As I’ve discussed here before, although demand for assisted reproductive services is on the rise, Intended Parents in other countries continue to face legal constraints that restrict their access to these family-building options. One of my team’s goals is to help provide Intended Parents around the world with the same opportunities, cost savings and exceptional level of service available to those needing assisted reproduction in the U.S. To that end, this week we’re at the 26th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in Rome, Italy (exhibiting at Hall F, Booth C7).

In the UK, it is illegal to compensate donors for donating their eggs and lack of anonymity is often a major deterrent for potential donors. Surrogacy laws also forbid advertising for surrogates or to be a surrogate. The result is a shortage of egg donors and surrogates, compounding the frustration and heartache facing those with fertility challenges.

With its progressive reproductive laws and a favorable climate for recruiting and compensating egg donors and gestational surrogates, the U.S. provides international Intended Parents with family-building options that are often unavailable in their native countries. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of international Intended Parents coming to the U.S. seeking fertility treatments using third-party reproductive techniques. In fact, ConceiveAbilities has seen a 30% increase in patients from abroad in the past year.

You can find a more on this trend in our press release. I look forward to reporting here on industry news from the ESHRE conference in the next few days.

-Nazca

In case you missed it late last week, several major outlets – including U.S. News & World Report and USA Today – wrote features on the birth control pill’s 50th anniversary. I thought the irony of the pill turning 50 on Mother’s Day was really striking. These articles cited many ways the pill has changed lives, but perhaps none so much as the many reproductive options and choices women now have, including using, or even being, an egg donor or surrogate. The advances in the field of infertility likely would not have come this far without the greater demand that resulted from women being inspired to take control of their own destinies. The pill helped women realize there were options and want to pursue them.

With those advances, women have more control over when they will become mothers. They can choose to pursue careers first before settling down. In fact, according to one story, “more babies today are born to women over 35 than to teenagers, according to a study released on Thursday by the Pew Research Center–a clear sign we’re taking measures to delay reproduction.” This choice certainly comes with other considerations and is not the right one for everyone, but the option is there.

Women now have more options for family building and are more aware of those options. The simple truth is that it does become more difficult to get pregnant as a woman gets older. By being educated about her choices down the line, a woman can decide whether waiting is the right option for her.

As the pill delivered control to women on many levels, it also drove technical advances and education around reproduction – all contributing in a woman’s increased ability to make better life decisions for herself and control her own destiny.

-provided by guest blogger, Kate Palm, Program Coordinator at ConceiveAbilities

Some of you may have seen this latest entry to the debate on egg donor compensation, sparked by a U.S.-based fertility clinic’s promotion to attract intended parents to a free educational seminar in London. In an attempt to introduce new options for Brits hoping to start a family, The Genetics and IVF Institute said that one seminar attendee would receive free treatment cycle of IVF and donor eggs for women requiring that treatment option. Within days, the media picked up the story that human eggs were being “raffled off” and quoted several appalled and offended British experts and government authorities.

I’m almost unsure where to start in discussing the AP article that appeared today. I guess the inaccuracies are probably a good place. The article states that “In the U.S., women are routinely paid from $10,000 to $35,000 or more for their eggs.” This is absolutely false. Donors are routinely paid $4,000-$10,000 by reputable agencies and any amount over that is in violation of the guidelines established by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). I can’t say that there aren’t instances where donors have been paid more, but it is certainly not a routine practice.

But the real issue here is that Great Britain only allows what it calls “altruistic egg donation” which puts a cap on donor compensation at approximately $400. This is said to “protect the dignity of donors and recipients.” I have to say this idea truly offends me. In the United States, egg donors (as well as recipients) are rigorously screened and counseled by psychological, legal and medical experts. They arrive at the conclusion that egg donation is right for them after evaluating the risks and benefits of the procedure. The women who make it through the screening are smart, logical and clear minded in the decision of what is best for them and their bodies. The notion that the government is the only one who can protect their “dignity” as an egg donor is condescending and offensive.

Plus, as I’ve always said, I don’t believe any woman would put herself through the physically and emotionally taxing process of egg donation strictly for the compensation. On the flip side, not providing appropriate compensation for the significant time and inconvenience that accompanies the commitment made by an egg donor clearly serves as a deterrent. And, $400 is clearly not appropriate.

The truth is women will not go through the rigorous IVF protocol for an amount of compensation that does not begin to adequately reflect the time and energy required to complete the process. As a result, donor eggs will not be available for intended parents. This can easily be seen by the growing number of couples leaving countries with these types of bans to seek treatment where free reproductive will is supported – like the U.S. This really just shines a light on “altruistic donation” as a failed concept under the current structure in Great Britain, leaving patients clamoring for the opportunity to have a baby in a way they deem appropriate between consenting adults. Now, to add insult to injury, they’ll have to travel far and wide for that opportunity.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
-Nazca