Egg sharing: a practical and ethical option in IVF?

References

• Novaes S. The medical management of donor insemination. In: Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspective. Daniels K, Haimes E (Eds). University Press, Cambridge, UK 105–130 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Lutjen P, Trounson A, Leeton J, Findlay J, Wood C, Renou, P. The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature307, 174–176 (1984).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Task Force on Ethics and Law. Gamete and Embryo Donation. Hum. Reprod.17, 1407–1408 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bongaarts J. Infertility after age 30: a false alarm. Fam. Plann. Perspect.14, 75–78 (1982).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2005 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates: National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Andersen AN, Goossens V, Gianaroli L, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum. Fertil.22, 1513–1525 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Spar D. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Jones HW, Cohen J. IFFS Surveillance 07. Fertil. Steril.87(4 Suppl. 1), S1–S67 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Craft I, Flyckt S, Heeley G, Layland S, Kelada E. Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reprod. Biomed. Online10, 325–329 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moomjy M, Mangieri R, Beltramone F et al. Shared oocyte donation: society’s benefits. Fertil. Steril.73, 1165–1169 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. SEED Report: A Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s Review of Sperm, Egg and Embryo Donation in the UK. HFEA, London, UK (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Ahuja K, Simons E, Mostyn B, Bowen-Simpkins P. An assessment of the motives and morals of egg share donors: policy on ‘payments’ to egg donors requires a fair review. Hum. Reprod.13, 2671–2678 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devroey R, Smitz J, Camus M et al. Synchronization of donor’s and recipient’s cycles with GnRH analogues in an oocytes donation program. Hum. Reprod.4, 270–274 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolibianakis E, Tournaye H, Osmanagaoglu K et al. Outcome for donors and recipients in two egg-sharing policies. Fertil. Steril.79, 69–73 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennings G, Devroey P. Subsidized in-vitro fertilization treatment and the effect on the number of egg sharers. Reprod. BioMed. Online13, 8–10 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Press F, Shapiro HM, Cowell CA, Oliver GD. Outcome of ovum donation in Turner’s syndrome patients. Fertil. Steril.64, 995–998 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahuja KK, Simons EG, Fiamanya W et al. Egg-sharing in assisted conception: ethical and practical considerations. Hum. Reprod.11, 1126–1131 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahuja K, Mostyn B, Simons E. Egg sharing and egg donation: attitudes of British egg donor and recipients. Hum. Reprod.12, 2845–2852 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahuja K, Simons E, Rimington M et al. One hundred and three concurrent IVF successes for donors and recipients who shared eggs: ethical and practical benefits of egg sharing to society. Reprod. BioMed. Online1, 101–105 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ahuja K, Simons E. Cancer of the colon in an egg donor: ethical and policy repercussions for donor recruitment. Hum. Reprod.13, 227–231 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blyth E. Subsidized IVF: the development of ‘egg sharing’ in the United Kingdom. Hum. Reprod.17, 3254–3259 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blyth E. Patient experiences of an ‘egg sharing’ programme. Hum. Fertil.7, 157–162 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson M. The medical ethics of paid egg sharing in the UK. Hum. Reprod.14, 1912–1918 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapport F. Exploring the beliefs and experiences of potential egg share donors. J. Adv. Nurs.43, 28–42 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons EG, Ahuja KK. Egg-sharing: an evidence based solution to donor egg shortages. Obstet. Gynaecol.7, 112–116 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Thum M, Gafar A, Wren M et al. Does egg-sharing compromise the chance of donors or recipients achieving a live birth? Hum. Reprod.18, 2363–2367 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrero C, Remohi J, Ord T et al. A program of oocyte donation and gamete intrafallopian transfer. Hum. Reprod.4, 275–279 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check JH, Nowroozi K, ChaseJ, Nazari A, Braithwaite C. Comparison of pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer between the donors and the recipients in a donor oocyte program. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.9, 248–250 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check JH, Askari HA, Choe J, Baker A, Adelson HG. The effect of the age of the recipients on pregnancy rates following donor-oocyte replacement. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.10, 137–140 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check J, O’Shaughnessy A, Lurie D, Fisher C, Adelson, H. Evaluation of the mechanism for higher pregnancy rates in donor oocyte recipients by comparison of fresh with frozen embryo transfer pregnancy rates in a shared oocyte program. Hum. Reprod.10, 3022–3027 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check J, Choe J, Katsoff D, Summers-Chase D, Wilson C. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation adversely affects implantation following in vitro fertilization – embryo transfer. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet.16, 416–420 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check JH, Fox F, Choe JK, Nazari A, DePerro DK. A comparison of pregnancy and implantation rates following embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization with oocytes donated by paid donors versus infertile women sharing their oocytes. Fertil. Steril.78, S247–P395 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Check JH, Fox F, Choe JK, Krotec JW, Nazari A. Sharing of oocytes from infertile versus paid donors results in similar pregnancy and implantation rates. Fertil. Steril.81, 703–704 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check J, Askari H, Fisher C, Vanaman L. The use of a shared donor oocyte program to evaluate the effect of uterine senescence. Fertil. Steril.61, 252–256 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check J, Hourani C, Choe J, Callan C, Adelson H. Pregnancy rates in donors versus recipients according to the serum progesterone level at the time of human chorionic gonadotropin in a shared oocytes program. Fertil. Steril.61, 262–264 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox F, Katsoff B, Check J, Deperro D, Dietterich C. Evaluation of mid-cycle endometrial echo patterns and other factors effecting conception as determined by evaluating a shared oocyte donation program. Fertil. Steril.84, S144–S202 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Katsoff B, Check J, Wilson C, Fox F, Davies E. Pregnancy and implantation rates of donor oocyte recipients obtaining oocytes from infertile donors with unexplained infertility are comparable to the rates obtained from oocytes from donors whose infertility etiology is tubal or male factor. Fertil. Steril.83, S49–P29 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flamigni C, Borini A, Violini F, Bianchi L, Serrao L. Oocyte donation: comparison between recipients from different age groups. Hum. Reprod.8, 2088–2092 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti A, Pennings G, Gianaroli L, Magli M. Semen donor recruitment in an oocyte donation programme. Hum. Reprod.21, 2482–2485 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabinerson D, Dekel A, Orvieto R, Feldberg D, Simon D, Kaplan B. Subsidised oocytes donation in Israel (1998–2000): results, costs and lessons. Hum. Reprod.17, 140–1406 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Murray C, Golombok S. Oocyte and semen donation: a survey of UK licensed centres. Hum. Reprod.15, 2133–2139 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Clinics-at-a-glance. HFEA, London, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Sperm, Egg and Embryo Donation (SEED) Policy Review. Findings of the Clinic Survey. HFEA, London, UK (2005).
   Google Scholar
• European Union Directive. 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. Offic. J. Eur. Un.L102, 48–58 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Consultation on the Implementation of Withdrawal of Payments to Donors. HFEA, London, UK (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Financial compensation of oocyte donors. Fertil. Steril.88, 305–309 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frydman R, Letur-Konirsch H, de Ziegler D et al. A protocol for satisfying the ethical issues raised by oocyte donation: the free, anonymous, and fertile donors. Fertil. Steril.53, 666–672 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of Practice (7th Edition). HFEA, London, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Ahuja K, Simons E. Anonymous egg donation and dignity. Hum. Reprod.11, 1151–1154 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland R. Motherhood, patriarchal power, alienation and the issue of ‘choice’ in sex preselection. In: Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. Corea G (Ed.). Hutchinson, London, UK 74–87 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Organization. Declaration of Helsinki. Br. Med. J.313, 1448–1449 (1996).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Gorovitz S. Informed consent. In: Philosophical Ethics in Reproductive Medicine. Proceedings of the First International Conference, Leeds, 18–22 April. 1988. Bromham DR (Ed.). Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK, 228–235 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Guidance for Egg Sharing Arrangements. HFEA, London, UK (2000).
   Google Scholar
• International Federation of Fertility Societies. International Consensus on Assisted Procreation. IFFS, Montpellier, France (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ahuja K, Simons E, Edwards RG. Money, morals and medical risks: conflicting notions underlying the recruitment of egg donors. Hum. Reprod.14, 279–284 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar