I am not a proponent of egg freezing for many reasons but setting that aside for a moment, I do think if woman goes through all the effort to have eggs retrieved - not without risk to her own health which I am not sure is always so well understood nor do I think the actual success of retrieving viable mature eggs is understood - and is paying to store them, and the facilities are available to allow that without placing a significant burden on resources or at cost of other programs and research (my concern here is space available for new women wanting to store theirs, costs to run and get more facilities, which are not covered by their fees, etc), then sure I don’t see why not.
The issue though is unless you are in a private health care system, you can’t say the storage costs are solely born by the donor - they are just paying an annual fee etc but using faciiities, research, people, equipment that are still funded by public. Would people (aside from this one woman in article who is 51) feel the same way about indefinite storage knowing success of IVF is itself not great and gets lower as the woman gets older (because difficulties for older women carrying a pregnancy are not limited to their egg quality etc). If they knew that cost of running storage facilities meant less funds were going to other life saving research and treatment facilities?
And women paying for this storage “indefinitely” also need to be well informed of the likelihood of success of pregnancy with any retrieved eggs over time and as they age. If there is less than a 1% chance after 44 for example, so they really still want to be storing those eggs?
The lady pursuing the lawsuit had her eggs retrieved when she was 41...there is a very good chance none of them are ultimately high enough quality to begin with and chances are incredibly low of a healthy successful pregnancy at/after 51. So are medical professionals not being honest with her or is she just ignoring them?