egg donor antitrust lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can folks with infertility truly not see the other side of this debate?

of course they can't on this forum there are some folks I see selfish crazy and whiny trolls, they will argue their a$$es off and never would let their EGO let go...

this topic is such a waste of space on this forum.

[Anonymous]

I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

Fair enough on your adoption point. Some traits are allowed to be preselected with adoption, but not to the extent that egg donor selection allows. Eye color? I don't think so.

As for your comparison to cosmetic surgery, those elective surgeries come at a price! Plastic surgery to remove a scar is not covered by insurance. Correcting a cleff palate might be, but that is to make a person whole. And, before you argue that fertility treatments also make a person whole, that's not the issue here. The issue is the price differential for the preferred version of "whole" you want to accomplish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

Fair enough on your adoption point. Some traits are allowed to be preselected with adoption, but not to the extent that egg donor selection allows. Eye color? I don't think so.

As for your comparison to cosmetic surgery, those elective surgeries come at a price! Plastic surgery to remove a scar is not covered by insurance. Correcting a cleff palate might be, but that is to make a person whole. And, before you argue that fertility treatments also make a person whole, that's not the issue here. The issue is the price differential for the preferred version of "whole" you want to accomplish.

Stepping back, selecting the genetic makeup of your future children is exactly what fertile people do every day! What do you think dating is!? Why should recipients of egg/sperm donors not get to choose traits of their future children when everyone else does? The difference here is that it's done in a more direct and sterile way. But it's the same thing. Even still, since recipients don't get to actually meet their donors they have far less to go on than the rest of us. They can look at height, skin and hair color and educational background and some info about personality, but honestly that's not much to work with. The rest of us get to interview our prospective egg/sperm donors through months and years of courtship and marriage. We get a lot more information. Recipients are really not getting much to work with at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

Fair enough on your adoption point. Some traits are allowed to be preselected with adoption, but not to the extent that egg donor selection allows. Eye color? I don't think so.

As for your comparison to cosmetic surgery, those elective surgeries come at a price! Plastic surgery to remove a scar is not covered by insurance. Correcting a cleff palate might be, but that is to make a person whole. And, before you argue that fertility treatments also make a person whole, that's not the issue here. The issue is the price differential for the preferred version of "whole" you want to accomplish.

Stepping back, selecting the genetic makeup of your future children is exactly what fertile people do every day! What do you think dating is!? Why should recipients of egg/sperm donors not get to choose traits of their future children when everyone else does? The difference here is that it's done in a more direct and sterile way. But it's the same thing. Even still, since recipients don't get to actually meet their donors they have far less to go on than the rest of us. They can look at height, skin and hair color and educational background and some info about personality, but honestly that's not much to work with. The rest of us get to interview our prospective egg/sperm donors through months and years of courtship and marriage. We get a lot more information. Recipients are really not getting much to work with at all.

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine.

[Anonymous]

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine

Took the words right out of my mouth. I understand the desire for a child but it is so wrong to coerce women into giving up their eggs for paltry sums of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree that society should tilt towards those donating, who tend to be poorer and in worse positions financially than those seeking DE. We should not be prioritizing middle class DE seekers over women who truly could use a leg up in life. It seems so unfair to short change those women for the benefit of some middle class couple having an egg. Sorry, life isn't fair and we can't all have kids.


Clearly you are not going through IVF and have found out your only hope of a child is through DE. This is such an insensitive statement.

Some people are just not destined to be parents. It is a huge tragedy I agree but life doesn't always work out.

Mmmm... your father has a stroke and needs a quadruple bypass and stents. Or your child needs a kidney. Are they not destined to live because without complex and expensive medical treatment they would die? Not so clear cut now, is it?

There's a difference between maintaining a life and creating a new one.

There are plenty of lives being maintained on my tax dime, but somehow I should not be able to create one with my own money, unless I pay someone one hundred million billions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine

Took the words right out of my mouth. I understand the desire for a child but it is so wrong to coerce women into giving up their eggs for paltry sums of money.

Drama queen much? People do it willingly because they find compensation attractive. Who and how coerces the donors? And while several grand for you may be paltry, someplaces in the Midwest it goes a very long way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine

Took the words right out of my mouth. I understand the desire for a child but it is so wrong to coerce women into giving up their eggs for paltry sums of money.

Drama queen much? People do it willingly because they find compensation attractive. Who and how coerces the donors? And while several grand for you may be paltry, someplaces in the Midwest it goes a very long way.

NP here. It is a paltry amount given the risks. Capping the compensation also caps the quality of donor you get, as highly educated women will see that the compensation is not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

Fair enough on your adoption point. Some traits are allowed to be preselected with adoption, but not to the extent that egg donor selection allows. Eye color? I don't think so.

As for your comparison to cosmetic surgery, those elective surgeries come at a price! Plastic surgery to remove a scar is not covered by insurance. Correcting a cleff palate might be, but that is to make a person whole. And, before you argue that fertility treatments also make a person whole, that's not the issue here. The issue is the price differential for the preferred version of "whole" you want to accomplish.

Stepping back, selecting the genetic makeup of your future children is exactly what fertile people do every day! What do you think dating is!? Why should recipients of egg/sperm donors not get to choose traits of their future children when everyone else does? The difference here is that it's done in a more direct and sterile way. But it's the same thing. Even still, since recipients don't get to actually meet their donors they have far less to go on than the rest of us. They can look at height, skin and hair color and educational background and some info about personality, but honestly that's not much to work with. The rest of us get to interview our prospective egg/sperm donors through months and years of courtship and marriage. We get a lot more information. Recipients are really not getting much to work with at all.

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine.

What I am saying is that selecting eggs based on genetic traits is not a luxury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine

Took the words right out of my mouth. I understand the desire for a child but it is so wrong to coerce women into giving up their eggs for paltry sums of money.

Drama queen much? People do it willingly because they find compensation attractive. Who and how coerces the donors? And while several grand for you may be paltry, someplaces in the Midwest it goes a very long way.

Exactly 0 people are coerced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

Fair enough on your adoption point. Some traits are allowed to be preselected with adoption, but not to the extent that egg donor selection allows. Eye color? I don't think so.

As for your comparison to cosmetic surgery, those elective surgeries come at a price! Plastic surgery to remove a scar is not covered by insurance. Correcting a cleff palate might be, but that is to make a person whole. And, before you argue that fertility treatments also make a person whole, that's not the issue here. The issue is the price differential for the preferred version of "whole" you want to accomplish.

Stepping back, selecting the genetic makeup of your future children is exactly what fertile people do every day! What do you think dating is!? Why should recipients of egg/sperm donors not get to choose traits of their future children when everyone else does? The difference here is that it's done in a more direct and sterile way. But it's the same thing. Even still, since recipients don't get to actually meet their donors they have far less to go on than the rest of us. They can look at height, skin and hair color and educational background and some info about personality, but honestly that's not much to work with. The rest of us get to interview our prospective egg/sperm donors through months and years of courtship and marriage. We get a lot more information. Recipients are really not getting much to work with at all.

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine.

What I am saying is that selecting eggs based on genetic traits is not a luxury.

And that is exactly where you and I do not agree. I think this is really the heart of this specific issue (not donor eggs and IVF in general and insurance coverage). I believe this fundamental difference of opinion on this is what will make it such a polarizing debate and a legal and ethical (and economical) nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get it. If access to donor eggs and "treatment" for infertility should be viewed as such a "right" (as in, comparable to a dying child's right to a life saving kidney), is it also your "right" to select your preferred genetic traits (race, hair color, IQ, medical history, etc.) at an affordable price?

In this country, we also see it as a "right" to have food and shelter. I don't see anyone complaining that their government cheese isn't offered at the same quality as an artisanal cheese at a Michelin restaurant or that their government subsidized affordable housing doesn't have a Viking range.

For people who go the adoption route, they are not allowed to pre-select for race or eye color or medical history. Why are egg donor receivers allowed to do that but not have any price differential for their shopping list of traits?

There are so many fallacies with this argument.

1) Adoptive parents absolutely preselect for race and medical issues. In fact, since they get to actually meet the baby, they could turn down the adoption for any reason.
2) The line between what is medically a "right" and what is considered a "luxury" has always been very gray. For instance, cosmetic surgery to make yourself look younger we all agree is a luxury. But plastic surgery to correct a large scar or deformity we think of as a right, in your terminology. Why? Why is viagra covered by insurance (the definition I think you are using here for a "right")? The answer to a lot of these is that we believe that everyone's body should be able to function as normally as possible. Procreation is a very normal process for the human body. Just because someone isn't going to die if we don't do it, doesn't mean it's "a luxury."

Fair enough on your adoption point. Some traits are allowed to be preselected with adoption, but not to the extent that egg donor selection allows. Eye color? I don't think so.

As for your comparison to cosmetic surgery, those elective surgeries come at a price! Plastic surgery to remove a scar is not covered by insurance. Correcting a cleff palate might be, but that is to make a person whole. And, before you argue that fertility treatments also make a person whole, that's not the issue here. The issue is the price differential for the preferred version of "whole" you want to accomplish.

Stepping back, selecting the genetic makeup of your future children is exactly what fertile people do every day! What do you think dating is!? Why should recipients of egg/sperm donors not get to choose traits of their future children when everyone else does? The difference here is that it's done in a more direct and sterile way. But it's the same thing. Even still, since recipients don't get to actually meet their donors they have far less to go on than the rest of us. They can look at height, skin and hair color and educational background and some info about personality, but honestly that's not much to work with. The rest of us get to interview our prospective egg/sperm donors through months and years of courtship and marriage. We get a lot more information. Recipients are really not getting much to work with at all.

By your argument, you (or your spouse) should have made better choices with your genetic selection (i.e. Dating) and selecting a partner better suited for procreation. Your argument, not mine.

What I am saying is that selecting eggs based on genetic traits is not a luxury.

And that is exactly where you and I do not agree. I think this is really the heart of this specific issue (not donor eggs and IVF in general and insurance coverage). I believe this fundamental difference of opinion on this is what will make it such a polarizing debate and a legal and ethical (and economical) nightmare.

OK, I'll bite. So according to you, how should a DE process happen? You draw a lottery and get what you get? You're disagreeing not just with the PP, but also with the currently accepted medical ethics in the US.

[Anonymous]

I'm confused about how this is price-fixing if the ASRM simply issues recommendations? There are no requirements. Don't clinics and other DE agencies have the choice to follow or not follow those recommendations? Obviously there are already organizations out there who've chosen not to comply with the recs or there wouldn't be ads in college newspapers offering $100K in compensation for select donors.