Blog

I have praised Dr. Gupta on the blog before [“Egg Donation and the Economy”, October 28] as the only journalist to point out the biggest flaw in the “egg donor surge” story: most women who apply for egg donation, about 9 out of 10, do not qualify.

He was able to get the story right because he is a doctor as wellas a journalist.

Some people are reacting to his nomination as if Obama asked General Hospital’s Dr. Alan Quartermaine to be Federal Reserve Chairman. But the Surgeon General is really a spokesman, basically, and Dr. Sanjay Gupta really is a doctor, and I think he is a great choice. People know him and will likely listen to him. He appears enlightened and independent. He is also younger and better looking than the average Surgeon General, but let’s not hold that against him.

I couldn’t imagine Obama attempting to politicize the position the way that Bush did with Richard Carmona. Maybe Dr. Gupta could make a real impact on the public awareness of stem cell research, reproductive rights, assisted reproduction and infertility, and other controversial issues. During the conservative Reagan era, C. Everett Koop bravely and sensibly took on the AIDS epidemic when there was a great deal of public fear and misunderstanding. It would be great if Gupta could keep public health issues focused on good science rather than politics, religion, and prejudice.

“Ova Time: Women Line Up To Donate Eggs – For Money”

Melinda Beck’s piece in today’s Wall Street Journal was overall accurate. It even acknowledged the cost for the recipient side.

It also acknowledges the ASRM’s limit on compensation and mentions one donor agency that ignores it, since “the offer brings in donors who might not otherwise be interested.” But that is just the point of the limit; a compensation of $50,000 can be unduly coercive. Furthermore, since any legitimate clinic is a member of the ASRM and therefore pledges to abide by its guidelines, what clinic would agree to work with these donors? These exorbitant fees depend on ethical breaches by more than just the agency, but the doctor as well.

The ASRM’s compensation limit was set in 2000, and reiterated in 2007 but not updated. I think the changing times require an update to $12,000 or more. But until it is official, in our egg donation program we will keep our compensation at $10,000. It is worth it to keep our ethical standards.

The broadcast networks are catching up with this old story about the alleged “surge” in egg donations. In ABC’s video “Egg Donations On The Rise” (shown on Good Morning America), they had one clinic owner testify that applications are up about 50%. However, the piece assumed throughout that anyone who applied could actually donate eggs; it never distinguished between egg donor candidates and actual donors.

This caused some major inaccuracies. Anyone can apply to be an egg donor; only a small percentage, about 10%, will go on to donate. There was no claim that the actual number of egg donor cycles have increased as well. [See my earlier post: Egg Donation and the Economy.]

Another claim, that a “decline in standards” would be an inevitable consequence of this influx of egg donors, is illogical on two counts. First, the bigger the pool of applicants, the more selective recipients and doctors can be; second, FDA regulations for screening are uniform and not a matter of interpretation. The report implied that egg donation agencies screen candidates, but in fact, medical professionals do. Corners are never cut in order to accommodate any candidate; it’s against the law. Although it provided no evidence, the piece implied, however, that these risks are taken. It puts a sensationalistic spin on the story, no matter how erroneous.

NBC Nightly News did a segment (“Surge in Egg Donations Raises Concerns“) which covered the alleged surge in context of the health of the egg donor,