Risky Business: Evaluating Oocyte Donation

J. Berg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/152651601317139243

2001-12-01

Abstract:Andrea Gurmankin’s (2001) study on the amount and quality of risk information provided to potential oocyte donors is quite interesting and raises some compelling issues. I share her concern about the validity of the informed consent provided by donors, but I think the issue is worth further elucidation. Although the legal doctrine of informed consent to medical treatment is well established (Berg et al. 2001), the situation Gurmankin describes clearly points out some of its limitations. First, informed-consent disclosure obligations generally apply to physicians or other medical personnel. So the response of one receptionist that she was told not to disclose any information may be appropriate— if disclosure is going to be done, only someone who has the requisite knowledge and the ethical and legal obligation should do it. The result, that an individual might have become signiacantly involved in the process before getting any information is further evidence of the oddity of using an event model of informed consent (i.e., sign the consent just before undergoing the procedure), rather than a process model that promotes involvement at all stages (Berg et al. 2001). Second, informed consent to medical treatment is premised on a physician-patient relationship— that is, a relationship in which one of the parties (the physician) is focused on the well-being of the other (the patient). There is no physician-patient relationship to speak of with respect to the oocyte donor. In fact, we might do better to analogize this to informed consent for research participation. Although oocyte donation is not research, it shares more characteristics with research than with treatment. The potential beneats gained by the oocyte donor do not include direct therapeutic ones. While only some research studies have the potential for direct therapeutic beneat, all treatment endeavors do. Here, in exchange for undertaking signiacant potential risk, the oocyte donor may gain both direct and indirect nontherapeutic beneats. She is compensated (a direct nontherapeutic beneat) and may experience positive feelings of altruism (an indirect nontherapeutic beneat). The federal regulations governing the conduct of research, better known as the Common Rule, stress that consideration should be given to the balance of risks and beneats and also to whether the subjects in question are vulnerable to coercion and thus need additional safeguards (45 CFR 46.111[b]). Arguably, the population targeted by the programs assessed in Gurmankin’s study, college students, is vulnerable. College students often lack anancial resources. Compensation amounts such as those mentioned may be so high as to unduly inouence the decision to donate. In addition, and more controversially, college-age individuals (18–22 years old) might be thought of as less competent decision makers. Although college students should not be considered incompetent by any means, additional scrutiny around decision-making situations that involve high risk and no potential direct therapeutic beneat is warranted. Safeguards, particularly those focused on risk disclosure, may be appropriate. Alternatively, we might consider the obligations of the parties under contract law principles. The analogy here is to contract for services, rather than consent to medical treatment or research participation. This has interesting implications for both compensation and disclosure. Gurmankin notes that some authors have suggested compensating egg donors at rates equivalent to sperm donors, taking into account the additional time commitment. However, this ignores the signiacant potential risks of oocyte donation, compared to the nonexistent risks of sperm donation. It is customary within our society to compensate individuals for undertaking risk. For example, construction workers who work on skyscrapers are paid amounts that reoect the risks involved in their jobs. Likewise, higher compensation rates for oocyte donation are appropriate. But although in many situations higher compensation rates put contracting individuals on notice of potential risks, this is unlikely to be true here. Legal restrictions regarding fraud in contracts, which can apply where one party has pertinent information that should be shared with the other party, may be applicable. Nonetheless, we may need to create special legal disclosure obligations for programs (similar to the statutory informedconsent requirements for blood donation). Oocyte donation is undertaken for a variety of reasons. It is not clear that in all cases it need be altruistically motivated in order to be ethical—compensation may play a signiacant role. But accurate disclosure of risks is absolutely crucial. Gurmankin’s study raises serious concerns that this is not the case. Although I do not necessarily advocate the formal application of either research principles or contract law to oocyte donation, we might beneat from exploring the implications of applying different legal frameworks, rather than assuming that the law of informed consent to treatment will ax all ills.