Motivation for gamete and embryo donation and surrogacy


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The article reviews modern foreign literature on the motivation of gamete and embryo donors and on surrogacy. Motives are analyzed in the context of intra-family donation, voluntary (free) donation, commercial donation, as well as cases of mixed motivation. In all types of donation, donors can be guided by either one leading motive or a combination of several motives. One of the leading motives for gamete and embryo donation and surrogacy is altruism, although it is not the only motivating factor. Another important factor that encourages people to donate is material reward. The article also presents studies aimed to investigate how donors perceive rewards for their services - selfishly or altruistically. Changes in a donor’s motivation, differences between the desire to act as a donor and real donation are considered. Studying the motives of donation in modern Russian society can contribute to the solution of an important social problem, such as infertility.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

S. B Malykh

First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin Ural Federal University; Psychological Institute, Russian Academy of Education

Email: malykhsb@mail.ru
Doctor of Sciences in Psychology, Professor, Member of the Russian Academy of Education, Principal research fellow at the Laboratory of Neurotechnologies,Chair of the Developmental Behavioral Genetics Laboratory Psychological 620002, Russia, Yekaterinburg, Mira str., 19; 620002, Russia, Yekaterinburg, Mira str., 19

E. E Symanyuk

First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin Ural Federal University

Email: e.e.symaniuk@urfu.ru
Doctor of Sciences in Psychology, Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology 620002, Russia, Yekaterinburg, Mira str., 19

I. G Polyakova

First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin Ural Federal University

Email: irinapolykova@yandex.ru
researcher 620002, Russia, Yekaterinburg, Mira str., 19

References

  1. Somnath P. Prevalence of infertility and its treatment among women. US Pharm. 2018;43(9):14. Available at: https://bt.e-ditionsbyfry.com/publication/?i=5237 94&p=1&pp=1&view=issueViewer.
  2. Женское бесплодие (современные подходы к диагностике и лечению). Клинические рекомендации (протокол лечения). Приказ Минздрава России от 05.03.2019 № 15-4/и/2-1913.
  3. Здравоохранение в России 2019. Сборник Федеральной службы государственной статистики. Официальное издание. Доступно по: https:// www.gks.ru/folder/210/document/13218
  4. Вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии и искусственная инсеминация. Клинические рекомендации (протокол лечения). Приказ Минздрава России от 05.03.2019 № 15-4/и/2-1908
  5. De Lacey S. Decisions for the fate of frozen embryos: fresh insights into patients’ thinking and their rationales for donating or discarding embryos. Hum. Reprod. 2007; 22(6): 1751-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem056.
  6. Deonandan R. Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy. 2015; 8: 111-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S63862.
  7. Freeman T., Jadva V., Tranfield E., Golombok S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(9): 2082-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew166.
  8. Mohr S. Beyond motivation: on what it means to be a sperm donor in Denmark. Anthropol. Med. 2014; 21(2): 162-73. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2 014.914806.
  9. Bossema E.R., Janssens P.M.W., Landwehr F., Treucker R.G.L., van Duinen K., Nap A. W., Geenen R. A taxonomy of possible reasons for and against sperm donation. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012; 92(6): 679-85. https://dx.doi. org/10.1111/aogs.12059.
  10. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Third-party reproduction sperm, egg, and embryo donation and surrogacy, a guide for patients. Birmingham: The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Patient Education Committee and the Publications Committee; 2017.
  11. Ernst E., Ingerslev H.J., Schou O., Stoltenberg M. Attitudes among sperm donors in 1992 and 2002: a Danish questionnaire survey. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2007; 86(3): 327-33. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340601133913.
  12. Bay B., Larsen P.B., Kesmodel U.S., Ingerslev H.J. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101(1): 252-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.013.
  13. Hoeyer K. Exchanging human bodily material: rethinking bodies and markets. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
  14. Parames S.F., Francisco L.S., Almada-Colucci J., Sato H., Ueno J. What influences oocyte donation when there is no financial compensation? Reprod. Climat. 2014; 29(1): 8-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.recli.2014.07.003.
  15. Svanberg A.S., Sydsjo G., Bladh M., Lampic C. Attitudes about donor information differ greatly between IVF couples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2016; 33(6): 703-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0694-4.
  16. Jadva V., Casey P., Readings J., Blake L., Golombok S. A longitudinal study of recipients’ views and experiences of intra-family egg donation. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26(10): 2777-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ der252.
  17. Yee S, Blyth E, Tsang A.K. Oocyte donors’ experiences of altruistic known donation: a qualitative study. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 2011; 29(4): 404-15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02646838.20n.611938.
  18. Blyth E, Yee S., Tsang A.K. “They were my eggs; they were her babies”: known oocyte donors’ conceptualizations of their reproductive material. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2011; 33(11): 1134-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ s1701-2163(16)35081-2.
  19. Pennings G, De Mouzon J., Shenfield F., Ferraretti A.P., Mardesic T., Ruiz A., Goossens V. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum. Reprod. 2014; 29(5): 1076-89. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu048.
  20. Klock S.C., Stout J.E., Davidson M. Psychological characteristics and factors related to willingness to donate again among anonymous oocyte donors. Fertil. Steril. 2003; 79(6): 1312-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00348-0.
  21. Bakker M, Maas J., Bredenoord A., Fauser B., Bos A. Autonomy and self-esteem of women who donate to an oocyte cryopreservation bank in the Netherlands. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2017; 35(2): 225-31. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. rbmo.2017.05.002.
  22. Keney N., McGowan M. Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 93(2): 455-66. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2008.09.081.
  23. Winter A, Daniluk J.C. A gift from the heart: The experiences of women whose egg donations helped their sisters become mothers. J. Counselling Development. 2004; 82(4): 483-95. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004.tb00337.x.
  24. Bankowski B., Lyerly A., Faden R., Wallach E. The social implications of embryo cryopreservation. Fertil. Steril. 2005; 84(4): 823-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.02.057.
  25. Millbank J., Stuhmcke A., Karpin I. Embryo donation and understanding of kinship: the impact of law and policy. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32(1): 133-8. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew297.
  26. Parry S. (Re) constructing embryos in stem cell research: exploring the meani ng of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments. Soc. Sci. Med. 2006; 62(10): 2349-59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.10.024.
  27. Goedeke S., Daniels K., Thorpe M. Embryo donation and counselling for the welfare of donors, recipients, their families and children. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(2): 412-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev304.
  28. Roberts E. Extra embryos: the ethics of cryopreservation in Ecuador. Am. Ethnologist. 2007; 34(1): 181-99. https://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.181.
  29. Goedeke S., Daniels K. The discourse of gifting in embryo donation: the understandings of donors, recipients, and counselors. Qual. Health Res. 2017; 27(9): 1402-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732316672646.
  30. Choudhary M., Haimes E., Herbert M., Stojkovic M., Murdoch A.P. Demographic, medical and treatment characteristics associated with couples’ decisions to donate fresh spare embryos for research. Hum. Reprod. 2004; 19(9): 2091-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh401.
  31. Peng L. Surrogate mothers: An exploration of the empirical and the normative. Am. Univ. J. Gend. Soc. Policy Law. 2013; 21(3): 555-83.
  32. Berend Z. The social context for surrogates’ motivations and satisfaction. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2014; 29(4): 399-401. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rbmo.2014.07.001.
  33. Cottier M. Understanding the impact of different concepts of surrogate mother for the regulation of international surrogacy arrangements. Voelkerrechtsblog. 2016; 22 July. https://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20170106-171049.
  34. Imrie S., Jadva V. The long-term experiences of surrogates: Relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2014; 29(4): 424-35. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.004.
  35. Gunputh R.P., Choong K.A. Surrogacy tourism: the ethical and legal challenges. Int. J. Tourism Sci. 2015; 15(12): 1621. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15980634.2 015.1119388.
  36. Kirby J. Transnational gestational surrogacy: does it have to be exploitative? Am. J. Bioeth. 2014; 14(5): 24-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.892169.
  37. Sama-Resource Group for Women and Health. Birthing a market: A study on commercial surrogacy. New Delhi: Sama-Resource Group for Women and Health; 2012.
  38. Holcomb M., Byrn M.P. When your body is your business. Washington Law Review. 2010; 85(4): 647-86.
  39. Elder A.H. Wombs to rent: examining the jurisdiction of international surrogacy. Oregon Review of International Law. 2014; 16(2): 347-74.
  40. Paul S., Harbottle S., Stewart J.A. Recruitment of sperm donors: The Newastle-upon-Tyne experience 1994-2003. Hum. Reprod. 2014; 21(1): 150-8. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei354.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies