Egg donors’ motivations, experiences, and opinions: A survey of egg donors in South Africa


Autoři: Donrich Thaldar aff001
Působiště autorů: School of Law, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226603

Souhrn

The objective of this study was to gain information from egg donors in South Africa (SA) which could be pertinent to policy development on egg donation. The study was conducted on egg donors in the database of a Cape Town-based egg donation agency who donated within a year preceding the study. 150 egg donors from the population of 226 participated in an online survey. The main results are: 95% of respondents experienced egg donation as being positive. However, 7% of respondents report not giving proper informed consent, and a similar percentage of respondents also report not knowing whether any medical risks actually materialised as sequelae to their donations. This is a cause for concern and should be investigated further. Regarding donor anonymity, which is currently the legal position in SA, 79% of respondents indicated that they would still have donated had they been legally required to release their identities. Accordingly, possible legal reform away from the current system of donor anonymity seems unlikely to significantly impact the supply of donated eggs. Regarding motivation, respondents report being primarily motivated by wanting to help infertile women. However, respondents believe that a fair and realistic amount of compensation would be about 60% higher than what is currently paid as the national standard fixed amount. This fixed-amount compensation system should be further investigated in terms of its legality, impact on donor profile, and its current amount.

Klíčová slova:

Altruistic behavior – Employment – Female infertility – Fertilization – Finance – Human genetics – Regulations – Surveys


Zdroje

1. Purewal S, van den Akker OBA. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Sep 1;15(5):499–515. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmp018 19443709

2. Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Bora S, Ismail AM, Al-Memar M, Hamed AH, et al. Investigating psychosocial attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg sharers: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Jun;22(4):450–65. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw006 27016289

3. South Africa. National Health Act 61 of 2003. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a61-03.pdf

4. South Africa. Regulations Relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons. GN R175, GG 35099, 2 March 2012. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.za/index.php/2014-03-17-09-09-38/legislation/joomla-split-menu/category/84-2012r

5. South Africa. Children’s Act 38 of 2005. [Internet]. Available from: http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/ca2005104.pdf

6. South African Law Reform Commission. Project 140: Worksheet on Issue Paper 32: The right to know one’s own biological origins [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/ipapers/ip32-prj140-BioOrigins-2017b.pdf

7. Klock S, Stout J, Davidson M. Psychological characteristics and factors related to willingness to donate again among anonymous oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 2003 Jun;79(6):1312–6. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00348-0 12798876

8. Kalfoglou AL, Gittelsohn J. A qualitative follow-up study of women’s experiences with oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2000 Apr 1;15(4):798–805. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.4.798 10739823

9. Freeman T, Jadva V, Tranfield E, Golombok S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Hum Reprod. 2016 Sep;31(9):2082–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew166 27412344

10. Purewal S, van den Akker OBA. The socio-cultural and biological meaning of parenthood. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jan;28(2):79–86.

11. Jordan C, Belar C, Williams RS. Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up analysis of donors’ experiences. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;25(2):145–51.

12. Pennings G, de Mouzon J, Shenfield F, Ferraretti AP, Mardesic T, Ruiz A, et al. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod. 2014 May 1;29(5):1076–89. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu048 24626802

13. Patrick M, Smith AL, Meyer WR, Bashford RA. Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up questionnaire. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(5):1034–6. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01690-9 11334924

14. Kenney NJ, McGowan ML. Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil Steril. 2010 Jan 15;93(2):455–66. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.081 19022427

15. Graham S, Jadva V, Freeman T, Ahuja K, Golombok S. Being an identity-release donor: a qualitative study exploring the motivations, experiences and future expectations of current UK egg donors. Hum Fertil. 2016 Oct;19(4):230–41.

16. Statistics South Africa. Quarterly employment statistics: March 2018 [Internet]. 2018. Report No.: P0277. Available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0277/P0277March2018.pdf

17. Volschenk S. Please say yes to organ donation and save lives! Transpl News [Internet]. 2014;13(49). Available from: https://www.odf.org.za/images/PDF/Archive/Transplant%20vol%2013%20No%204%20-%20webversion.pdf

18. South African National Blood Service. Home [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jan 9]. Available from: https://sanbs.org.za

19. Jadva V, Lamba N, Kadam K, Golombok S. Indian egg donors’ characteristics, motivations and feelings towards the recipient and resultant child. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2015 Dec;1(2):98–103. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2016.04.003 28299366

20. Skillern AA, Cedars MI, Huddleston HG. Egg Donor Informed Consent Tool (EDICT): development and validation of a new informed consent tool for oocyte donors. Fertil Steril. 2013 May;99(6):1733–1738.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.096 23410899

21. Skillern AA, Cedars MI, Huddleston HG. Oocyte donors’ comprehension as assessed by the EDICT (Egg Donor Informed Consent Tool). Fertil Steril. 2014 Jan;101(1):248–51. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.018 24140037

22. Pennings G. Commentary on Craft and Thornhill: new ethical strategies to recruit gamete donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Jan;10(3):307–9. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61788-9 15820033

23. Craft I, Flyckt S, Heeley G, Layland S, Thornhill A, Kelada E. Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Jan;10(3):325–9. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61791-9 15820037

24. Frith L, Blyth E, Farrand A. UK gamete donors’ reflections on the removal of anonymity: implications for recruitment. Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun 1;22(6):1675–80. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem061 17449513


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1