Return to Index  

Interesting . . .

July 28 2015 at 1:37 PM
Maggie in VA  (Login maggie1961)

Response to Haha! Can't spell either.


"I swear I am sober."

Yeah, like we care. happy.gif Anyway, as usual, there is the frustration of news outlets going into exquisite detail about the process and the risks without mentioning that, for the most part, this is the same process that all women undergoing IVF with their own eggs experience. When.will.they.stop.that? What surprised me is that there doesn't seem to be any mention of the fact that these compensation rates have not be altered, to my knowledge, to take inflation into account. When were those rates established? You know, this is not supposed to be a free market process, which is what some donors want it to be. If there is a shortage of donors at current compensation rates, then the clinics will be pounding at SART and ASRM's doors to get those levels increased.

But I also don't think those rates are observed when agency donors are involved. Others will surely have more information. You know, the image of desperate women selling their eggs to recipients to the highest price, risking their health to do it, is pretty absurd. If a woman isn't healthy enough to donate, she'll be excluded by the clinic. If what they mean is women taking the ordinary health risks of donation, well, then those risks are fairly small. No one is forcing anyone to donate their oocytes (well, that we know of). I don't think the plaintiffs are going to succeed, because I think these compensation standards are voluntary, and I think they are also widely not observed with agency donors, at least.

Maggie (in VA)

 Respond to this message   

  1. I agree with you - thesameboat on Jul 29, 2015, 1:26 AM
Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement