She'll Have Hers Scrambled, With A Side Of Ph.D.
I'm all for women selling their eggs, people selling a kidney, and for infertile couples to go to India and pay a woman there to have their baby. And if it's legal for two consenting adults to exchange tomatoes for money, or car repair for money, why can't they exchange sex for pay? Free market, consenting adults, huh?
Here's a story about how more women are selling their eggs...or, as they seem to like to call it, donating them...for a fee. Via CNN:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- With a full load of classes, two young children, and her bills piling up, Michelle decided to face her economic straits in a pretty unorthodox way. As the nation's economy is slumping, some fertility clinics say interest in donating has surged.As the nation's economy is slumping, some fertility clinics say interest in donating has surged.
She is donating her eggs to an infertile couple.
"The cost of living is crazy right now, with two kids, gas prices, and rent...I'm living paycheck to paycheck" said the 24-year-old, who did not give her last name to protect her identity. "I just really need the money to finish school."
Michelle is not alone. As the nation's economy is slumping, some fertility clinics say interest in donating has surged.
Of course, while I have no problem with human egg-vending, the answer for Michelle (and I'm speculating she's a single mother since no hubby is mentioned) might've been to wait until she had her degree, a career under her belt, some money saved up, and and a daddy for those kiddies before she got herself knocked up.
Related: why is it ethical or legal to sell eggs or sperm but not legal to sell kidneys or lungs?
jerry at August 7, 2008 1:09 AM
Actually a husband is mentioned at the very end of the article, and while the wording IS ambiguous, I am opting for thinking she does have a husband, but it could be read to believe her husband is a work in progress.
My husband is in construction and ... that's not doing so well right now.
jerry at August 7, 2008 1:11 AM
Amusing second comment, there, Jerry. The situation seems to be common. My wife took me on as a project, and now (nearly 40 years later) I am still not finished. She hasn't given up yet, though--still working on my driving skills, and the way I load the dishwasher, and take care of the wood on the deck, and . . . .
Your ethical question is intriguing; I'm not sure the legislators thought it through. However, there is a difference that may explain it; eggs and sperm (and blood, also legal) are replaceable, but kidneys and lungs are not.
Axman at August 7, 2008 4:31 AM
Wasn't it Dave Barry who said something "Men are like fine wine. They start out as grapes, and it's up to the women to stomp the living crap out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with."? o_O
Flynne at August 7, 2008 5:11 AM
Your ethical question is intriguing; I'm not sure the legislators thought it through. However, there is a difference that may explain it; eggs and sperm (and blood, also legal) are replaceable, but kidneys and lungs are not.
I'm an organ donor; if you want my kidneys or lungs, please wait until I'm done with them! (Just don't cause the accident.)
Flynne at August 7, 2008 5:13 AM
The husband is mentioned in the end of the article by a women names Mellisa not Michelle.
vlad at August 7, 2008 5:15 AM
I still have yet to hear a good explanation for how scientists are going to convince women to donate millions of eggs for free for use in therapeutic cloning, which currently is expected to require the use of an egg separate from the original embryo. Why for free? Well, it was determined that paying them would be unethical. So let's see, you can get shot up full of powerful hormones with uncertain side effects, go through PMS on super-steroids, and endure the egg removal procedure for free, with the nebulous promise that you might improve someone's health, or you can do so for several thousand dollars, with the less nebulous promise that you can help a couple become parents and perpetuate your genes. Gee, I wonder which option women are going to choose.
I'm keeping an eagle eye out for legislation that would ban payments for egg donations in relation to this very issue. (Some countries do ban payments; in those countries, gamete donations have dried up, with the exception of donations from relatives et al.)
marion at August 7, 2008 5:23 AM
"there is a difference that may explain it; eggs and sperm (and blood, also legal) are replaceable" Actually female eggs do not replicate you just have a whole lot of them. So it's a little closer to organ donation as opposed to sperm and blood which we keep making.
vlad at August 7, 2008 5:31 AM
I am all for free-market living donation. Why SHOULDN'T someone who is willing to go down to one kidney get compensated? And heck, if you want to chop off your ear for someone for money, you should be able to do that too.
I looked into "donating" and found private clinics pay up to $10,000 or more plus travel expenses to new yowrk or california for "premium" eggs. Being tall and reasonably attractive with a college degree and no family history of cancer, heart disease, or obesity, qualified me for that title (go me!). Then you are put in a catalog and couples can choose you, based on physical appearance (some couples want to match themselves) and all your other qualities. Official donating only gets you $3,000. Not really worth it IMO, it's a heck of a hassle over a whole month. But, I decided if a baby had my genetics, I needed to raise it. So no money for me. I have no issue with others doing it though.
I am all for free market whoring too. It happens anyway!
momof3 at August 7, 2008 6:07 AM
This is a simple case that should be covered easily in bioethics; the woman should have the right to sell her eggs on a free market. It involves no long-lasting effect for her and it reaffirm the notion that her body as a whole belongs to her.
Toubrouk at August 7, 2008 6:36 AM
American culture is in love with creating life, which is why selling eggs is good and selling kidneys is bad. Screw that life once it's here, of course.
MonicaP at August 7, 2008 6:43 AM
Yeah, those free market arguments about allowing prostitution sound great in the abstract. But then you see it in practice, and...well, all those dumb @ss teenagers getting pimped by gross guys to other gross guys makes you want to hoist the Chuck Norris revenge fantasy flag and start roundhousing people. Hence the laws against it.
I also note that 99.9999% of the people making the "no big deal--legalize it arguments" regarding prostitution would react with immediate violence if you propositioned their son, who just turned 18 and is not so bright, by saying "Your parent seems really enlightened. Would you like to come to New York with me and service strangers for pay on a dirty mattress? Oh, and all my Friday night party guests (male and female, wink wink) get oral sex from you as part of your work responsibilities. I will even match your 401K contributions!"
Yuppers, suddenly the libertines become sourpusses too. With good reason, I think. People think of prostiution as being something capable people of reasonable good sense and maturity could consent to after examination of market alternatives. That may exist somewhere, but that is the exception not the rule, and I fear it is not just illegality making it so.
Selling organs, again, sounds fine when you are talking about the abstract, but so much government intervention would be prudent to make us less concerned about it that I almost prefer abolition to thousands of state and federal regulatory agents making a living off the sales too.
spartee at August 7, 2008 6:49 AM
"would react with immediate violence if you propositioned their son, who just turned 18 and is not so bright, by saying "Your parent seems really enlightened." Agreed however if the shit is legal and out in the open (requiring registration like Nevada) I can know if he/she is a hooker and deal with it accordingly. Since it's illegal when your pimp smacks the crap out of you, you can't go to the cops cause well he's your pimp.
The fact that it's illegal makes it a whole lot more lucrative, especially for the pimps.
vlad at August 7, 2008 7:06 AM
Can I just say how sick I am of anecdotal stories tenuously connecting everything to the "slumping economy" or the "mortgage meltdown"? The formula seems to be to get a couple of pawn shops/used car dealers/fertility clinics etc. to "say that interest has surged". Then they find a few people who claim they "can't afford gas and/or food" unless they sell their jewelry/SUV/eggs etc. Lazy, boring reporting.
Jennifer at August 7, 2008 7:31 AM
Egg donors get paid for their time and effort, not for their eggs (their compensation is the same whether they produce 5 or 25 viable eggs).
The American Society of Reproductive Medicine establishes clear ethical guidelines for egg donation: go on their site and find out. All legitimate clinics in this country abide by their recommendations.
Although eggs are not replaceable, egg donation does not deplete ovarian reserve. Women in their 20s have hundreds of thousands of eggs.As they age, their eggs become less viable.
If you are looking for an egg donor or would like to be an egg donor, go to www.AssistedFertility.com.
Egg Donor Program Director at August 7, 2008 7:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/07/shell_have_hers.html#comment-1577747">comment from Egg Donor Program DirectorEgg donors get paid for their time and effort, not for their eggs (their compensation is the same whether they produce 5 or 25 viable eggs).
But why shouldn't they be paid for their eggs? Surely you have a personal, not just a professional, opinion on this.
Amy Alkon at August 7, 2008 7:42 AM
"I am all for free-market living donation. Why SHOULDN'T someone who is willing to go down to one kidney get compensated?"
What happens if that person then loses the remaining kidney to accident or disease? Who pays for the dialysis or the transplant?
If a person's financial status puts him in a situation where selling organs seems like a good idea, I'm guessing he hasn't been paying any Health Insurance premiums, so the cost will covered by your tax dollars.
Steamer at August 7, 2008 8:32 AM
I take a Pigouvian view (Pigou being a Brit economist) of these things: that you must pay the costs associated with your profits -- and one of them may be getting somebody to donate one to you so you don't die, and then raising money for an operation...or dying.
As for the situation -- maybe somebody will want to sell one to finance a business or college. Not everyone who sees this as a good idea will be in dire financial straits.
Amy Alkon at August 7, 2008 9:47 AM
the answer for Michelle (and I'm speculating she's a single mother since no hubby is mentioned) might've been to wait until she had her degree, a career under her belt, some money saved up, and and a daddy for those kiddies before she got herself knocked up.
It's entirely possible that she was married when the kids were born, and then got divorced. Or maybe even widowed. I agree with your larger point, Amy, but I think you were a little too quick to bring it into this topic.
Rex Little at August 7, 2008 10:10 AM
If she were divorced or widowed, knowing how reporting works, that would likely be in the piece. Sure, I'm speculating, but I think the lack of stigma for women who are "single mothers by choice" makes it easier psychologically and otherwise for women to do this.
Amy Alkon at August 7, 2008 10:16 AM
Believe me, I've thought about it. Doubt I have any left and also came to the conclusion I couldn't deal with knowing my biological child was out there somewhere. My daughter (who's not too old) likewise tossed out the idea for the same reason. Biologically, that's still your child and there's no getting around it. I couldn't give a child up for adoption for the same reason. Pregnancy would end in raising the kid or abortion, no farming it out to strangers. (Don't worry all you right to lifers, I'm past that worry.)
However, that's my hangup. I see no reason a woman who doesn't have it shouldn't sell eggs if she likes. The only problem I see is one that also results from sperm "donation" -- half-siblings could become romantically involved without knowing they're related and make a baby. In-breeding's frowned on for a reason.
I wouldn't be totally unopen to the idea of selling one of my kidneys either. But they'd never meet my price. It'd frankly would have to be at least a quarter of a million -- after taxes. Ain't willing to risk it unless it's enough to pay cash for a house (by house I mean a small house but with some yard in a decent neighborhood) with enough left to live off the interest and retire on. In other words, it ain't worth the risk unless it would free me from working for a living the rest of my life. Does it show that I can't wait to retire? Frankly, as close as I am to that, they may have to up the ante.
T's Grammy at August 7, 2008 10:17 AM
"But then you see it in practice, and...well, all those dumb @ss teenagers getting pimped by gross guys to other gross guys"
And why do "you see it", even though it is illegal? Because (gasp!) making it illegal doesn't stop people from doing it! It only, as vlad points out, makes it more difficult for prostitutes who get beat up by their pimps to report it to the police. Think alcohol prohibition.
P.S. Maybe teenagers shouldn't be so dumb @ssed.
Pirate Jo at August 7, 2008 11:40 AM
Ah, you're Vlad, thank you for the catch and correction, and my apologies Amy. I agree with you then, my guess is she is single mom (wanting everything.)
jerry at August 7, 2008 12:01 PM
"but I think the lack of stigma for women who are "single mothers by choice" makes it easier psychologically and otherwise for women to do this." Define single mom by choice, there are several variants. She could have been in a serious relationship and dad wanted to keep the baby and marry her then changed his mind. This would make her naive. Then there is the free ride babies momma who get pregnant by a rich guy but her lawyer blows the case and he doesn't have to pay shit, or he ends up broke and can't pay, this would be one of the bad/evil women worthy of scorn. Another would be the ones that simply decide I'm having a baby and go to a sperm bank make the baby and that's it, not really evil but not too wise either worthy of some scorn.
vlad at August 7, 2008 1:12 PM
I'd like to point out a few reasons why the free market system wrt organs is not a good idea.
What parts can you sell and which ones are off limits? Big ugly question I can't see a reasonable answer to, should you be allowed to sell your life. If organs are fine why not your life as a whole.
Does this include paying off the family of a dead donor? Just cause your dead does that mean your organs are free? Should a transplant team wait while the dead persons family barters with a group of possible recipients over price? Risking the organs becoming non viable.
The socialist would be frothing at the mouth about rich buying spare parts at will and the poor getting nothing. Back to the old argument at what point and to what extent should a persons (or family) wealth put you above the rest of us.
vlad at August 7, 2008 1:30 PM
What about gene pool depletion? I'd not want to buy an egg (donate my ass!) from someone with two kids before she's 25, and not yet a college grad. Bargain basement eggs.
Rachel at August 7, 2008 1:56 PM
Jerry and Vlad--two different women, with two different names and ages, in two different cities, are quoted. Are you guys drinking already?
Michelle is 24 in NYC.
Melissa is 28 in Chicago.
Kate at August 7, 2008 1:59 PM
Well in my defense, yes, I was drinking late last night when I confused the two.
In vlad's defense, vlad caught my error and fixed it.
Leaving us both to ask, what's your defense for not seeing that vlad needed no defense?
Have you been drinking? If so, where? And may I join you?
vlad, I agree with you that the free market leaves a lot to be desired with regards to organ selling. I just find it amusing that so often the answers come out to screw the little guy. In this instance, you cannot sell your organ and you have to do it out of goodwill. EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PIPELINE, from the doctors taking your organ out to the doctors putting your organ in is making enormous amounts of money.
Presumably, we do this because as a society we don't money to pressure you into making a bad choice. It still leaves you hungry and the organ pipeline getting richer.
Does this include paying off the family of a dead donor?
Yes.
Should a transplant team wait while the dead persons family barters with a group of possible recipients over price?
This one is easy, I think, because the current protocol is correct. The transplant team is not supposed to be anywhere near the dying person, and is certainly not to have any role in declaring anyone dead.
I think that when that has been violated there has been a good ruckus raised.
Once can imagine an organ selling market and still have some regulation concerning how death is determine and the roles of transplant teams.
Don't ask me what the solution is. I think it's somewhere along the lines of a reasonable safety net, accepting some amount of free riders, and then, most importantly, actually respecting individual choice and agency.
So in a sense, I think people should be able to sell their organs, and as a society we should try to invent ourselves a good way to keep people from being forced to do so.
jerry at August 7, 2008 2:25 PM
Rachel,
Best comment yet.
Amy K. at August 7, 2008 2:39 PM
> Well in my defense, yes, I
> was drinking late last night
Hell, Can you do that? Does that work?
Hey Amy! Eric! Lena! Patrick! I hereby take back 60% of the snot I blew at you from fiscal '04-'07.
Crid at August 7, 2008 2:50 PM
I believe it's in storage in 40 silos down in Long Beach, but say the word and I'll tell them you'll be down to pick it up!
Amy Alkon at August 7, 2008 3:36 PM
"The socialist would be frothing at the mouth about rich buying spare parts at will and the poor getting nothing."
The poor would be getting the money spent. If you own your own life and your own body, you should be able to sell any organ of it, for any agreed-upon price, if you wish. But the poor should never be *forced* to give up organs, just as they should never be *disallowed* to sell them.
Pirate Jo at August 7, 2008 4:39 PM
Long Beach? Let's leave it there.
Crid at August 7, 2008 7:48 PM
Seriously. Let me put up one of mine on e-bay and retire already. Only way I will ever own my own home. Can you demand a minimum asking price on e-bay?
Phooey this on it exploits the poor. Yes, it does. Like working for the man until you work yourself to death (or next to it) doesn't. And as jerry pointed out everyone else down the line makes a buck off it. Why not the person (or the person's family when it's a tad more vital than an extra kidney)?
I, frankly, think you should still be able to sell a pint of blood when you're broke. This is quite a scam they've got going being vultures and not paying us for our body parts. Want them pay, I say. I've no other resources.
T's Grammy at August 8, 2008 9:28 AM
I doubt that the risk of half siblings meeting and screwing is any higher in this case than it is generally. You're only allowed to do it a certain number of times, so unless you personally pop out a dozen of your own, you won't have more of your genes running around than the average Mormon. Also, most people(donors and recipients) are open with their families about it.
christina at August 8, 2008 11:19 AM
Leave a comment