Tag: egg donors

Bioethics Blogs

When Women are Surrogate Mothers: Is that work?

Alana Cattapan, Angela Cameron, and Vanessa Gruben warn that speaking about “compensation” is a way of avoiding difficult conversations about payment to surrogates.

__________________________________________

A recent Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) news article reported that the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) has called for the federal government to reconsider the ban on payment for surrogacy in Canada. The article suggests that industry professionals and academics alike are coming around on compensation for surrogacy, with support growing all the time.

In Canada, payment for surrogacy, egg donation, and sperm donation is banned under the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Under the Act, surrogates (like egg donors and sperm donors) can be reimbursed for receipted expenses. With a note from their doctor, surrogates can also receive some money for lost work-related income during pregnancy.

The Act states that this reimbursement of expenses must follow the relevant regulations. Until now, however, these regulations have never been drafted. After more than a decade, Health Canada is now in the throes of making them. This is occurring as surrogacy in Canada is expanding to accommodate more and more people from countries where surrogacy is more expensive, harder to access or banned completely.

Women Working in a Field by Winslow Homer 1867.

It is in this context that the CFAS (which is a part-medical association, part-industry organization representing the fertility industry and its doctors, lawyers, scientists and ethicists) has called for the government to reconsider the ban on payment.

 It is important to know that the market in surrogacy in Canada is a profitable one.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

In the Journals – June 2017, part two by Aaron Seaman

The first part of the In the Journals post for June 2017 can be found here. And now, for part two…

 

Medical Humanities

SPECIAL ISSUE: Communicating Mental Health

Introduction: historical contexts to communicating mental health

Rebecca Wynter and Leonard Smith

Contemporary discussions around language, stigma and care in mental health, the messages these elements transmit, and the means through which they have been conveyed, have a long and deep lineage. Recognition and exploration of this lineage can inform how we communicate about mental health going forward, as reflected by the 9 papers which make up this special issue. Our introduction provides some framework for the history of communicating mental health over the past 300 years. We will show that there have been diverse ways and means of describing, disseminating and discussing mental health, in relation both to therapeutic practices and between practitioners, patients and the public. Communicating about mental health, we argue, has been informed by the desire for positive change, as much as by developments in reporting, legislation and technology. However, while the modes of communication have developed, the issues involved remain essentially the same. Most practitioners have sought to understand and to innovate, though not always with positive results. Some lost sight of patients as people; patients have felt and have been ignored or silenced by doctors and carers. Money has always talked, for without adequate investment services and care have suffered, contributing to the stigma surrounding mental illness. While it is certainly ‘time to talk’ to improve experiences, it is also time to change the language that underpins cultural attitudes towards mental illness, time to listen to people with mental health issues and, crucially, time to hear.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: May 5, 2017

Image via

Politics

What Obama’s Former Ethics Counsel Thinks of Trump
Norm Eisen, former ethics counsel to President Obama and co-founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) discusses the ethical issues of the Trump administration’s first 100 days.

White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order
A win for conservatives, especially the Vice President, the new religious liberty executive order is expected to be signed Thursday.

Ethics office says it wasn’t consulted about Ivanka Trump job
Ivanka Trump was brought on as a White House adviser without consulting the Office of Government Ethics.

State Department Promotes Ivanka Trump’s Book In Another Ethics Blunder
A State Department office retweeted post promoting Ivanka Trump’s new book despite federal rule that bars the use of public office for private gain.

Bioethics and Medical Ethics

This New App Is Tinder For Sperm And Egg Donors
“The ethical and legal complexities of egg-shopping.”

Jimmy Kimmel’s powerful, poignant Obamacare plea crystallizes the GOP’s dilemma
Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made an emotional plea to lawmakers to fund health-care spending for preexisting conditions, discussing his newborn son Billy’s heart condition on his show.

Firestorm brewing as scientists work to create synthetic human DNA
Scientists say that synthesized human DNA could be a reality in as little as 5 years, invoking ethical questions and concerns.

Informed Consent Becoming More Difficult?
“The recent decision in Ike White v. David Beeks, M.D., has threatened to turn this consent process on its head, especially if it were to be adopted in other states.”

5 things to know about infertility treatments
Treatment for infertility can be expensive and clinics are scarce, calling into question ethics issues.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

From Harry Potter to Jesus – A transfigurative conference report by Laura Perler

 

Credit: Transcultural Studies, University of St. Gallen

Conference report on the anniversary conference: ‘Transfigurationen: Medizin macht Gesellschaft macht Medizin’, 17-18 February 2017, organised by the working group Medical Anthropology Switzerland of the Swiss Anthropological Association (SEG), Wiener Dialoge der Medizinanthropologie (Vienna Dialogues on Medical Anthropology) and the Work Group Medical Anthropology of the German Anthropological Association (GAA).

As medical anthropologists, we expect to learn about diverse places and people, and topics ranging from birth to death. We might not, however, anticipate hearing repeatedly about Harry Potter and Jesus. Both were named by multiple panellists at the tri-national conference on ‘Transfigurations’ in Basel as key figures in their quest to grasp the conference’s topic. Transfigurations?! Is it the kind of magical transformation from rat to tea cup as described in JK Rowling’s novels, or does it reference the pivotal moment when Jesus was transfigured and became radiant in glory upon a mountain? If it be either of these, what is the connection to medical anthropology? Transfigurations?! Is it just an intellectual phantasm of the conference organisers, bored by transformations and figurations, and inspired by the widely used trans– prefix? Transfigurations?! Or is it in the end just another word for assemblages? Read this conference report and you might be inspired by the diverse interpretations and applications of the term, and perhaps even feel yourself transfigured by transfigurations…

 

Panels

The first panel, ‘Therapeutic landscapes: Pharmaceuticals, commodification and epistemologies’, was chaired by Angelika Wolf (Freie Universität Berlin). Stephan Kloos (Austrian Academy of Sciences) began with his talk on the transfigurations of traditional Asiatic medicine.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Rara avis in terris: a new abortion argument

It’s a rare week that sees a new twist in the decades-old abortion debate. But this is that week.

Writing in the journal Bioethics, two researchers from the University of Toronto contend that that women have a right to abortion, but no right to kill a foetus. In support of their startling argument they invoke bioethicists Peter Singer and Judith Jarvis Thompson, two of the most intrepid supporters of abortion rights.

This needs a bit of unpacking, so here goes.

Eric Mathison and Jeremy Davis point out that theorists like Singer and Thompson have distinguished between the right to an abortion (expelling an unborn child from the womb) and the right to kill an independent foetus. Since abortion is nearly always lethal with current technology, abortion is identified with killing. But theoretically, they are distinct.

In a well-known passage Thompson says:

I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist; but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him.

And Singer writes, with Deane Wells

Freedom to choose what is to happen to one’s body is one thing; freedom to insist on the death of a being that is capable of living outside one’s body is another.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

‘We Simply Don’t Know’: Egg Donors Face Uncertain Long-Term Risks

February 1, 2017

(STAT News) – When Catherine Fonseca volunteered as an egg donor, the intake form asked for her SAT scores. It did not ask if she understood the long-term health implications of stimulating her ovaries to produce a bumper crop of eggs to be extracted and turned over to an infertile couple. That wasn’t an oversight by the clinic. No one knows the long-term risks to egg donors — if, in fact, there are any. Anecdotally, some women — Fonseca among them — said they experienced an array of health problems after donations, including ovarian cysts and endometriosis, a painful inflammatory disease that can cause infertility.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Destination Laos: the ever-changing surrogacy business changes again

The dreary design of the website and Facebook page of Find Surrogate Mother (aka surrogacy inc) makes depressing reading. The business describes itself as “a full service Surrogacy Agency in Manila, Philippines, helping to match Surrogate Mothers, Intended Parents, Egg Donors, Sperm Donors [which] provide[s] services for Heterosexual Couple, Gay Couple, Lesbian Couple, Single Woman, Single Man.”  

For desperately poor Filipino women, it must seem like a golden opportunity.

Unfortunately for them, the Filipino government is cracking down on what it describes as a “human trafficking syndicate”. It detained four women on New Year’s Day as they were about to leave Manila for Phnom Penh, there to be impregnated with the sperm of men from Australia, Germany, China and Nigeria. They were to be paid US$10,000.

Philippine Immigration Commissioner Jaime Morente said the police had uncovered “a new modus operandi of a human trafficking syndicate that preys on our Filipino women who are enticed to bear children of strangers for a fee because of their poverty”.

Surrogacy for foreign clients is officially illegal in Cambodia, but surrogacy brokers are still active there, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The incident shows just how flexible the surrogacy industry is. Only months after surrogacy clinics for foreigners were closed in India, Thailand, and Sri Lanka, they opened in Phnom Penh. According to the Herald, “The operators look for poor, lightly regulated countries that don’t have laws dealing directly with surrogacy, such as Cambodia.”

With the crackdown in Cambodia, the operators are simply shifting their business to Laos.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Biopolitical News of 2016

The biggest surprise of the year was probably the birth, in Mexico, of a baby who was conceived following controversial mitochondrial manipulation (“3-parent IVF”). The location was chosen by a New York-based fertility doctor who noted that in Mexico “there are no rules.” Since 3-person IVF is technically a form of inheritable genetic modification, one big question is whether its increasing use and normalization will open the door to wider acceptance of gene editing for human reproduction.

The gene editing shockwaves of 2015 – when Crispr was first applied in human embryos, and controversy about the prospect of using it for human reproduction became explicit – developed into a somewhat more predictable flood of activity and comment in 2016. The big, and unfortunate, news here is perhaps the non-news: the absence of any significant efforts to encourage public participation in deliberations about whether powerful new genetic manipulation tools should be used in efforts to control the traits of future children and generations.

The most consequential news of the year for biopolitics as for so much else may well turn out to be the US presidential election result, but the consequences themselves remain somewhat unclear. Trump’s comments about having “the right genes” are ominous warning signs, which are perhaps getting worse, as partly described below.

Cross-border commercial surrogacy was in the news this year because of scandals, disputes, and changes in the laws of several nations where it had taken hold. Commercial pressures were particularly apparent in the slick marketing being used to promote egg freezing among young women with no fertility problems.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Clarifying the AHR Act After 12 Long Years

Alana Cattapan calls on Health Canada to ensure substantive public engagement including surrogates and gamete donors in policymaking on assisted reproduction.

__________________________________________

On October 1, 2016 the Government of Canada announced that it will be introducing regulations to clarify and implement the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004), twelve years after its passage. In addition to improving screening and testing for gamete donors, the new regulations will “clarify eligible reimbursable expenses for parties involved in surrogacy arrangements, and semen and ova donation.”

Currently, reimbursements of “expenditures” for surrogates, sperm donors, and egg donors can occur when receipts are available “in accordance with the regulations.” However, since the passage of the Act there have been no regulations. As a result, it has been unclear whether, how, and for what reimbursements can occur. The new regulations will provide guidance about what is a legitimate expense under the law, ensuring that people helping others have a child are not out of pocket in doing so. Presuming that they are enforced, the regulations should also work to ensure that reimbursements to surrogates and gamete donors occur within the bounds of the law.

While clarity in the Act’s provisions on reimbursements is an important goal, the process being used to develop the regulations has continued the long-standing practice of failing to include surrogates and gamete donors in policy consultations.

The announcement of the proposed regulations follows a controversial consultation process about the reimbursement of expenditures under the Act. In 2015, Health Canada asked the Canadian Standards Association to develop voluntary standards on the reimbursement of expenditures in accordance with the Act.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Reflections on Egg Donation in Canada

Claire Burns recommends legal and practical changes for promoting the ethical treatment of egg donors within Canada.

__________________________________________

Have you heard? The Government of Canada plans to introduce regulations to support the Assisted Human Reproduction Act of 2004! Amazing! I’m jumping for joy! After more than 12 years, the government may finally make good on its promise to protect the interests of women involved in assisted reproduction.

I’m Claire, and I am an egg donor.  I am also an egg donor advocate. Much of my advocacy work is done through the We are Egg Donors website. As part of that work, sometimes I get asked to be speak on the radio or to talk to journalists. ALWAYS I am asked, “how much do you think egg donors should get paid?” Often the question is asked as if it’s news that women are getting paid to sell parts of their bodies. Yeah. That’s a real modern day news story.  Let me tell you Canada, illegal payments and reimbursement to so-called ‘donors’ is only the TIP of the ethical iceberg. Swim deep here with me friends, swim deep.

According to the Government notice from Health Canada, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act “was written to be a comprehensive legislative framework to help protect and promote the health, safety, dignity and rights of individuals who use or are born of assisted human reproductive technologies in Canada.” The problem with this statement is that egg donors don’t technically USE assisted human reproductive technologies. Rather, reproductive technologies are USED on us.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.