Following the shocking news that the Scottish government spent over £186,000 on an egg and sperm donor advertising campaign, I felt compelled to explore the stark realities of donor conception and my thoughts on this will expand as I go.

Here is Part 1.

As with surrogacy, multiple people are involved in making a baby this way. There are those buying the eggs or sperm, those donating their gametes, clinics, sometimes even lawyers, and then at the very end of the ‘journey’, a baby who grows into a fully grown, autonomous human being. An adult who one day might have a family of their own (more on this later).

In surrogacy, the man or woman donating their gametes can also be the person or people commissioning the child, or gametes ‘used’ can come from additional known or anonymous parties. It’s safe to say that with or without surrogacy this method to create, grow and birth a child through donor conception involves several interested parties.

IVF and ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) has guided our path to this point. Science made it possible for Louise Brown, the UK’s first ‘test tube baby’ – an understandably disliked term – to be born 45 years ago. Science has since made it possible for ‘three parent’ babies’ where the nucleus of a egg is transferred to a different egg which is then fertilised and later, becomes a child or two*.

The noble objective of gene editing may be to eradicate hereditary disease, but I can’t help but wonder if the Brown’s Drs – gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe and reproductive biologist Robert Edwards – had this in mind when they first pioneered IVF. Louise and her sister, Natalie, were conceived with the help of doctors, but no other third parties were involved.

So science has bought us here on a collective ‘journey’ of our own, and we have reasons to be grateful, but we should not ignore the cost at which this comes. Laws have changed along the way too, anonymity for ‘donors’ is thankfully, for the child’s sake, no longer guaranteed. Whilst a child is the focus, ‘donors’ are held at arms length and we should not forget that those offering up their DNA are people too.

There can be many reasons why someone might donate their eggs or sperm. Men we have spoken to have told us about the desire to have a genetic legacy as they have no plans (or partner) to have children themselves, others have told us about wanting to help others. One young man told us about the rejection he experienced when his sperm count was low and what that meant for him personally as there were no counselling services available in the aftermath of him receiving this information.

Similar reasons can apply for women (though I feel these can be a a little more wrapped in Junk Liberty). Whatever the motivation behind the reason to offer your sperm or harvest your eggs, the same risks do not apply, the processes are entirely different and the comparison ends even before the DNA is collected. The only similarity is the financial ‘compensation’ or ‘expenses’. Men and woman can claim up to £750 for each donation. The author of our previous blog on egg donation told us that she was strongly encouraged to request the full amount, whatever the expense of her visits to her local clinic.

There is an undercurrent of patriarchal benefits at play around surrogacy and we see this too with egg donation. The jolly, pink-coloured adverts popping up on young womens’ Facebook accounts and persuasive radio adverts paid for by governments – it all lays claim to women’s bodies and their reproductive capability. There is a growing expectation on women in particular, to endure pain and undertake risks for the benefit of others. Sperm is obtained via an orgasm, eggs are removed via a large needle. Sperm is released with pleasure, egg retrieval requires anesthesia. As I said, the two cannot be compared.

News articles and TV segments dramatically exclaim “There is a shortage!” as if a functioning society rests on a woman, between 18-35 years of age, deciding to offer up her eggs quickly as there will be a population collapse if she doesn’t. The Scottish government also said there was a ‘shortage’ so to encourage ‘donations’ but these are not unwanted clothes for the Salvation Army or an extra tin of beans for the food bank. They also said that there is quite a process to go through before ‘donation’ (egg retrieval). We would hope so.

Women should be told about the risks. Not the ‘no known risks’ of egg retrieval but the actual studies, quantifiable risks and the harsh realities of the drugs injected into their healthy bodies. Like the warnings on cigarette packets, is it time that the shadowy consequences of egg harvesting are highlighted in neon yellow?

Perhaps that’s why there is a ‘shortage’. The drop in supply is because women aged 18-35 are busy with work and family and don’t have the time or inclination to undergo painful and risky procedures just to be the source of ‘joy’ and ‘hope’ for others.

My message to women, if I was able to send one, is: you are born with all the eggs you will ever have and you have a finite number. Each one was made in your mother and her mother before her. They shouldn’t have monetary value as they are not a resource for others.

Your eggs are your own, spend them wisely.

** Twins were born this way in China. The Dr and his team who performed the gene editing were fined and jailed. The first child to be created this way was born in the UK last year.

Resources

For more on donor conception we recommend Venus Rising, particularly the interviews with a mother of a donor conceived child, (who, she discovered, has multiple siblings), a sperm donor an a, ‘almost egg donor‘ and lastly a donor conceived child. There is also this fascinating interview with a social scientist who aims to help those who are donor conceived as she is also donor concieved.

Those in the UK may be interested to watch Born From The Same Stranger or Long Lost Families on ITVX or DNA Families on BBC iPlayer.