As I mentioned a few days ago, the NY Times recently published a much-read piece about Kamakahi v. ASRM, the egg donor class action that accuses the American Society for Reproductive Medicine with illegally capping compensation to oocyte donors in violation of US antitrust law. Yesterday, they followed up with an editorial that, perhaps amazingly, given the heated rhetoric surrounding the case, correctly sides with the egg donors in the litigation.
From the editorial board’s letter:
Guidelines issued by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology suggest that paying a woman more than $10,000 for her eggs is “beyond what is appropriate” and even paying $5,000 or more requires “justification.”
A vast majority of the nation’s fertility clinics follow these guidelines. The stated rationale behind them is to avoid offering so much money that donors, especially those who are often young and poor, will rush to contribute their eggs without considering the risks.
This payment system is unfair. However well-intentioned, it favors the fertility clinics. . . . Meanwhile, it shortchanges the egg donors, whose wishes are ignored in the equation. And if there are indeed risks, they can be addressed and mitigated by the clinics and the doctors, who can strengthen their screening and counseling procedures and provide more information.
Yep.
news.yahoo.com/puerto-rico-looks-organ-transplants-help-cure-ailing-234047019.html
Add http:// to the beginning to link.
Posted by: anon | October 22, 2015 at 10:14 PM
Interesting that the American Society for Reproductive Medicine wants to control the price of eggs but not the prices charged by medical professionals in providing their services. Regulatory capture any one?
Posted by: Bill Turnier | October 24, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Exactly, Bill, especially considering that ART services cost more in the United States than anywhere else in the world. If access to donor eggs for lower income patients were really a concern, there are any number of ways that ASRM-SART could address the problem that don't involve capping payments to egg donors. But to be clear, this isn't even a regulation -- it is an old-fashioned horizontal price fixing agreement, similar to those by lawyer, dentist, and engineering professional organizations that have previously been declared illegal.
Posted by: Kim Krawiec | October 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Bill, the joke is that they're actually wimps. If they had real chutzpah, they'd declare that the Noble Ideal of Egg Amaturism bars donations for money. That is, money paid to the donor - the Eggstitutions, Egg Coaches, etc. would be free to rake it in.
Posted by: Barry | October 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM
Yes, they got it right and so did you.
Posted by: jeff | October 27, 2015 at 04:53 PM
Thanks, Jeff! And thanks for the helpful conversations about this topic.
Posted by: Kim Krawiec | October 27, 2015 at 06:53 PM