Anonymous wrote:The antitrust suit is a legal slam dunk unless the courts buy the patronizing b.s. about how it would be too exploitative to women to pay them market value for their eggs. The fact that these price caps are "guidelines" does not save the arrangement legally; all the clinics following these "guidelines" are participating in price-fixing. It's called a "hub and spoke" conspiracy because the price fixing occurs thru an intermediary rather than directly btwn competitors.

Imagine if there was a legal industry group that "recommended" that law firms cap the income for 1st year associates at $50k because otherwise impressionsble young people would be too tempted by the money and would ignore the risks of working long hours at a soulless job. Ha!

Except they are currently paying market value since they can turn down so many candidates. What makes you think they need to pay more to get egg donors? They don't.

Can private parties still pay whatever they want for eggs, or are they limited too?

The antitrust suit is a legal slam dunk unless the courts buy the patronizing b.s. about how it would be too exploitative to women to pay them market value for their eggs. The fact that these price caps are "guidelines" does not save the arrangement legally; all the clinics following these "guidelines" are participating in price-fixing. It's called a "hub and spoke" conspiracy because the price fixing occurs thru an intermediary rather than directly btwn competitors.

Imagine if there was a legal industry group that "recommended" that law firms cap the income for 1st year associates at $50k because otherwise impressionsble young people would be too tempted by the money and would ignore the risks of working long hours at a soulless job. Ha!

I don't see the antitrust suit if these are just guidelines, and clinics can go up or down. Plus there is a market through agencies where egg donors can and do get much higher compensation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$5k is not even close to fair. Risks are too high. When I was a HYP undergrad I know a woman who sold her eggs for close to $100k.

I disagree. The risks are low and it's a minor inconvenience.
Also, more data points to environment - not genetics - in children.

No, it's not a "minor" inconvenience. I was overstimulated in my first and only IVF cycle at 41. As a result, I had OHSS symptoms for about four months into the pregnancy. This includes a great amount of fluid in my abdomen, difficulty turning to either side, risk of ovarian torsion, restrictions on physical and sexual activity, shortness of breath, abdominal bloating that made me look 8 months pregnant instantly, significant abdominal pain from muscles stretching to the limit to accommodate insta-bloating, back pain etc. I didn't need surgery - but only just. Don't discount it if you haven't experienced it.

I am also 41 and had similar symptoms. However, they stimulate younger women differently, esp. for egg donations. They don't need the extreme dosages we do in order to respond. I am not saying it's impossible to get OHSS from egg donation, but it's very different from what you and I had to go through physically at 41. Additionally, use of Lupron eliminates the possibility of OHSS and it's used more on younger patients.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$5k is not even close to fair. Risks are too high. When I was a HYP undergrad I know a woman who sold her eggs for close to $100k.

I disagree. The risks are low and it's a minor inconvenience.
Also, more data points to environment - not genetics - in children.

No, it's not a "minor" inconvenience. I was overstimulated in my first and only IVF cycle at 41. As a result, I had OHSS symptoms for about four months into the pregnancy. This includes a great amount of fluid in my abdomen, difficulty turning to either side, risk of ovarian torsion, restrictions on physical and sexual activity, shortness of breath, abdominal bloating that made me look 8 months pregnant instantly, significant abdominal pain from muscles stretching to the limit to accommodate insta-bloating, back pain etc. I didn't need surgery - but only just. Don't discount it if you haven't experienced it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how patronizing it is towards women who donate. Women are always portrayed as needing paternal guidance as to how they choose to use their bodies. If they got paid more, they would be less able to decide what risks they would like to take with their bodies? While I do not think they are paid enough compared to what the doctors are making, their eggs by themselves, with no medical intervention, actually have no value. They may have a potential value, but only if they choose to sell them or procreate with them. Wasted every month of their lives, no matter how elite they are.

To be fair, this is why we don't allow payment for organ donations - so it's not just women; it's all people.

You can sell a kidney anytime you want, male or female.

Not in the US you can't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how patronizing it is towards women who donate. Women are always portrayed as needing paternal guidance as to how they choose to use their bodies. If they got paid more, they would be less able to decide what risks they would like to take with their bodies? While I do not think they are paid enough compared to what the doctors are making, their eggs by themselves, with no medical intervention, actually have no value. They may have a potential value, but only if they choose to sell them or procreate with them. Wasted every month of their lives, no matter how elite they are.

To be fair, this is why we don't allow payment for organ donations - so it's not just women; it's all people.

You can sell a kidney anytime you want, male or female.

I actually think increasing the fee increases the risk of coercion or independently weighing the risks. If the fee is too high or life changing, I think a donor will be more likely to ignore risks. I also think increasing the fee will not raise the quality of the donor pool. I think you are either the type to donate or you are not. More money does not change that

Anonymous wrote:I love how patronizing it is towards women who donate. Women are always portrayed as needing paternal guidance as to how they choose to use their bodies. If they got paid more, they would be less able to decide what risks they would like to take with their bodies? While I do not think they are paid enough compared to what the doctors are making, their eggs by themselves, with no medical intervention, actually have no value. They may have a potential value, but only if they choose to sell them or procreate with them. Wasted every month of their lives, no matter how elite they are.

To be fair, this is why we don't allow payment for organ donations - so it's not just women; it's all people.

I love how patronizing it is towards women who donate. Women are always portrayed as needing paternal guidance as to how they choose to use their bodies. If they got paid more, they would be less able to decide what risks they would like to take with their bodies? While I do not think they are paid enough compared to what the doctors are making, their eggs by themselves, with no medical intervention, actually have no value. They may have a potential value, but only if they choose to sell them or procreate with them. Wasted every month of their lives, no matter how elite they are.

At the current level of compensation, my top shelf clinic still turns down 4 out of 5 college-educated women who apply to be donors. NYC is full of young women who will undergo a minor inconvenience for the price. There is no shortage of candidates, so the price seems to be fair market value.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes to all of this. Thank you!

No one is coercing women into being egg donors. It is totally voluntary, and if you talk to people who specialize in working w/ donors and recipients they will tell you that often the money is not the primary driver for donating. Often women donate because they have personal experience/sympathy for women struggling with infertility, or they benefited personally from a less than traditional parenthood relationship, etc... Also, often people who donate have a fairly narcissistic streak so they believe they are genetically superior to others (see prior harvard non-blonde for an example of this kind of thinking) and are doing the world a favor.

There are people who will pay large chunks of money for eggs from individuals with traits they highly desire. And there are people for whom a $5,000 fee at the end of a typically long struggle w/ infertility feels like a huge investment. This isn't a one size fits all situation, but there can certainly be reasonable, ethical standards that also allow for individual choice, free will, and some level of market economy to be at play.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you say "will"? It's been happening for 30+ years now and I have never heard anyone but you suggest recipients shouldn't select their donors....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a PhD from HYP, blue eyes, division one athlete. You better believe my eggs - which are not a body part as they are shed every month - are worth more than other eggs. Same goes for any East Asian woman. There are very few Asian donors. Of the price were higher maybe more would donate. I, for one, would. I'm not donating for a paltry 5k. Not worth the medical risks at that price.

Your eggs are worth what people are willing to pay. If 5k is too little, then don't donate. You assume the ideal is blonde hair and blue eyes, which is a false assumption. I would pay more for the Harvard PhD, but the blonde hair is nothing g

The blonde hair is actually problematic.

Where does she say she is blonde?