Mapping Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of Gamete Donation

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2024 Aug 25

PMID 39183224

Authors

Ido Alon

Mathilde Cassou

Orit Cherny Golan

Vardit Ravitsky

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Research Question: This scoping review investigates the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of gamete donation, a critical facet of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, by analyzing the evolving research scope, methodological approaches, and the geographical skew in the literature. Despite the increased global uptake of donor gametes, current scholarship predominantly emanates from Western contexts and focuses on majoritized groups. This bias constrains the universality of research findings and limits their applicability across varied legal, cultural, and social contexts, underscoring a need for broader inclusivity.

Design: We addressed 867 pivotal articles published between 1999 and 2019.

Results: Our analysis reveals a discernible escalation in research volume, with 62% based on empirical research. The intellectual landscape unfolds into four dominant clusters: Regulatory Frameworks, Incentives, and Access; Family Dynamics and Genetic Linkages; Identity and Privacy in Donor Conception; and Cultural and Societal Attitudes towards GD. Each cluster highlights nuanced dimensions of gamete donation, from regulatory intricacies and psychological welfare to identity ethics and cultural perceptions.

Conclusion: Our findings advocate for a shift towards more globally representative and methodologically inclusive research. By integrating diverse cultural narratives and expanding geographical breadth, future research can offer holistic understandings of gamete donation, fostering equitable and culturally resonant practices and policies worldwide.

References

Pennings G, de Mouzon J, Shenfield F, Ferraretti A, Mardesic T, Ruiz A . Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(5):1076-89. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu048. View

Shamsi Gooshki E, Allahbedashti N . The process of justifying assisted reproductive technologies in Iran. Indian J Med Ethics. 2015; 12(2):57-96. DOI: 10.20529/IJME.2015.027. View

Van Hoof W, Pennings G . The consequences of S.H. and Others v. Austria for legislation on gamete donation in Europe: an ethical analysis of the European Court of Human Rights judgments. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012; 25(7):665-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.016. View

Shaw M . The Familial and the Familiar: Locating Relatedness in Colombian Donor Conception. Med Anthropol. 2017; 37(4):280-293. DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2017.1371149. View

Nahman M . Migrant extractability: Centring the voices of egg providers in cross-border reproduction. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2019; 7:82-90. PMC: 6360401. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.020. View

Yamamoto N, Hirata T, Izumi G, Nakazawa A, Fukuda S, Neriishi K . A survey of public attitudes towards third-party reproduction in Japan in 2014. PLoS One. 2018; 13(10):e0198499. PMC: 6209135. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198499. View

Blake L, Carone N, Slutsky J, Raffanello E, Ehrhardt A, Golombok S . Gay father surrogacy families: relationships with surrogates and egg donors and parental disclosure of children's origins. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(6):1503-1509. PMC: 5090043. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.013. View

Johnson K . Making families: organizational boundary work in US egg and sperm donation. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 99:64-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.015. View

Zanini G . Jesus is in Favor: Catholicism and Assisted Reproduction in Italy. Med Anthropol. 2019; 38(4):356-369. DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2019.1570186. View

10.

Ferraretti A, Pennings G, Gianaroli L, Magli M . Semen donor recruitment in an oocyte donation programme. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(10):2482-5. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del204. View

11.

Wheatley A . Danish sperm donors and the ethics of donation and selection. Med Health Care Philos. 2017; 21(2):227-238. PMC: 5956035. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-017-9797-7. View

12.

Pennings G, Devroey P . Subsidized in-vitro fertilization treatment and the effect on the number of egg sharers. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13(1):8-10. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62009-3. View

13.

Inhorn M . Where has the quest for conception taken us? Lessons from anthropology and sociology. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2020; 10:46-57. PMC: 7393315. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.04.001. View

14.

Crawshaw M . Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: the fallout for individuals and their families unexpectedly learning of their donor conception origins. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017; 21(4):225-228. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2017.1339127. View

15.

Homanen R . Reproducing whiteness and enacting kin in the Nordic context of transnational egg donation: Matching donors with cross-border traveller recipients in Finland. Soc Sci Med. 2018; 203:28-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.03.012. View

16.

Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Carmeli Y . Physiognomy, familism and consumerism: preferences among Jewish-Israeli recipients of donor insemination. Soc Sci Med. 2002; 54(3):363-76. DOI: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00035-1. View

17.

Ilioi E, Blake L, Jadva V, Roman G, Golombok S . The role of age of disclosure of biological origins in the psychological wellbeing of adolescents conceived by reproductive donation: a longitudinal study from age 1 to age 14. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016; 58(3):315-324. PMC: 5324532. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12667. View

18.

Pennings G . How to kill gamete donation: retrospective legislation and donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(10):2881-5. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des218. View

19.

Lingiardi V, Carone N, Morelli M, Baiocco R . 'It's a bit too much fathering this seed': the meaning-making of the sperm donor in Italian lesbian mother families. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016; 33(3):412-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.06.007. View

20.

Hendriks S, Peeraer K, Bos H, Repping S, Dancet E . The importance of genetic parenthood for infertile men and women. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(10):2076-2087. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex256. View