Should deceased donors be allowed to donate sperm?

Deceased donor sperm donation is the subject of an article earlier this year, in light of the shortage of donated sperm in the UK:

Hodson N, Parker J. "The ethical case for non-directed postmortem sperm donation,"
Journal of Medical Ethics 2020;46:489-492.

Abstract: In this article we outline and defend the concept of voluntary non-directed postmortem sperm donation. This approach offers a potential means of increasing the quantity and heterogeneity of donor sperm. This is pertinent given the present context of a donor sperm shortage in the UK. Beyond making the case that it is technically feasible for dead men to donate their sperm for use in reproduction, we argue that this is ethically permissible. The inability to access donor sperm and the suffering this causes, we argue, justifies allowing access to sperm donated after death. Moreover, it is known that individuals and couples have desires for certain sperm donor characteristics which may not be fulfilled when numbers of sperm donors are low. Enacting these preferences contributes significantly to the well-being of intended parents, so we argue that this provides a pro tanto reason for respecting them. Finally, we explore the benefits and possible disadvantages of such a system for the various parties affected.

"The United Kingdom (UK) has a shortage of donor sperm. In 2016 there were 2273 donor insemination treatment cycles; 42% of the women registering had a male partner, 41% had a female partner and 17% were single.1 The average number of newly registered sperm donors per year between 2011 and 2013 was 586, an increase from 2004 where there were 237 donors.2 Yet this increase includes donations for specific use by a known individual to create one offspring. In 2016 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) reported 4306 in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment cycles with ‘own eggs and donor sperm’ and 924 treatment cycles with ‘donor egg and donor sperm’.1 Clearly there is high demand for donor sperm and HFEA reports demonstrate this is increasing.1

"Commercial imports have been the mainstay of UK efforts to keep up with increasing demand for donor sperm.1 The Department of Health and Social Care estimates that 4000 samples were imported from the USA and 3000 from Denmark in addition to samples from other European Union (EU) countries.3 The HFEA highlights that imports are used to plug the gap because "the cost, time and resources required to recruit donors themselves is too high when there are specialist sperm banks who can carry out an efficient and reliable service".4 The Department of Health and Social Care has raised concerns that the UK's departure from the EU may worsen this state of affairs.3
...
"There are barriers to donating sperm in life that may prevent some men acting on their desire to help others or see their genes continue into future generations through donation. Posthumous sperm donation avoids most of these problems, allowing men to access the positives of sperm donation without the drawbacks. Living kidney donation provides an informative comparison between the motivations to donate in life versus after death. It is difficult to overestimate the value of donated kidneys to those individuals on the transplant list. Many people feel the pull of altruism and have a desire to help those who need a kidney transplant. Yet the potential costs of donating during life mean that individuals would rather donate after death when those costs are eliminated.16 Gamete donation after death parallels kidney donation by offering the same benefits as donation in life with fewer drawbacks, thereby both incentivising men to donate and providing greater opportunity to fulfil some of their reproductive and altruistic desires. This makes voluntary postmortem sperm donation an attractive addition to living donation.
...
"Given the potential impact of postmortem sperm donation on the family, policy decisions could be used to soften the implications of postmortem sperm donation for the family. For our purposes, the important point is that considerations of the family, including a romantic partner surviving the deceased man, do not justify a blanket ban on the use of sperm collected after death, especially if the donor has specified a desire to donate.
...
"The UK consensus is that gametes ought not to be bought although donor expenses should be covered.37 We do not take a view on this generally, but note the dissonance generated when sperm from countries such as Denmark where ‘vendors’ have been paid is used in the UK.38 In so far as society benefits from a coherent bioethical policy reflecting its shared values, using dead donors rather than donors who were paid in other countries to bolster supplies might provide a more coherent policy.

Cascades of convalescent plasma for Covid-19, and chains of exchanges, by Kominers, Pathak, Sönmez, and Ünver

Covid-19 convalescent plasma is a new thing in the world, that came into existence only when the first human was infected and recovered from the Covid-19 disease that is now pandemic. It isn't clear yet whether it will be clinically valuable, but recovered antibodies have been valuable for some other diseases, so there's excellent reason to hope that will be the case now too.  And as the number of people grows who have recovered from Covid-19, it is likely that the supply of antibodies is growing much faster, since antibody-containing plasma can be donated once a month or so. (There are  ongoing studies of antibody production by recovered patients, examining how long the antibodies remain at high levels, post-recovery). Of course, most of that supply is sequestered in the blood of recovered patients, so there's a non-trivial issue of collection and distribution.

As readers of this blog know, many countries prohibit the sale of plasma. Will Americans continue to support a commercial market for Covid-19 convalescent plasma in the current pandemic?  A distinguished group of market designers has written a paper considering how to apply techniques developed for kidney exchange to the task of collecting convalescent plasma from recovered Covid-19 patients, if it becomes impossible to buy and sell it. In particular, they consider how to create chains of donations, without using money, to overcome the shortages they anticipate.

Here's an easy to read account by Scott Kominers, one of the authors.

How to End the Plasma Shortage for Coranavirus Patients

Scott Duke Kominers, Bloomberg News  May 11, 2020

"convalescent plasma is in short supply: although it’s hard to estimate precisely, some statistics suggest the U.S. may need twice as much as we have on hand.

"In a new paper, Parag A. Pathak, Tayfun Sonmez, M. Utku Unver and I propose a market design strategy that could help close the gap. Our approach makes use of two special features of the way plasma donation works.

"First, convalescent plasma is collected from recently recovered patients, which means that today’s patients become tomorrow’s prospective donors, assuming they manage to beat the virus. ... That suggests the shortage isn’t from lack of potential supply.

"Second, plasma donation is more than one-for-one: the typical donor can give enough plasma at one time for multiple treatments, and they can potentially donate more than once. As a result, assuming plasma therapy does help patients recover, there is a so-called flywheel effect: the more we use the treatment, the more plasma is available -- provided enough recovered patients are willing to donate.

"Many people would like to donate plasma to help a loved one, but can’t for various reasons:  Their blood types might be incompatible or they might live far away and be unable to travel. To address these sorts of obstacles, my collaborators and I suggest that each plasma donor could receive a voucher that can be used to give a family member or friend priority for plasma treatment. Because donation is more than one-for-one, it’s possible to honor vouchers while still increasing the pool of plasma available to treat other patients.

...

"A similar analysis suggests a role for a pay-it-forward system, where we make a point of treating patients who pledge to donate plasma, assuming they recover and are medically able to do so. Because recovered patients can typically donate more plasma than was needed for their own treatment, this again can help increase the plasma supply in the long run. As a result, my collaborators and I show that, somewhat paradoxically, prioritizing patients who pledge to donate can still end up expanding treatment for the patients who are unable to pledge, or just choose not to.

"Both of these policies are similar to systems we’ve used to expand kidney donation in the U.S.: Priority vouchers are sometimes granted when a living donor gives a kidney to a third-party before one of their family members needs a transplant. And pay-it-forward incentives are used in kidney exchange chains, where a patient with a medically incompatible prospective donor receives a kidney from a third-party donor, and then their donor later gives a kidney to some other patient."
******
Here is the paper itself:

Paying It Backward and Forward: Expanding Access to Convalescent Plasma Therapy Through Market Design
Scott Duke Kominers, Parag A. Pathak, Tayfun Sönmez, M. Utku Ünver
NBER Working Paper No. 27143
Issued in May 2020

Abstract: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy is currently a leading treatment for COVID19. At present, there is a shortage of CCP relative to demand. We develop and analyze a model of centralized CCP allocation that incorporates both donation and distribution. In order to increase CCP supply, we introduce a mechanism that utilizes two incentive schemes, respectively based on principles of “paying it backward” and “paying it forward.” Under the first scheme, CCP donors obtain treatment vouchers that can be transferred to patients of their choosing. Under the latter scheme, patients obtain priority for CCP therapy in exchange for a future pledge to donate CCP if possible. We show that in steady-state, both principles generally increase overall treatment rates for all patients—not just those who are voucher-prioritized or pledged to donate. Our results also hold under certain conditions if a fraction of CCP is reserved for patients who participate in clinical trials. Finally, we examine the implications of pooling blood types on the efficiency and equity of CCP distribution.

Here's some of the motivation for their model:

"There is an active debate in economics and philosophy on the appropriate role of market-based

mechanisms with compensation for human products used in medicine or medical research like kidneys, blood, blood products, sperm, breast milk, bone marrow, and other.11 Since, as far as we know, there is no current market where infected patients can buy CCP or where recovered patients can sell CCP, we do not consider this possibility as part of our model.

...

"Because CCP is a form of plasma, a natural question is whether a compensated market for CCP will develop. In our model, there is no option to pay to receive CCP or be paid for donating CCP, but a donor can designate the voucher in our model to particular patient in need. As a result, our model of CCP falls between the two extremes described above. We expect that in a crisis moment, there is unlikely to be an active compensated market for CCP (even though it may be impossible to fully prohibit resale of vouchers). If a price-based market does develop, society may deem it unacceptable."

***************

I am more optimistic than they are about the likely available supply of convalescent plasma if it proves useful, through existing commercial channels. My optimism is based on the large thriving commercial market for plasma and plasma-derived antibodies in the U.S., and around the world.  I'll try to blog about the general plasma and antibody (immunoglobulin) market tomorrow, and perhaps more on Covid-19 antibodies later this week.

Surrogacy finally becomes legal in New York

Passed last month, to come into effect next year, New York follows most of the rest of the country into the American consensus on surrogacy, including commercial surrogacy (so very different than in Europe).

The New York Daily News had this account:

Good news for couples who want children and need a surrogate as N.Y. legalizes the process
By DENIS SLATTERY

"New York legalized paid gestational surrogacy Thursday as lawmakers approved a sweeping budget package containing the measure.

"Gay and infertile couples in the Empire State can now enter into a contract and pay a woman to carry a baby to term through in-vitro fertilization.

"Gov. Cuomo made the measure a priority over the past year and a half as New York remained one of only three states that explicitly banned the practice.

"Pushback from an unlikely combination of religious organizations and women’s groups concerned about the potential exploitation of surrogates, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, preceded the bill’s failure to gain enough support in the Assembly during the last legislative session.Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Scrasdale), who first introduced a bill to lift the ban back in 2012, applauded the inclusion in the budget.

“Today, we bring New York law in line with the needs of modern families, while simultaneously enacting the strongest protections in the nation for surrogates," she said.
...
"The measure also streamlines the “second-parent adoption” process by requiring only a single visit to court to recognize legal parenthood while the child is in utero. Once all of the requirements set forth in the law are met, the intended parents can seek an “Order of Parentage” from a court, which becomes effective immediately upon birth."
***********
Here's an earlier post, about the complicated coalitions involved in last year's failure to pass the bill

Friday, June 21, 2019  Surrogacy in NY...remains complicated

***********
Here's a link to and snippets of the new statute itself:


TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the family court act, in relation to
establishing the child-parent security act; and to repeal section 73 and
article 8 of the domestic relations law, relating to legitimacy of chil-
dren born by artificial insemination and surrogate parenting contracts

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To legally establish a child's relationship to his or her parents where
the child was conceived through third party reproduction including those
children born through gestational surrogacy arrangements.
 ...
"JUSTIFICATION:
New York law has failed to keep pace with medical advances in assisted
reproduction, causing uncertainty about who the legal parents of a child
are upon birth. In many cases, the parentage of children created through
donated sperm, eggs and embryos is unsettled or open to attack at the
time of the child's birth and thereafter. Confusion or uncertainty
regarding the parental rights of donors and intended parents (both
genetic and non-genetic) who participate in the conception of the child
through assisted reproduction is detrimental to the child and secure
family relations. Where children are born to a gestational carrier the
parentage of the intended parents may not be recognized under current
law. This is not only detrimental to the child; it also causes confusion
in many critical situations. For example, a hospital does not know who
must give consent when a newborn requires medical procedures.

"The Child Parent Security Act will provide clear and decisive legal
procedures to ensure that children born through third party reproduction
have secure and legally recognized parental relationships with their
intended parents.The law will make it clear that donors do not have
parental rights or obligations and that those rights and obligations
reside with the Intended Parents.

"Importantly, this legislation lifts the ban on surrogacy contracts to
permit enforceable gestational carrier agreements and sets forth the
criteria for such agreements. When all of the requirements set forth in
the law are met, the intended parents can seek an "Order of Parentage"
from a court, prior to the birth of the child, which becomes effective
immediately upon birth. The requirements are designed to ensure that all
parties enter into the agreement on an equal footing and with full know-
ledge of their duties and obligations. For example, all parties must be
represented by independent legal counsel, and the agreement may not
limit the right of the carrier to make her own healthcare decisions.

"Because of existing New York laws, couples facing infertility and same-
sex couples are forced to go out of state in order to have a child with
the assistance of a gestational carrier. This is overly burdensome to
the parents, who have often struggled for many years to have a child.
Having an out-of-state gestational carrier may make it difficult, if not
impossible, for the parents to fully participate in the pregnancy by
attending doctor's appointments, etc. It also requires the participants
to use out-of-state clinics and medical professionals despite the fact
that New York is home to world-class medical facilities and fertility
professionals.

"New York appellate courts have repeatedly called upon the Legislature to
act to provide much needed clarity to the essential question of who is a
parent. The need to answer that call is more important today than ever
as increasing numbers of children are being conceived and born through
third party reproduction. The Child-Parent Security Act clarifies the
issue of who is a parent and establishes clear legal procedures which
ensure that each child's relationship to his or her parent(s) is legally
recognized from birth. As the New York Court of Appeals held in Brooke
S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.0 biology and adoption are not the only touchstones
to determine parentage. The Child Parent Security Act provides a frame-
work for determining the parentage of the large number of children
unprotected under existing New York state law.


...
 PART 5
    34                 PAYMENT TO DONORS AND GESTATIONAL CARRIERS
    35  Section 581-501. Reimbursement.
    36          581-502. Compensation.
    37    §  581-501.  Reimbursement.   (a) A donor who has entered into a valid
    38  agreement to be a donor, may  receive  reimbursement  from  an  intended
    39  parent  for  economic  losses  incurred  in connection with the donation
    40  which result from the retrieval or storage of gametes or embryos.
    41    (b) Premiums paid  for  insurance  against  economic  losses  directly
    42  resulting  from  the  retrieval  or  storage  of  gametes or embryos for
    43  donation may be reimbursed.
    44    § 581-502. Compensation.  (a) Compensation may be paid to a  donor  or
    45  gestational  carrier based on services rendered, expenses and or medical
    46  risks that have been or will be incurred, time, and inconvenience. Under
    47  no circumstances may compensation be paid to purchase gametes or embryos
    48  or to pay for the relinquishment of a parental interest in a child.
    49    (b) The compensation, if any, paid to a donor or  gestational  carrier
    50  must be reasonable and negotiated in good faith between the parties, and
    51  said  payments to a gestational carrier shall not exceed the duration of
    52  the pregnancy and recuperative period of up to  eight  weeks  after  the
    53  birth of the child.
    54    (c)  Compensation may not be conditioned upon the purported quality or
    55  genome-related traits of the gametes or embryos.
        A. 6959--A                         12

     1    (d) Compensation may not be conditioned on actual genotypic or  pheno-
     2  typic characteristics of the donor or of the child.

Matching for platonic co-parenting: "like a divorce, without the wedding or the arguments."

The WSJ has the story, about two web sites that are trying to pioneer matching for people who want to conceive a child who will have two involved parents, who won't be married to each other:

Co-Parenting Sites Skip Love and Marriage, Go Right to the Baby Carriage
A new kind of online service matches people who want to have children, but not necessarily romance 
By Julie Jargon

"When Jenica Andersen felt the tug for a second child at age 37, the single mom weighed her options: wait until she meets Mr. Right or choose a sperm donor and go it alone.

"The first option didn’t look promising. The idea of a sperm donor wasn’t appealing, either, because she wanted her child to have an active father, just like her 4-year-old son has. After doing some research, Ms. Andersen discovered another option: subscription-based websites such as PollenTree.com and Modamily that match would-be parents who want to share custody of a child without any romantic expectations. It’s a lot like a divorce, without the wedding or the arguments."
...
"Given the prominence in today’s society of both single parenthood and online dating, this digital approach could be seen as a natural progression. It could also be considered shocking or even, as some have called it, an affront to marriage.
***********

Here's Pollentree.com: https://www.pollentree.com/, which also offers to match prospective moms with sperm donors.

And here's Modafamily: https://modamily.com/, which speaks of romantic, co-parenting, or known-donor relationships.

Some kinds of privacy may be gone forever

Lots of family secrets are revealed by DNA analysis, and it may no longer be possible to keep those secrets.  That is part of the argument made by Dr. Julia Creet, in an interview published at Bill of Health under the title "The End of Privacy?"


Dr. Julia Creet: I made the statement that any idea we had about privacy is over in response to a number of troubling trends in genetic genealogy. DTC genetic tests have revealed long-held family secrets, biological parents and siblings of adoptees, and the identities of sperm and egg donors. In each case, the question of the right of the searcher trumped the rights of those who wanted their privacy protected. In a few cases, sperm donors have sued for invasion of privacy. What these cases show is that even if we think we are protected by the privacy provisions of donor agreements or closed adoptions, genetic tests can leap over those privacy barriers. Many genealogists have declared that there will be no more family secrets in the future. So, family privacy is a thing of the past, which may or may not be a good thing. On a larger scale, law enforcement use of DTC genetic testing databases has demonstrated that data uploaded for one purpose can be used in the future for a completely unanticipated purpose. Without the ability to predict future uses of this information, we cannot put a privacy policy in place that will anticipate all the unforeseen future uses. I think the most telling cases in the last few weeks are the recent warrant that allowed law enforcement access to the GEDmatch database even though most users had opted out of having their results included in searches, and the rather frightening report for Peter Ney about the ease of malware intrusions on genetic genealogy databases.

Different misconduct in sperm donation

One reason it is rewarding to study unregulated markets is that it gives you some idea of why some regulation might be desirable.  The growth in DNA registries has allowed many children of sperm donors to identify their biological father, and it also allows donors to identify their children, sometimes with unsettling results.

Here's a story from the Washington Post:

Sperm donor says fertility clinic ‘lied’ after discovering he fathered 17 kids ― most in the same area

"It was 1989 when he gave his sperm to the fertility clinic at Oregon Health & Science University, where he was a first-year medical student, believing his donation would help infertile couples and advance science. The facility promised that once his sperm had conceived five babies in mothers living on the East Coast, the rest would be used for research, Cleary said at a Wednesday news conference. He had assured his wife that the donor kids were far enough away that their own four children could never run into them in their Oregon town, or unwittingly befriend them or fall in love with them.

“So you can imagine his shock,” his attorney Chris Best said at the news conference, “when, after 30 years, Dr. Cleary recently [learned] that no less than 17 children have been born from his donations” ― all of whom were born in the state of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest."

DNA tests are revealing medical misconduct in early sperm donation

The NY Times has the story, summarizing many recently discovered cases in which fertility doctors used their own sperm in place of other sperm donors:

Their Mothers Chose Donor Sperm. The Doctors Used Their Own.
Scores of people born through artificial insemination have learned from DNA tests that their biological fathers were the doctors who performed the procedure.

"With the advent of widespread consumer DNA testing, instances in which fertility specialists decades ago secretly used their own sperm for artificial insemination have begun to surface with some regularity. Three states have now passed laws criminalizing this conduct, including Texas, which now defines it as a form of sexual assault.

"Dr. Jody Madeira, a law professor at Indiana University, is following more than 20 cases in the United States and abroad. They have occurred in a dozen states, including Connecticut, Vermont, Idaho, Utah and Nevada, she said, as well as in England, South Africa, Germany and the Netherlands."
**********

There's an old saying that good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.  The same thing might be said about well regulated markets...

Sperm selection

I've blogged before about selection of sperm donors, but here's a story from the NY Times about the selection of sperm itself:

Tinder for Sperm: Even in the Petri Dish, Looks and Athleticism Are Prized
What makes one sperm cell — a blob of DNA with a tail — stand out? The selection process is like a microscopic Mr. America contest.
By Randi Hutter Epstein

“Not that one with the droopy head,” Lo said, pointing to a sperm that looked like a deflated balloon sagging over its string. He rejected a sperm with a thickened midpiece that he described as a “turtleneck,” and said he also avoids sperm with curlicue tails or an extra tail. Slow pokes and non-swimmers are spurned as well.

...
"When a sperm cell reaches the egg, it releases hyaluronidase, an enzyme that dissolves the cumulus, a layer of cells surrounding the egg. Next, the acrosome, a vesicle inside the sperm cell’s head, fuses with the outer layer of the egg, igniting the release of enzymes that ease the route inside. The sperm’s vigorously waving tail provides an extra push to help it through. Once inside, proteins within the sperm cell’s head prompt the oocyte to finish maturing and to release chemicals that harden the outer shell of the egg, preventing other sperm from barging in.

"These days, many leading fertility centers use techniques that allow them to bypass all these steps. Instead, they pick a single sperm and inject it into the egg, a technique called intracytoplasmic sperm injection or ICSI (pronounced ICK-see). ICSI was designed to help men with few or defective sperm, but has become so common that it’s used in more than half* of all I.V.F. procedures.
...
"In addition to having a keen eye for promising sperm, an embryologist must have excellent hand-eye coordination. Even then, learning to identify and successfully catch a single sperm before it swims away can take months of practice, said Lo. “I told my parents those years of video game playing, they’ve really paid off.”

* From The Lancet: "Globally, between 2008 and 2010, more than 4·7 million treatment cycles of assisted reproduction techniques were performed, of which around half involved intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), leading to the birth of 1·14 million babies.

Sperm donors used to be anonymous. Technology has made that obsolete

Here's a representative story from the NY Times:

Sperm Donors Can’t Stay Secret Anymore. Here’s What That Means.  By Susan Dominus

"To be the biological child of an anonymous sperm donor today is to live in a state of perpetual anticipation. Having never imagined a world in which donors could be tracked down by DNA, in their early years sperm banks did not limit the number of families to whom one donor’s sperm would be sold — means that many of the children conceived have half-siblings in the dozens. There are hundreds of biological half-sibling groups that number more than 20, according to the Donor Sibling Registry, where siblings can find one another, using their donor number. Groups larger than 100, the registry reports, are far from rare.
"Because of the increasing popularity of genetic testing sites like 23andMe, in the past two or three years a whole new category of people, including those who never knew they were conceived via donor insemination, are reaching out to half siblings who may have already connected with others in their extended biological family. 
...
"Over time the adoption movement popularized the principle that individuals had a right to know their biological roots, and lesbian couples and single mothers, dominating ever more of the sperm banks’ market, called for greater transparency. In the early 2000s, California Cryobank offered, for a premium fee, an option for parents to choose a donor who agreed not just to be contacted when the offspring turned 18 but to respond in some fashion (though still anonymously if that was his preference).

By 2010, experts in reproductive technology were starting to note that internet searchability, facial-recognition software and the future of DNA testing would soon render anonymity a promise that the sperm banks could no longer keep. Since 2017, California Cryobank has stopped offering anonymity to its new donors. Donors now must agree to reveal their names to their offspring when they turn 18 and to have some form of communication to be mediated, at first, by the bank."

************

And here's an accompanying story, by a man who has now met and photographed many of his half-sibs.

A Family Portrait: Brothers, Sisters, Strangers

Photo essay by Eli Baden-Lasar

Text by Eli Baden-Lasar as told to Susan Dominus

Surrogacy law in Italy (moderated by subsequent court decisions)

The Italian law governing reproductive technology and surrogacy dates from 2004, but (although I don't think the law has been amended), some of the things it forbids have been modified by subsequent court decisions.

"This law prohibits research and reproductive cloning, the manipulation of embryos, the use of donated eggs or sperm for ART, and the cryopreservation of embryos (with the exception of severe injury/illness preventing embryo transfer). A maximum of three eggs can be fertilized and transferred per reproductive cycle. Sex-selection is only permitted through sperm sorting for sex-lined genetic diseases. All forms of surrogacy are prohibited. The use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for the selection of embryos is generally prohibited, but has been allowed through the courts on a case-by case basis. Genetic testing for non-medical purposes is prohibited. The use of ART is restricted to stable heterosexual couples who live together, are of reproductive age, are over the age of 18, have documented infertility, and have been first provided the opportunity for adoption.”
(From G12 Country Regulations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies)

Surrogacy and citizenship: bringing the babies home isn't always so easy

Even the U.S., which is a center of surrogacy, employs outdated rules to determine which surrogate children born overseas are automatically American citizens.  Here's a story from the NY Times which (among other things) involves reverse fertility tourism. The American male couple had a friend in Britain serve as the surrogate. (Mostly the tourism goes the other way, because British surrogates can't be paid, so they aren't easy to arrange....)

Both Parents Are American. The U.S. Says Their Baby Isn’t. By Sarah Mervosh.

"James Derek Mize is an American citizen, born and raised in the United States. His husband, who was born in Britain to an American mother, is a United States citizen, too.

"But the couple’s infant daughter isn’t, according to the State Department.

"She was born abroad to a surrogate, using a donor egg and sperm from her British-born father. Those distinct circumstances mean that, under a decades-old policy, she did not qualify for citizenship at birth, even though both her parents are American.
...
"The interpretation [of the law] has led the State Department to regard births from assisted reproductive technology as “out of wedlock,” if the source of the sperm and the egg do not match married parents. Such a designation comes with extra requirements for transmitting citizenship, including showing that a biological parent is an American citizen who has spent at least five years in the United States."

Fertility tourism to the U.S.

The Washington Post suggests that the U.S.A. might be a good place to come if your neighbors at home disapprove of what you hope to do...

From sex selection to surrogates, American IVF clinics provide services outlawed elsewhere

"While many countries have moved in recent years to impose boundaries on assisted reproduction, the U.S. fertility industry remains largely unregulated and routinely offers services outlawed elsewhere. As a result, the United States has emerged as a popular destination for IVF patients from around the world seeking controversial services — not just sex selection, but commercial surrogacy, anonymous sperm donation and screening for physical characteristics such as eye color.
...
"Numerous other countries also are tightening their regulation of the fertility industry. Last year, India banned commercial surrogacy. Next year, Ireland is set to join the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand and others in prohibiting anonymous sperm donation. And a large number of countries — including China, Canada and Australia — ban gender selection except in rare cases of medical need.
...
"A survey published in March in the Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics found that nearly 73 percent of U.S. fertility clinics offer gender selection. Of those, nearly 84 percent offer it to couples who do not have fertility problems but are considering IVF solely to control the pregnancy’s outcome."

Are uterus transplants repugnant? And to whom? And why? (in the Irish Times)

Here's an article in the Irish Times on uterus transplants , that makes clear the view that the views of those not directly involved should play a large  and perhaps decisive role in public discussions of transactions that some may find repugnant. The author indicates that among his concerns is that the parentage of the baby might be in doubt (i.e. that a child conceived from the eggs and sperm of his genetic parents and carried to birth by his pregnant genetic mother might have to be regarded as the child of the donor of the uterus...). I wonder if even the author thinks this is a serious reason to ban uterus transplants; rather, I get the sense that he is throwing his net widely in the hope that different objections might resonate with different parts of his audience. Maybe his goal is simply to be controversial. [Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing that child welfare is an important concern when evaluating issues related to reproduction and childbirth...but this concern strikes me as particularly far-fetched.]

Are uterus transplants ethically acceptable?
Several infertile women worldwide have given birth with wombs received from either living or dead donors   by George Winter

"In September 2014, the first live birth following UTx was reported from Sweden by Prof Mats Brännström and colleagues. The recipient had Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome – she was born without a viable womb – and the donor was a 61-year-old friend. Since then, there have been at least 12 successful births worldwide following UTx.

"Recently, it was revealed that the first baby had been born following a womb transplant from a deceased donor. Ten previous attempts had been made in different countries to deliver a live baby following a uterus or womb transplant from a deceased donor, but this – performed by surgeons in Brazil – was the first with a successful outcome.

...

"The UTx procedure begins with in-vitro fertilisation, using the recipient’s egg and her partner’s sperm; the subsequent embryo is frozen; a uterus – from a living or dead donor – is transplanted; the embryo is thawed and implanted; and following pregnancy and delivery by Caesarean section, a hysterectomy is performed, obviating the need for lifelong immunosuppressive therapy."

...

"The “Ethical Considerations” section of the Womb Transplant UK website implies that any societal misgivings on the acceptability of UTx will be ignored: “Ultimately, the decision to go forward will depend on the judgment of the researchers, the participating institution, and most importantly, the patient to whom the transplant will be offered.”

"Hardly an unbiased trio.

"What ethical dilemmas might arise?

"If a transplanted uterus were to jeopardise a recipient’s life, it could be removed; but what if it contains a viable foetus? And there is debate over living versus deceased donation, with Spanish and Japanese teams favouring the Swedish “live” model, and French, Belgian and UK researchers preferring deceased donors. Writing in the journal Bioethics, Dr Nicola Williams cites the view of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics that “the retrieval of a uterus from a living donor necessitates a relatively major surgery with its own risk of complications [and] constitutes reason enough to deem the procedure ethically inappropriate”.

"Also, how much would a child be entitled to know about the donor from whose uterus he or she issued, and – irrespective of whether the donor had been dead or alive – would the infant be the child of the donor or the recipient?"

***********

George Winter, the author of the piece, apparently writes often on ethical issues in medicine (although the above is the first article I had read by him). See e.g.  his recent related articles on The ethical considerations of face transplants and 
The brave new world of wombless gestation--Artificial womb technology poses many ethical questions – we need to debate them
(that article is about experimental technology about lamb embryos brought to term "in a plastic “biobag” – literally, a womb with a view ..."  I was relieved to note that, in considering the implications for humans, the author didn't raise the question above about the parentage--or in this case perhaps the humanity--of the baby (so maybe he was just kidding.)

**********

And see my related post from yesterday:
Friday, December 14, 2018  Successful birth in Brazil to a woman who received a uterus transplanted from a deceased donor

Surrogacy laws in Europe (mostly banned) and some countries where it is allowed

EuroNews has the story (and a map):

Where in Europe is surrogacy legal?

Families Through Surrogacy provides some information about countries around the world that allow surrogacy

The table below lists issues related to surrogacy in various countries which allow it.

COUNTRY	LIMITATIONS	EGG DONORS
AUSTRALIA	Altruistic surrogacy only available. No donor or surrogate matching available. Advertising for surrogates not legal. All donors must be identified Ethics committee approval often required. Foreigners cannot access surrogacy in Australia	User groups such as www.eggdonationaustralia.com.au can provide
CANADA	Altruistic surrogacy only available. Foreigners can access surrogacy	via seperate Egg donor providers
GREECE	Heterosexual couples and single females eligible. Foreign nationals allowed to engage. Surrogate cannot be compensated beyond out-of-pocket expenses	Donors, if required, must be anonymous. Eggs/embryos/sperm are able to be shipped directly from your registered clinic.
GEORGIA	Compensated surrogacy available  to heterosexual couples, including foreigners. Legal protections in place
INDIA	Only available for Indian residents	In-country donors are anonymous however donor photos may be available other details provided: age, height, weight, previous donation history, children, blood group, education level/ occupation
ISRAEL	Altruistic surrogacy available only to heterosexual Israeli residents
KENYA	Compensated surrogacy available to locals and foreigners. No legal protection
LAOS	Compensated Surrogacy available  to foreigners. Gestation & birth occurs in Thailand. No legal protection
MEXICO	Tabasco state closed to surrogacy. Other states have no legal protections. Embryo transfer occurs in Cancun or Mexico City often	Caucasian and Latin Sperm and Egg Donors available. Possible to bring your own surrogate and /or known donor. No waiting list
NIGERIA	Altruistic and commercial surrogacy available to Nigerian heterosexual residents	Egg donors available
SOUTH AFRICA	Altruistic surrogacy available to heterosexual South African residents
THAILAND	Only available altruistically to Thai residents
UK	Altruistic surrogacy only available. Advertising for surrogates not legal foreigners cannot access surrogacy in UK
UKRAINE	Only heterosexual married couples	Caucasian, offer photos with family history, occupation/ area of study, previous donor history and physical details.
USA	Gay and heterosexual foreigners can access surrogacy here see surrogacy laws by US state	Very wide range available from donor agencies or privately

COUNTRY	APPROX COSTS($US)	DONOR & SURROGATE SCREENING	YEARS EXPERIENCE	LEGAL ISSUES
AUSTRALIA	IVF: $25,000 Expenses: $10,000 Legals & counselling: $22,000	Donor screening offered only if through an egg bank	<5 td="" years="">	Transfer of legal parentage available 4-6 months post birth if uncompensated surrogacy used domestically.
GEORGIA	IVF: $8,500 Surrogacy: $26,000 + Local egg donor add $5,000 +	according to age, genetics and lifestyle, mental and physical health	10 years	Intended Parents named on birth certificate to meet the criteria of countries such as the UK, single surrogates are available and DNA testing is available
CANADA	$90,000		>15 years	Transfer of parentage. Canadian passport available
KENYA	$50,000		<3 td="" years="">	No legal protection
UK		Surrogacy UK, COTS	>15 years	Transfer of legal parentage available
USA	IVF costs: $25,000 Surrogacy: $68,000 Other costs: $20,000	Varies by agency	30 years	Parents names on the BC as mother and father
UKRAINE	IVF: $8,500 Surrogacy: $26,000 + Local egg donor add $5,000 +	according to age, genetics and lifestyle, mental and physical health	~5 years	Intended Parents named on birth certificate to meet the criteria of countries such as the UK, single surrogates are available and DNA testing is available. No eligibility for Ukraine citizenship
GREECE	IVF: $20,100 Surrogacy: $44,000 Legals: $10,000+ Local egg donor: $1,360		10+ years	Recently opened up to foreigners Parents names on the BC as mother and father. Court case prior to IVF ensures transfer of parentage occurs before embryo transfer
MEXICO	$80,000 (incl US egg donor)	unknown	<1 td="" year="">

Dealing with shortages of deceased donors in a future with fewer automobile accidents

Sometimes you find out that someone has already worried about something that you haven't even thought of worrying about.  I worry about some aspects of transplantation, and I sometimes think about driverless cars, but here's an article about a worry that is nowhere near the top of my list.  However the short article below (it's a comment on another article) raises some interesting points about how society may want to rethink increasing organ donation as we see (I hope) ever fewer deaths from automobile accidents:

How Do You Donate Life When People Are Not Dying: Transplants in the Age of Autonomous Vehicles

Zoe Corin, Roee Furman, Shira Lifshitz, Ophir Samuelov & Dov Greenbaum (2018) , The American Journal of Bioethics, 18:7, 27-29, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1478024

"While there are differences of opinion as to when autonomous or self-driving cars will actually invade our roads—some car manufacturers are predicting consumer-ready self-driving cars as early as 2021—there is broad consensus that their inevitability is assured. And while there are clear positive social consequences that will result from self-driving cars and trucks, there are also a number of often less appreciated negative externalities. Balanced against the saved lives, minimized commutes, reduction in pollution, and general decrease in daily stress are the driving-related job losses and the reality that there will be fewer organ donors."
...
"There are no quick fixes, and current laws already place significant restrictions on the organ acquisition process. Buying and selling organs is nearly universally objectionable, unethical, and illegal (Ludin 2008). Some countries even ban any benefit, or any form of valuable consideration whatsoever, in exchange for an organ (Caulfield et al. 2014
Caulfield, T., E. Nelson, B. Goldfeldt, and S.Klarenbach, 2014. Incentives and organ donation: what’s (really) legal in Canada?Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease 1: 7.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]). Some jurisdictions go even beyond this altruistic-only donor requirement, and allow live donations only among blood relatives (India 1994Government of India. 1994. Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994.http://wwwmedindianet/tho/thobill1asp. [Google Scholar]).

...

"However, even these universal attitudes have some specific exceptions: In many countries, blood donors are paid, and sperm and egg donors can receive thousands of dollars in remuneration. But just because a handful of tissue donations have been commodified (albeit sometimes obfuscated as gifts with financial consideration), it is not clear that this cash for contribution system will expand anytime soon to include other types of living donations, such as liver lobes or kidneys. To wit: While New York sperm donors can make more than a thousand dollars a month (Lewinnov 2016

Lewinnov, T. 2016. 10 things to know about being a sperm donor, New York Times, Nov. 3 2016. [Google Scholar]), surrogacy contracts are still void and unenforceable by law (New York 2014New York. 2014. N.Y. Dom. REL. Law §§ 121-124 Surrogate Parenting Contracts Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act (2004). [Google Scholar]).

Nevertheless, in light of the need for organs, a number of jurisdictions have tried to indirectly incentivize donation, either through financial or non-financial mechanisms. Such incentives include paying for funeral costs of non-living donors, or for the out-of-pocket expenses directly associated with transplantation (US 2004)."