Advanced search
1 file | 239.42 KB Add to list

Sperm sharing : as problematic as oocyte sharing?

Guido Pennings (UGent)
(2022) HUMAN REPRODUCTION. 37(6). p.1101-1105
Author
Organization
Abstract
Sperm sharing has recently been introduced in a number of clinics in the UK. In all gamete sharing schemes, two goals can be distinguished: increasing the donor pool and enabling less affluent patients to access IVF treatment. This article compares sperm sharing with oocyte sharing in order to determine whether the differences and similarities affect the moral acceptability of the practice. It then compares sperm sharers with regular sperm donors and notices that sperm sharers seem to have fewer rights than regular sperm donors. The next step is to look at the alternatives to reach the two goals of sharing schemes. Regarding the first goal of increasing the donor pool, there are alternative procedures that are minimally coercive and where less affluent people are not targeted. Regarding the goal of increasing access to IVF treatment, clinics could propose cheaper IVF protocols to less affluent people or offer the IVF cycle at reduced prices. I conclude that the ethical problems caused by sharing schemes that offer financial benefits in return for oocytes or sperm can be avoided by using alternatives.
Keywords
altruism, oocyte sharing, ethics, gamete donation, reimbursement, sperm sharing, EGG, DONORS, DONATION, ACCESS, CARE

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 239.42 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Pennings, Guido. “Sperm Sharing : As Problematic as Oocyte Sharing?” HUMAN REPRODUCTION, vol. 37, no. 6, 2022, pp. 1101–05, doi:10.1093/humrep/deac087.
APA
Pennings, G. (2022). Sperm sharing : as problematic as oocyte sharing? HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 37(6), 1101–1105. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac087
Chicago author-date
Pennings, Guido. 2022. “Sperm Sharing : As Problematic as Oocyte Sharing?” HUMAN REPRODUCTION 37 (6): 1101–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac087.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Pennings, Guido. 2022. “Sperm Sharing : As Problematic as Oocyte Sharing?” HUMAN REPRODUCTION 37 (6): 1101–1105. doi:10.1093/humrep/deac087.
Vancouver
1.
Pennings G. Sperm sharing : as problematic as oocyte sharing? HUMAN REPRODUCTION. 2022;37(6):1101–5.
IEEE
[1]
G. Pennings, “Sperm sharing : as problematic as oocyte sharing?,” HUMAN REPRODUCTION, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1101–1105, 2022.
@article{8757160,
  abstract     = {{Sperm sharing has recently been introduced in a number of clinics in the UK. In all gamete sharing schemes, two goals can be distinguished: increasing the donor pool and enabling less affluent patients to access IVF treatment. This article compares sperm sharing with oocyte sharing in order to determine whether the differences and similarities affect the moral acceptability of the practice. It then compares sperm sharers with regular sperm donors and notices that sperm sharers seem to have fewer rights than regular sperm donors. The next step is to look at the alternatives to reach the two goals of sharing schemes. Regarding the first goal of increasing the donor pool, there are alternative procedures that are minimally coercive and where less affluent people are not targeted. Regarding the goal of increasing access to IVF treatment, clinics could propose cheaper IVF protocols to less affluent people or offer the IVF cycle at reduced prices. I conclude that the ethical problems caused by sharing schemes that offer financial benefits in return for oocytes or sperm can be avoided by using alternatives.}},
  author       = {{Pennings, Guido}},
  issn         = {{0268-1161}},
  journal      = {{HUMAN REPRODUCTION}},
  keywords     = {{altruism,oocyte sharing,ethics,gamete donation,reimbursement,sperm sharing,EGG,DONORS,DONATION,ACCESS,CARE}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{6}},
  pages        = {{1101--1105}},
  title        = {{Sperm sharing : as problematic as oocyte sharing?}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deac087}},
  volume       = {{37}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: