Mild stimulation should be mandatory for oocyte donation

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 2403-2407
Author(s):  
Guido Pennings

ABSTRACT The increasing commercialization of oocyte donation is a source of concern. This evolution is expressed in the fact that oocyte donors’ interests are not a priority. For decades now, people mention that oocyte donation holds serious health risks for donors, as if this is an unavoidable given. However, most of the harm is caused by high hormonal stimulation. The risk/benefit balance of high stimulation compared to the risk/benefit balance of mild stimulation does not justify causing greater harm to donors, especially given the fact that donors submit to the procedure without any medical benefit for themselves and to help others.

2013 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. S280
Author(s):  
E. Aguayo-Macias ◽  
I. Obeso-Montoya ◽  
R. Santos-Haliscak ◽  
S. Hernandez-Ayup ◽  
P. Patrizio ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiqin Bu ◽  
Jiaxin Zhang ◽  
Yile Zhang ◽  
Yingpu Sun

BackgroundCurrently, in China, only women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles can donate oocytes to others, but at least 15 oocytes must be kept for their own treatment. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether oocyte donation compromises the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of donors and whether it is possible to expand oocyte donors’ crowd.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study from August 2015 to July 2017 including a total of 2,144 patients, in which 830 IVF–embryo transfer (IVF-ET) patients were eligible for oocyte donation and 1,314 patients met all other oocyte donation criteria but had fewer oocytes retrieved (10–17 oocytes). All 830 patients were advised to donate approximately three to five oocytes to others and were eventually divided into two groups: the oocyte donation group (those who donated) and the control group (those who declined). The basic patient parameters and CLBR, as well as the number of supernumerary embryos after achieving live birth, were compared. These two factors were also compared in all patients (2,144) with oocyte ≥10.ResultsIn 830 IVF-ET patients who were eligible for oocyte donation, only the oocyte number was significantly different between two groups, and the donation group had more than the control group (25.49 ± 5.76 vs. 22.88 ± 5.11, respectively; p = 0.09). No significant differences were found between the two groups in other factors. The results indicate that the live birth rate in the donation group was higher than that in the control group (81.31% vs. 82.95%, p = 0.371), without significance. In addition, CLBR can still reach as high as 73% when the oocyte number for own use was 10. Supernumerary embryos also increased as the oocyte number increased in all patients (oocyte ≥10).ConclusionsCurrently, oocyte donation did not compromise CLBR, and oocyte donation can decrease the waste of embryos. In addition, in patients with 10 oocytes retrieved, the CLBR was still good (73%). Thus, it is possible to expand oocyte donors if the number of oocyte kept for own use was decreased from 15 to 10 after enough communication with patients.


2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 410-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valarie K. Blake ◽  
Michelle L. McGowan ◽  
Aaron D. Levine

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a multibillion dollar market in the United States (U.S.), generating a continual demand for oocyte donors whose gametes contributed to 12.6% of all ART cycles in 2012. Oocyte donation is a variant of in vitro fertilization (IVF) that is typically used when an intended mother cannot produce healthy oocytes of her own and instead uses oocytes provided by a third party in an attempt to produce one or more children. When oocyte donation was first developed, oocyte donors were selected among family and friend groups but, increasingly, active solicitation of anonymous donors and brokering the relationship between donor and recipient has become part of the services offered by fertility clinics. In addition, recipients may choose to work with an independent donor agency to find a suitable donor before completing the IVF procedure at a fertility clinic.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
E. A. Andreeva ◽  
N. A. Khonina ◽  
E. N. Demchenko ◽  
E. D. Gavrilova ◽  
N. M. Pasman ◽  
...  

The aim of the study was to evaluate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the follicular fluid (FF) of women undergoing IVF treatment and to analyze the relationship between cfDNA levels and the parameters of folliculogenesis and oogenesis as well as the quality of embryos. Materials and methods. The study included 53 women aged 20 to 45 years. In 49 patients, oocytes were obtained by stimulating ovulation with gonadotropins, and 4 patients underwent natural cycle IVF without hormonal stimulation. Measurement of cfDNA was carried out by fluorimetry using QuantiFluor™ Handheld Fluorometers (BioSilica, Russian Federation). Results. The FF of women with ovulation stimulation revealed a higher level of cfDNA as opposed to FF of women in the natural cycle. There were no differences in the cfDNA levels in women with infertility and oocyte donors. Women with infertility lasting for more than 5 years had a higher level of cfDNA. Women with the elevated anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels were characterized by the high FF cfDNA concentration and a large number of follicles. Likewise, correlation analysis showed that FF cfDNA was significantly and positively correlated with the AMH level. The obtained data revealed the participation of cfDNA in different stages of oogenesis. Conclusions. The level of FF cfDNA in women may serve as an additional biomarker of the effectiveness of ovulation induction.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Tassot ◽  
A D’Angelo

Abstract Study question What are the risks of oocyte donation? Which risks should be prioritised in policies aiming to improve the protection of third-party oocyte donors? Summary answer The risks for third-party oocyte donors are of a diverse nature, including physical risks, psychological risks, iatrogenic risks, and social risks. What is known already Oocyte donation involves ovarian stimulation and oocyte pick-up, which represent burdensome procedures for the donor. In a recent evaluation of the EU legislation on blood, tissue and cells, the European Commission highlighted that oocyte donors are currently not adequately protected. For effective oocyte donor protection measures to be developed and implemented, it is important to understand the risks that oocyte donors are exposed to. To date, there is no comprehensive overview of the existing knowledge on the physical and psychosocial risks of oocyte donation. Study design, size, duration A systematic literature review of the publications on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Notify Library was carried out. The search was conducted in May 2020. All empirical studies, including case reports, that reported or investigated negative experiences of oocyte donors and/or negative consequences of the donation on the donors’ physical health, mental health, or other aspects of their lives were included. No restriction was made with regard to the year of publication. Participants/materials, setting, methods In total, 88 empirical studies conducted in oocyte donors were reviewed. All reported information on oocyte donor risks was extracted and summarised. The identified risks were clustered into categories according to common themes and analysed with regard to their frequency of occurrence, severity, and imputability to the donation. A prioritisation of risks was carried out based on these three criteria, classifying each risk as a “priority risk” or a “non-priority risk”. Main results and the role of chance Nineteen priority risks were identified across the following six categories: short-term physical risks, long-term physical risks, short-term psychological risks, long-term psychological risks, iatrogenic risks, and social risks. The most frequently reported priority risks were moderate to severe Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) and having lasting worries or concerns about the donation. While the findings confirmed the relevance of certain immediate physical risks for oocyte donors, no cases of death or permanent physical damage as a direct consequence of the donation could be detected. The results showed that donating oocytes can profoundly impact the donors’ psychological well-being in the short-term and in the long-term. Furthermore, the donation can have a strong effect on the donor’s social and family life, for instance, through the risk of unintended pregnancy. Moreover, it was found that oocyte donors are at risk of experiencing mistreatment or inadequate care during the donation procedure. Most studies included in the review reported on short-term risks of the donation. There is a high degree of uncertainty about the long-term health effects of oocyte donation. Due to the scarcity of large observational studies, the conclusions are mostly based on small studies and case reports, which limits the strength of any conclusion. Limitations, reasons for caution The literature search was limited to common databases for published data. Grey literature was not searched. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the relevant publications, it is possible that the search strategy was not able to detect all eligible articles. Wider implications of the findings: The findings emphasise the importance of implementing effective donor protection policies that address not only the physical, but also the psychological, social, and iatrogenic risks of oocyte donation. Moreover, the findings call for a systematic follow-up of oocyte donors to gain insight into the long-term consequences of the donation. Trial registration number Not applicable


2020 ◽  
pp. 135910532096321
Author(s):  
Elham Adib Moghaddam ◽  
Ashraf Kazemi ◽  
Gholamreza Kheirabadi ◽  
Seyyed Mehdi Ahmadi

To identify the perceptions of women oocyte donors this qualitative study was conducted on 30 oocyte donors using in-depth interview. The three main categories of decision-making challenge, the consequences of participation in assisted reproductive treatment, and the contrast between the self-image and social-image of the donor were inferred. Financial and altruistic motivation, social taboo, and the approval of trusted people were the sub-categories of the decision-making challenge. The results of the study showed that the decision for oocyte donation follows the effort of women to balance the financial and spiritual benefits of the donation against its cultural barriers.


Prospects ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 431-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Marie Lutes

Lorelei Lee, the “professional lady” who narrates her own adventures in the 1925 international bestseller Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, is not a likely alter ego for an aspiring writer. Indifferent to most books and unlikely to indulge in introspection, Lorelei makes writing far less a priority than managing social invitations and sexual conquests. Accordingly, Anita Loos, the author of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, went to considerable lengths to distance herself from her blonde-bombshell narrator. As if to acknowledge and enforce such distance, Loos has Lorelei remark offhandedly in the opening pages of the book, “It would be strange if I turn out to be an authoress.” The novel's first edition highlights the incongruity of Lorelei's status as author, illustrating this remark with a drawing of a wide-eyed young woman clutching a pen and bending over a ruffle-skirted vanity table. She is dressed for writing in a pair of highheeled slippers, a sheer, rose-trimmed negligee, and a frilly bed cap tied under her chin. Years later, a publicity still for the musical version of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes continued to emphasize the distinction by juxtaposing a seated, conservatively clad Loos with the standing figure of Carol Channing as Lorelei Lee, elaborately gowned and dripping with diamonds. As the photograph suggests, Loos carefully positioned herself in opposition to the glamour girl whose appearance has since been labeled “the most significant event in the evolution of the dumb blonde” (Everett, 254).


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (11) ◽  
pp. 736-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emy Kool ◽  
Rieke van der Graaf ◽  
Annelies Bos ◽  
Bartholomeus Fauser ◽  
Annelien Bredenoord

There is a growing consensus that the offer of a reasonable compensation for oocyte donation for reproductive treatment is acceptable if it does not compromise voluntary and altruistically motivated donation. However, how to translate this ‘reasonable compensation’ in practice remains unclear as compensation rates offered to oocyte donors between different European Union countries vary significantly. Clinics involved in oocyte donation, as well as those in other medical contexts, might be encouraged in calculating a more consistent and transparent compensation for donors if the elements that constitute a reasonable compensation are explicated. In doing so, lessons can be learnt from living organ donation and medical research participation. Practices in which the elements of a reasonable compensation for the individuals involved have already been more defined in the literature. By means of analogical reasoning, we will outline the different components of a reasonable compensation and subsequently apply these to the context of oocyte donation. We will argue that oocyte donors should first of all be reasonably reimbursed direct expenses related to the donation, without standard remuneration of lost wages. Second, donating oocytes requests a serious time investment, therefore donors are entitled to suitable compensation for their time spent and efforts made. Finally, we will explain that a reasonable compensation consisting of these two components allows for altruism to remain the key value of oocyte donation for reproductive treatment. However, if we acknowledge that donors’ motives are more complex and often include reasons from self-interest, the reasonable compensation may be complemented with modest (non)monetary benefits.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hillary B. Alberta ◽  
Roberta M. Berry ◽  
Aaron D. Levine

In vitro fertilization (IVF) using donated oocytes has proven to be an effective treatment option for many prospective parents struggling with infertility, and the usage of donated oocytes in assisted reproduction has increased markedly since the technique was first successfully used in 1984. Data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in the United States indicate that approximately 12% of all ART cycles in the country now use donated oocytes. The increased use of oocyte donation in the United States has prompted discussion regarding risks associated with the process and how best to ensure the safety of oocyte donors.Physical risks associated with oocyte donation include bleeding, infection, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and a potential, although unconfirmed, increased risk of developing various forms of cancer, such as uterine, colon, breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document