From Strasbourg
Observers (a blog commenting on developments in the case-law of the European
Court of Human Rights) on the
case of S.H. and others v. Austria:
At issue was
the Austrian Artificial Procreation Act prohibiting the use of ova from donors
and sperm from donors for in vitro
fertilization. . . .
The Austrian Government argued that “ova donation might lead to problematic developments such as
exploitation and humiliation of women, in particular of those from an
economically disadvantaged background” (par. 49). The Court’s reply to this
argument is, rightly, that potential future abuse is not a sufficient reason
for prohibiting a specific procreation technique as a whole if it is possible
to devise safeguards against such abuse (par. 77).
But what
the Court fails to do is to condemn the Government’s argument. Why does this
risk of exploitation and humiliation only pertain to women? Why can men not be
exploited and humiliated when donating their sperm? The truth is that there is
an invidious stereotype at work here that formed the underlying reason for the
Austrian legislation. The stereotype is that women’s sexuality is something
vulnerable, something holy that needs to be protected, while men’s sexuality is
something active – if not aggressive. That is paternalism, not biology.
Radically different attitudes toward egg and sperm donors
are not limited to Austria. As we’ve
discussed many times here at the Lounge, the commercial disparities between the
egg and sperm markets in the U.S. are vast, ranging from divergent recruiting
and advertising techniques to differences in the donor attributes valued by
consumers. One of the most drastic
differences between the two markets, however, relates to presumed donor
motivations (it is widely contented that egg donors are, and should be, motivated
primarily by altruism, even when large sums are exchanged, while sperm donors
are presumed to be motivated solely or primarily by profit-seeking); fears of
exploitation, coercion, and commodification (raised much more frequently in
connection with egg donors than with sperm donors); and the resulting attempts
to control egg donor compensation. (I discuss all of this in more depth in Sunny
Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price Fixing in The Gamete Market. What’s that you say? That this is the 7000th time
I’ve blogged about that paper and that anyone with even a remote interest in
reading it would have done so already? Well, you’re probably right.)
There are, of course, many differences between egg and
sperm donation (as well as between egg donation and other types of human tissue
and plasma donation), including the riskiness of the procedure. Yet, the widely articulated
coercion concern raised against compensated egg donation is particularly one
that should be carefully scrutinized for class and gender bias. There are many
dangerous jobs regularly performed for compensation, often by employees with
lower socio-economic status and education levels than egg donors (who
are often valued for their academic credentials, among other
characteristics). Those jobs are
also performed primarily, if not exclusively, by men.
I do not mean to suggest that the only taboo transactions of
this nature are those in which the primary suppliers are women – Al Roth has a
wonderful list of repugnant
transactions through time that serves as evidence to the contrary. However,
the purported dangers of commodification and the need to protect a supposedly
vulnerable population from the coercive effects of the marketplace have been
especially prominent defenses of constraints on the markets for female sexual
and reproductive labor, including sex work, oocyte donation, and surrogacy. And, this anticommodification and coercion
rhetoric is frequently invoked by interest groups who, at best, have little
interest in female empowerment and, at worst, have economic or political
interests at odds with it. (I discuss
this in greater detail in my newest draft, A Woman’s
Worth.)
More skepticism, like that shown by the Strasbourg
Observers, is in order when it comes to attempts at “protecting” egg donors.
(HT: Larry
Helfer)
Related
Posts:
The
Value of Smart Eggs
U.K.
Oocyte Raffle
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