U.K. Oocyte Raffle

Via Al Roth. 

According to press reports:

The raffle, to be held on Wednesday, is to promote a tie-up between the Bridge Centre, a fertility clinic in London, and the Genetics and IVF Institute (GIVF) in Fairfax, Virginia.

The Anglo-American commercial venture was set up last autumn and is aimed principally at women in their forties and fifties who have little prospect of a successful pregnancy with fertility treatment using their own eggs. . . .

Michael Summers, a senior consultant in reproductive medicine at the Bridge, . . . believes a relaxation of restrictions on payment for egg donors in Britain will depend on the results of the next election. If the ban stays in place, he predicts infertility tourism to America will grow steadily.

Feminist law professor Bridget Crawford thinks the auction is “repulsive” and “should shock the doubt out of anyone who has ever questioned the existence of a massive commercial trade in human body parts — and human eggs, in particular.” 

But the reason for the venture between Bridge and GIVF – and thus the raffle – is precisely because the U.K. prohibits commercial trade in human eggs. HFEA rules requiring donor registration and limiting egg donor compensation to lost wages and reimbursable expenses, a £250 maximum, have caused severe gamete shortages and resulting fertility tourism to other countries, which I discuss at length here.  What’s repulsive is not the raffle, but the U.K.’s misguided policies on egg donor compensation, which unfortunately are making their way into some U.S. state legislatures this year. 

Related Posts:

How Is An Egg Donor Like A Prostitute?
Like A Virgin? We Sell That Here!

Sunny Samaritans or Entrepreneurs? New York Allows Egg Donor Payments For Stem Cell Research

A New Meaning To "Nest Egg"

U.K. To Reconsider Payments to Egg and Sperm Donors

Comments

[Matt]

It also seems that we can draw a fairly clear distinction between the sale of, say, kidneys, corneas, or livers and eggs and sperm. Whether there should be a ban on the sale of the former is something I don't have a very settled opinion on, but they seem clearly distinguishable from the sale of the later.

[Kim Krawiec]

Agreed, Matt. The risks are really not comparable. I suppose if ones primary objection is one of commodification, rather than of exploitation, then one could argue the similarity. But Im not a believer in commodification arguments of that sort anyway.