It is a debatable question on payment of gamete donor - should gamete donor need to be paid? If the payment is allowed then some common questions are raised - Is this payment is considered to be a compensation for inconvenience or devoting time for the procedure? Or is it is a rewarding amount paid for moral acceptance?
The same type of argument is raised in organ donation and commercial surrogacy. In this article gametes donation is considered for human reproduction purposes, but not for research work. However, some of the issues are common for a fertility clinic and research settings.
In gamete donation, one of the major risks of agreement on the payment process is it may increases the repeated gamete donation by the same person for earning the money. In the case of repeated sperm donation, hundred children may have the same sperm resource and open sperm donation (recently experts do not prefer donor anonymity for child right to know their genetic origin) increase the scope for the born child to contact with his/her biological father in their later life.
But such type of contact with all the created offspring significantly affects the future life of the sperm donor. Whereas is in egg donation, repeated hormonal stimulation increases the risk of Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome.
Gamete donation is a noble approach in the fertility treatment as it helps to create a baby for infertile couples. But some restriction is very important to reduce the risk of the donor, which include limiting the gamete donation permission from the same personnel.
This helps to reduce the risk of repeated gamete donation for a particular person. The risk is not related to payment, but the health concern and future issues can be solved by maintaining the proper legislation. The proper control by keeping a record can also reduce the scope of a person to become a professional sperm donor.
Another payment-related objection often comes up with exploitation. Arguments that are based on payment involvement increase the risk of objection exploitation. The additional concern is payment process encourages people to donate their gametes.
But this type of mischief is not allowed in clinical treatment. The term exploitation is commonly used in case of egg donation rather than sperm donation, as vulnerable young egg donors might be attracted to the egg market and then exploited by egg banks, clinics, or recipients.
The proper consenting by encouraging people to decide their participation in gamete donation should be autonomous and voluntary. A payment process is a favorable approach for gamete donors because of their physical and involvement, loss of wages, medical and transport expense and other considerable individual factors. But during the consent process, all the confusion of the donor must be cleared by an expert team involve in the egg donation process and assure the validity and non-exploitative nature of the consenting.
There are many debates are ongoing on the topic of commercialization of gamete donation. But the commercialization of gamete donation is not a big issue, but granting the selection process in gamete donation is the main issue. A client who pays the amount for gamete donor, they have the right to select their donors. Then the white young women are always targeted for egg donation, as most of the intended parents prefer these criteria and even agree to pay a higher amount. Therefore, implementation of the option for selection is the main cause of vulnerability, but not commercialization. Therefore, experts in this field need to work on this field to manage these issues to solve the infertile clinical condition without considering this as a type of business.