Indecent proposal: $5,000 is not "reasonable compensation" for oocyte donors

There is a growing threat to the practice of oocyte donation in the United States and all of us should take careful notice. This threat is posed by the escalating fees paid to young women for providing these services. I was shocked by the decision of St. Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, New Jersey to double the compensation from the community standard of $2,500 to a startling $5,000 per cycle. These new fees were aggressively advertised throughout New Jersey and Manhattan in strategic periodicals, newspapers, and magazines. I was even more dismayed to see physicians and “ethicists” justifying the increase to the media (1) stating “there is nothing inherently wrong with bidding for human eggs.” For years, I have advocated compensation to oocyte donors based upon time, effort, and risk of involvement. I have addressed this topic at speaking engagements and in position papers, typically defending the belief that physicians are capable of responsible restraint (2, 3). However, I have been increasingly concerned over the encroachment upon the traditional practice by both commercial enterprises and physician-led groups who have inflated the cost of donor compensation 500% in the past decade. In most countries it is illegal to provide any compensation for oocyte donors. Many believe payment is inappropriate and many more agree that excessive compensation is ethically unacceptable, since it potentially exploits or even coerces young women to participate. Even if one considers the time spent traveling to the local office and waiting for an ultrasound exam to be “work,” donors now will be earning in excess of $300 per hour. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks this “reasonable compensation” according to the recommendations of the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (4). If we are truly not guilty of “pimping for patients” (5) and if donors are not “selling eggs,” then we cannot justify another doubling of the compensation. I believe this is a flagrant violation of the Ethical Considerations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies issued in 1994 (4). What is most disappointing is that this violation comes from a highly respected group led by physicians held in esteem within our subspecialty, who stated in The New York Times “I’m not sure $5,000 is enough.” (1) I would ask them, “How much is enough?” Where does this stop and at what price to our patients and our profession? Inevitably, all of us will be forced to raise our compensation rates to meet this challenge. Most importantly, and most unfortunately, these expenses will have to be passed on directly to our patients, who are already spending considerable sums of money to seek this procedure. I have always opposed government regulation and intervention, and I have often taken a public stand in defending our right to administer our own practices. However, for the first time in my career I am rethinking my position. If physicians are forced to drastically modify their practices to keep pace with commercial ventures or to compete with doctors whose modus operandi is “what the market will bear,” an approach to medicine so flagrantly greedy as to threaten the existence of the field, then I do believe it is time for regulation. These are truly sad events, and if we stand by and allow these changes to become standard operating procedure then we as professionals deserve the public criticism that will inevitably follow.