Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Oocyte Donation
-
Leila chalova
,
Vyacheslav Lokshin
,
Vladimir Kiyan
,
Botagoz Turdaliyeva
,
Karlygash Zhybanisheva
,
Arman Kinzhibayev
Abstract
Background: A number of important problems remain unresolved in the field of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) using germ cells from a single donor. We aimed to assess attitudes about the use of sex gamete donation in ART in different social groups including medical workers, oocyte recipients, and oocyte donors.
Methods: To achieve this goal, we surveyed 286 participants from seven countries. Of them, 190 were medical workers from ART clinics (respondents from seven countries), 45 were oocyte recipients, and 51 were oocyte donors.
Results: The main motive for oocyte donation was financial compensation, which draws attention to the social disadvantage of the donor population. Medical workers with more than 5 years of work experience (79.7%) supported the use of programs tracking donor sex cells and limiting the use of oocyte donors.
Conclusion: The willingness and consent of the surveyed medical workers and oocyte recipients to use the donor material and create a unified registry of donor sex cells demonstrates the importance of this issue.
1. Chalova LR, Lokshin VN (2020). [Mito-chondrial replacement therapy: future or present?] Reproductive Medicine, 2 (43): 7-12.
2. Kashir J, Jones C, Child T, et al (2012). Via-bility assessment for artificial gametes: the need for biomarkers of functional competency. Biol Reprod, 87 (5): 114.
3. Practice Committee of the American Socie-ty for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2013). Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 99 (1): 47-62.e1.
4. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG (1978). Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet, 2 (8085): 366.
5. Healthcare Ministry of the Republic of Ka-zakhstan (2020). Order of December 15, 2020 No. KR DCM -272/2020 “On ap-proval of the rules and conditions for the implementation of assisted repro-ductive methods and technologies”. Adilet: Legal information system of reg-ulatory legal acts of the Republic of Ka-zakhstan [cited 2024 Jan 21].
6. Negro F, Varone MC, Del Rio A (2020). Advances in medically-assisted procrea-tion technologies: can malpractice claims and "reproductive damage" be identified. Clin Ter, 171 (3): e225-8.
7. Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2020). Code of the Republic of Kazakh-stan of July 7, 2020, No. 360-VI ZRK “On the health of the people and the health care system”. Kazahstanskaja Pravda [The Kazakh Truth] 08.07.2020, No. 130 (29257).
8. Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2011). Code of the Republic of Kazakh-stan of December 26, 2011, No. 518-IV "On marriage (matrimony) and family". Kazahstanskaja Pravda [The Kazakh Truth] 07.01.2012, No. 6-7 (26825-26826).
9. Ahuja KK, Simons EG, Edwards RG (1999). Money, morals and medical risks: con-flicting notions underlying the recruit-ment of egg donors. Hum Reprod, 14 (2): 279-84.
10. Montanari Vergallo G, Marinelli E, di Luca NM, et al (2018). Gamete donation: Are children entitled to know their genetic origins? A comparison of opposing views. The Italian state of affairs. Eur J Health Law, 25 (3): 322-37.
11. Zaami S (2018). Assisted heterologous ferti-lization and the right of donorcon-ceived children to know their biological origins. Clin Ter, 169 (1): e39-e43.
12. Jordan CB, Belar CD, Williams RS (2004). Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up analysis of donors' experiences. J Psy-chosom Obstet Gynaecol, 25 (2): 145-51.
13. Söderström-Anttila V, Miettinen A, Rot-kirch A, et al (2016). Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anony-mous, identity-release and known oocyte donors. Hum Reprod, 31 (3): 597-606.
14. Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjö G, Lampic C (2020). Psychosocial aspects of identity-release gamete donation - perspectives of donors, recipients, and offspring. Ups J Med Sci, 125 (2): 175-82.
15. Svanberg AS, Sydsjö G, Bladh M, et al (2016). Attitudes about donor infor-mation differ greatly between IVF cou-ples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm. J Assist Reprod Genet, 33 (6): 703-10.
16. Purewal S, van den Akker OB (2009). Sys-tematic review of oocyte donation: in-vestigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update, 15 (5): 499-515.
17. Brändström S, Schlette P, Przybeck TR (1998). Swedish normative data on per-sonality using the Temperament and Character Inventory. Compr Psychiatry, 39 (3): 122-8.
18. Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Gejervall AL, et al (2012). Gamete donors' motivation in a Swedish national sample: is there any ambivalence? A descriptive study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 91 (8): 944-51.
19. Piersanti V, Consalvo F, Signore F, et al (2021). Surrogacy and "Procreative tour-ism". What does the future hold from the ethical and legal perspectives? Medic-ina (Kaunas), 57 (1): 47.
20. Brandão P, Garrido N (2022). Commercial surrogacy: An overview. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet, 44 (12): 1141-58.
21. Aylamazyan EK, Baranov VS (2007). Prena-tal diagnostics of hereditary and congenital dis-eases. Moscow: MED press-inform, 365 p.
22. Kononova SK, Sidorova OG, Fedorova SA, et al (2014). Bioethical issues of prevent-ing hereditary diseases with late onset in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). Int J Cir-cumpolar Health, 73: 25062.
2. Kashir J, Jones C, Child T, et al (2012). Via-bility assessment for artificial gametes: the need for biomarkers of functional competency. Biol Reprod, 87 (5): 114.
3. Practice Committee of the American Socie-ty for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2013). Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 99 (1): 47-62.e1.
4. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG (1978). Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet, 2 (8085): 366.
5. Healthcare Ministry of the Republic of Ka-zakhstan (2020). Order of December 15, 2020 No. KR DCM -272/2020 “On ap-proval of the rules and conditions for the implementation of assisted repro-ductive methods and technologies”. Adilet: Legal information system of reg-ulatory legal acts of the Republic of Ka-zakhstan [cited 2024 Jan 21].
6. Negro F, Varone MC, Del Rio A (2020). Advances in medically-assisted procrea-tion technologies: can malpractice claims and "reproductive damage" be identified. Clin Ter, 171 (3): e225-8.
7. Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2020). Code of the Republic of Kazakh-stan of July 7, 2020, No. 360-VI ZRK “On the health of the people and the health care system”. Kazahstanskaja Pravda [The Kazakh Truth] 08.07.2020, No. 130 (29257).
8. Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2011). Code of the Republic of Kazakh-stan of December 26, 2011, No. 518-IV "On marriage (matrimony) and family". Kazahstanskaja Pravda [The Kazakh Truth] 07.01.2012, No. 6-7 (26825-26826).
9. Ahuja KK, Simons EG, Edwards RG (1999). Money, morals and medical risks: con-flicting notions underlying the recruit-ment of egg donors. Hum Reprod, 14 (2): 279-84.
10. Montanari Vergallo G, Marinelli E, di Luca NM, et al (2018). Gamete donation: Are children entitled to know their genetic origins? A comparison of opposing views. The Italian state of affairs. Eur J Health Law, 25 (3): 322-37.
11. Zaami S (2018). Assisted heterologous ferti-lization and the right of donorcon-ceived children to know their biological origins. Clin Ter, 169 (1): e39-e43.
12. Jordan CB, Belar CD, Williams RS (2004). Anonymous oocyte donation: a follow-up analysis of donors' experiences. J Psy-chosom Obstet Gynaecol, 25 (2): 145-51.
13. Söderström-Anttila V, Miettinen A, Rot-kirch A, et al (2016). Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anony-mous, identity-release and known oocyte donors. Hum Reprod, 31 (3): 597-606.
14. Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjö G, Lampic C (2020). Psychosocial aspects of identity-release gamete donation - perspectives of donors, recipients, and offspring. Ups J Med Sci, 125 (2): 175-82.
15. Svanberg AS, Sydsjö G, Bladh M, et al (2016). Attitudes about donor infor-mation differ greatly between IVF cou-ples using their own gametes and those receiving or donating oocytes or sperm. J Assist Reprod Genet, 33 (6): 703-10.
16. Purewal S, van den Akker OB (2009). Sys-tematic review of oocyte donation: in-vestigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum Reprod Update, 15 (5): 499-515.
17. Brändström S, Schlette P, Przybeck TR (1998). Swedish normative data on per-sonality using the Temperament and Character Inventory. Compr Psychiatry, 39 (3): 122-8.
18. Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Gejervall AL, et al (2012). Gamete donors' motivation in a Swedish national sample: is there any ambivalence? A descriptive study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 91 (8): 944-51.
19. Piersanti V, Consalvo F, Signore F, et al (2021). Surrogacy and "Procreative tour-ism". What does the future hold from the ethical and legal perspectives? Medic-ina (Kaunas), 57 (1): 47.
20. Brandão P, Garrido N (2022). Commercial surrogacy: An overview. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet, 44 (12): 1141-58.
21. Aylamazyan EK, Baranov VS (2007). Prena-tal diagnostics of hereditary and congenital dis-eases. Moscow: MED press-inform, 365 p.
22. Kononova SK, Sidorova OG, Fedorova SA, et al (2014). Bioethical issues of prevent-ing hereditary diseases with late onset in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia). Int J Cir-cumpolar Health, 73: 25062.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 54 No 3 (2025) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v54i3.18254 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Gamete donation Donation motives Donor rights Oocyte donors Assisted reproductive technologies | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
chalova L, Lokshin V, Kiyan V, Turdaliyeva B, Zhybanisheva K, Kinzhibayev A. Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Oocyte Donation. Iran J Public Health. 2025;54(3):607-614.
