle. And should only be for altruistic purposes.

I can't believe its allowed frankly.

I would need to know how the process works.

What I read is that you have to take hormones (which is likely damaging to your health) to get the eggs to "ripen" so the can be harvested. (in what I assume is a surgery with the usual health risks attached)

Does a woman who uses this "egg-sharing" option have to go through the treatment again, or does the treatment typically produce an excess of eggs?

If you typically have more eggs then you need, then I would perhaps consider it tolerable if the clinic didn't make a profit off it. Though it is still problematic, as some may not want their genetic material to float around uncontrolled, no way to ensure the wellbeing of children who are biologically theirs, etc.

If, however, women who can't afford to pay the full price have to endanger their health in order to get the treatment, then that's definitely not okay.

SIL has been pursuing this route as a donor egg recipient.

My concern with it is, she had a round using 'fresh' (as opposed to frozen) donor eggs. So, my understanding is there is approximately a 1 in 3 chance of success with each IVF attempt, therefore it is not unlikely that the recipient could be successful and the donor unsuccessful on that round. If the donor is then unsuccessful in future attempts, their biological offspring will be out their somewhere whilst they remain childless... What a head fuck! This I imagine could be extremely psychologically damaging.

Its very possible that the donor is not successful and the person they donated to is.

The donor is definitely reducing their own chances without a doubt.

I think its an awful exploitation.

It doesn't increase the donor's risks though - they go through exactly the same process they would anyway - just that they don't get all the eggs that get taken out.

(you do take hormones which there may possibly be some risks but very small. The "surgery" is also extremely low risk - some women stay awake for it. They just pop a suction thing up your bits and suck the eggs out (it really is AMAZING technology). Then the eggs get mixed with the sperm in the lab. The eggs are graded and then incubated for I think about 5 days. Lots of eggs don't make it (sometimes none). Then they choose the best eggs to implant.)

Typically the follicles are triggered to produce extra eggs by using a drug such as clomid. Then eggs are harvested, and while it is not a surgery it is far from pleasant......they open your vagina with a device similar to a speculum and they use a wide bore needle, go through the vaginal wall into your ovaries and harvest each egg on the ultrasound. It is very very painful.

How is this different from egg selling?
Its an exchange of eggs for money . must be some legal wording where the discount does in t have a cash equivalent.

RudolphsJinglingBalls - I had a sedative for mine which was delightful! Was out like a light and then quick recovery after - no pain. (Although the constipation - oh good lord - that was practically like giving birth when that, ahem, resolved)

For sure - it wasn't the most fun I've ever had. But I actually didn't find it that bad.

I find it ethically questionable for several reasons.

As noted above, there’s a chance the donor may have biological children but not parent them.
There’s a financial incentive, so women’s choice is not entirely free or altruistic
There a possibility that overstimulation or methods to overproduce eggs could happen and that IS a risk to the donor. Obviously there are rules in place to deter that but it would be easily broken.

It doesn't increase the donor's risks though - they go through exactly the same process they would anyway - just that they don't get all the eggs that get taken out.

But assuming a woman doesn't get pregnant in the attempts with "her half" of the eggs, then she'd have to undergo treatment again if she wanted another chance, while a woman with more money could just try again, right?

I guess I'd be okay with it being like organ donation - like, you do the treatment, if any eggs are left over (or do they implant them all at the same time?), then the clinic can ask you if they're allowed to keep them, but no monetary advantage ...

Of course, the fact that this costs money is somewhat fucked up all on its own, because if you ban the egg-sharing option, then poor women just can't afford the treatment, no babies for them, one more inequality.

HestiaParthenos - I just meant that it doesn't mean a different process.

re Bowl's point I suppose there is a risk of overstimming to get more eggs - but I think that would be very unlikely (and often more eggs can mean lower quality eggs in any case). but its not impossible of course.

If you are lucky enough to have an excess of eggs you can either freeze them in case you might want to use them again for a sibling or there is an option to donate them to be used for science. Not sure if they give the option for donation at that stage tbh.

I think it's awful. But as you say for some women it might be their only option. I just think its the wrong answer to the question then!

As noted above, there’s a chance the donor may have biological children but not parent them.

How is this different from sperm donors? (Or indeed many non donor dads - but that's a different question!)

ILuvBirdsEye - well normally the main difference with egg donation is that it is much more complicated for a woman to donate eggs than a man.

But you are right that its no different re different parents. And I'm sure that there are women who wouldnt mind that. But I think that the complication in this situation is that it was because they went through a difficult process to try and get a child and didn't get one (well - they did - but with a different parent and its not their child legally).

I was so so surprised that it was so common when I went through the process. It seems to have slipped through on a technicality somehow...

The thing is that it's a postcode lottery for IVF anyway, some areas offer only 1 round whilst some offer up to 3, some areas are clamping down on the restrictions around it too. When you consider 1 round of IVF can cost 5k vs 1 round with egg sharing costing £7-800 it becomes a very attractive offer. Plus there's counselling surrounding it that you have to opt in to. I looked into altruistic egg donation several years ago but was sadly vetoed. It's still a very time consuming process though and not something I was considering lightly. From what I've read a percentage of women take up donation after IVF regardless for no financial benefits as they've experienced it all obviously first hand. For those with unviable eggs, sharing them must be a godsend. I don't think it's anything anyone goes into with their eyes closed tbh.

Its just such a difficult position to be put in. Usually as well if you don’t produce enough eggs for both of you (think most clinics like a minimum of 8 mature eggs, 4 for the egg sharer and 4 for the recipient) then the woman who is egg sharing has the choice of keeping all the eggs for herself and paying the full cost of the IVF treatment or donating all of them to the recipient and getting a free round next time where she would keep all the eggs on that cycle.

It just seems like a crap situation to go through all that stress and intervention and then have to give all the eggs away anyway.

How is this different from sperm donors? (Or indeed many non donor dads - but that's a different question!)

I mean the donor’s IVF might not succeed but the recipients might - so the donor would have gone through all that, and have biological children but they aren’t living with her. I dont think that’s right for the children themselves (and it’s cruel forbthe donor too.) the people who benefit are the recipients, not the mum or the children

It's not so much that they take half the eggs available. If there are only two eggs the woman would get both. There is a limit on the number they would put in anyway. They will put that many eggs into the donor. But if there are any more and the donor can't or won't pay the freezing fee those eggs will be destroyed. Donating excess eggs that the donor can't use or freeze is just another option to destroying them. You can also do it with embroys if more become than you want implanted and don't want to freeze any more. Embryo adoption is a thing.

blow

How is that not right for the children? The children are living with their birth mother and presumably biological father. How is it, as far as the child is concerned, any different than sperm donation? In both cases a biological parent is involved. We get the same amount of chromosomes from each.

Its not right because the mother has had financial pressure applied, undergone a procedure that’s risky for her.

It’s not analogous to sperm donation. Men aren’t giving sperm in order to get reduced price fertility treatments. There’s no risk to them and no financial pressure applied

But it's not really because if there is no extra eggs you still have to pay the full price so you need to be in a position to pay any way in order to benefit from the scheme because more than likely there won't be an excess of eggs. It's just an incentive to women who do have excess eggs left over from their own IVF cycle that they don't plan on using because otherwise the eggs will just be destroyed. It's not a selling point for IVF aimed at the poor.

An incentive IS a financial pressure.
A woman could do this under that financial pressure, with all the risks it entails, and still not have a biological child while someone else DOES have her biological child. It doesn’t sit right with me personally. I accept others may have different views on it, that’s just how I feel.

The woman would be having the procedure anyway. It’s not forced donation. I do think you have to credit people with some agency as well. You could argue that charging huge sums of money for IVF, meaning that people have to go into debt to pay for it, is morally wrong too.

The risk of it being unsuccessful but successful with the recipient is a risk that the donor will have to take. It’s not like they would ever find out that information anyway. If you start saying that kids have a right to be brought up by the person they share genetic material with, how does that square with your views on surrogacy where usually the surrogate does not have a genetic link?

Many of these eggs would be destroyed otherwise- chucked in the bin. Is it not a good thing that, rather than IVF being the preserve of the rich, lower income women now have a chance? And yes, the treatment is not great but compared to many other medical procedures, it’s not that bad and as said, the woman in question would be doing it anyway.

If they would be doing it anyway then there’s no need for a financial incentive.

It’s buying eggs. I don’t think that’s ok. We don’t allow paid surrogacy (or blood, blood product or organ donation) because it’s recognised that when money is involved, choice is not free.
If a woman wants to donate eggs that’s her choice. Using a reduced price cycle as leverage isn’t