The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) is the largest organization in the United States for medical professionals in the field of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. In 2002, ASRM published medical and psychological guidelines for ovum donation. The psychological recommendations for donors are general guidelines for addressing moral, ethical and psychosocial issues that may confront ovum donors. Included are standards for what should be included in a psychosocial screening of donors and reasons to exclude donors. A few of the objective reasons for donor exclusion include known substance abuse, positive family history of heritable psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, or instability in donors’ lives. To determine “inclusion” I take a psychosocial history and administer a psychological test that informs me about the donor’s personality profile, including just how much they are trying to impress me – the “fake good” factor. I am also assessing motivation to donate and the donor’s “need” versus “desire for” the compensation. Stability, stress levels, and reproductive history are also part of an ASRM assessment of donors.

Although I would like to base my entire decision on objective information, much of my decision on donor acceptance must, in fact, be based on intuition. Throughout my 25 years as a therapist, I have found that my intuition is quite accurate, but it is not fool proof.

There is one major controversy in the field that may hinder a psychotherapist’s ability to screen donors. That is the hotly debated topic on compensation of donors. In August 2000, the Ethics Committee of The American Society for Reproductive Medicine concluded that there is no consensus on the precise payment that oocyte donors should receive. It was suggested, “sums of $5,000 or more require justification and sums above $10,000 go beyond what is appropriate.” Due to costs of living and the scarcity of available donors, there are significant regional variations that affect these rates.

The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) has attempted to assist clinics and patients by creating a list of Egg Donor Agencies that have signed an agreement stating that they will abide by the Ethics Committee Guidelines governing the compensation of egg donors.

The debate centers on the fact that donors could feel undue inducement and exploitation in the process if the fee is so high as to be coercive. Part of the job of the mental health professional is to provide donors with informed consent. Might donors conceal pertinent medical information that could be important for themselves or offspring if the monetary incentive is so high? Will donors discount risks to themselves? How can the donor actually give informed consent about the medical procedure and pay attention to the risks if $$ signs are floating before their eyes?

Ethicists and some in the field of women’s health advocacy express concern “that lucrative payments are enticing young women with credit-card debt and steep tuition bills to sell eggs without seriously evaluating the risks.” Can the payment cloud someone’s judgment and can we assess that? How much is too much? Where is that line?

When I began working with PFC in 1998, we were paying first time egg donors $2,500. Nine years later, the compensation is $6,500 for a first time donor and $7,000 for any subsequent donations. Even adjusted for inflation, the payment is rising at a phenomenal rate. Competition, supply and demand govern these rises.

As part of my objective/intuitive approach to interviewing donors, I discuss money with them. What would she use the compensation for? How does she support herself? What kind and how much debt does she have? While $25,000 in student loans points to a person’s drive toward positive goals, the same amount in credit card debt speaks to me of impulsive behavior. How much have they educated themselves on ovum donation? Whom have they talked with about their desires? Do they have their own children? Are they science majors who may be more likely to view gametes as DNA and not their own children? Are their answers well thought out?

My goal is to provide the recipients of donated eggs with intelligent, healthy, and thoughtful young women who understand the implications of ovum donation both for themselves and for the recipients. Donors who are motivated by the “need” for money are more likely to provide inaccurate information on their applications, or leave out information that could be pertinent to the recipients or their offspring. It is my job and the job of the Egg Donor Agency to determine motivation.

Although impossible to attain, we would all like donors to be motivated altruistically. We may diminish altruism by making the donation about eggs for money. However, I believe we can increase altruism by helping the donors to have a greater understanding of who the recipients are and what their struggles have been.

Peggy Orlin, MFT

Ms. Orlin served as 2006-7 chair of ASRM’s Executive Committee of the Mental Health Professional Group, is a member of Resolve’s National Mental Health Advisory Board. She co-teaches PFC’s Mind/Body workshops.

To register for the September 8th Mind/Body@PFC Workshop, please phone 415-834-3095.

Tags: Conception Health, Egg Donation, IVF - In Vitro Fertilization, New Innovation, Risks of Advanced Reproductive Technologies

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 12th, 2007 at 6:58 pm and is filed under Conception Health. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.