Donation and Surrogacy

doi:10.1017/9781108881760.016

Chapter 15 - Donation and Surrogacy

from Section 2 - Assisted Reproductive Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2021

Edited by

Eliezer Girsh

Show author details

Eliezer Girsh: Affiliation:
Barzilai Medical Center, Ashkelon

Book contents

Get access

Summary

For persons who wish to have children but are unable to produce their gametes, assisted reproductive technology (ART) involving donated gametes suggests a means of becoming gestational and social parents (Figure 15.1). Conceiving with a donor gamete ultimately yields a child who lacks genetic relations with one or both of the parents. In order to compensate for this genetic lack, some fertility clinics match the ethnicity of gamete donors and recipient parents, to increase the likelihood that the resulting child will have phenotypic characteristics of the receiving parent despite the absence of a direct genetic link. This matching allows the family to keep secrecy about the use of a donor by ensuring that the child could look as a genetic child.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: A Textbook of Clinical Embryology , pp. 182 - 193

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108881760.016 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Maung, HH. Ethical problems with ethnic matching in gamete donation. J. Med. Ethics 2019; 45:112–116.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sauer, M, Paulson, R, Lobo, R. Pregnancy in women over 50 or more years: outcome of 22 consecutive established pregnancies from oocyte donation. Fertil. Steril. 1995; 64:111–115.Google Scholar

Isley, L, Falk, RE, Shamonki, J, Sims, CA, Callum, P. Management of the risks for inherited disease in donor-conceived offspring. Fertil. Steril. 2016;106:1479–1484.Google Scholar

Henneman, L, Borry, P, Chokoshvili, D, et al. Responsible implementation of expanded carrier screening. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2016; 24:e1–e12.Google Scholar

Martin, J, Asan, , Yi, Y, et al. Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 2015; 104:1286–1293.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Amor, DJ, Kerr, A, Somanathan, N, et al. Attitudes of sperm, egg and embryo donors and recipients towards genetic information and screening of donors. Reprod. Health 2018; 15:26.Google Scholar

Kenney, NJ, McGowan, ML. Looking back: egg donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 93:455–466.Google Scholar

Subak, LL, Adamson, GD, Boltz, NL. Therapeutic donor insemination: a prospective randomized trial of fresh versus frozen sperm. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1992; 166:1597–1604.Google Scholar

Amuzu, B, Laxova, R, Shapiro, SS. Pregnancy outcome, health of children, and family adjustment after donor insemination. Obstet. Gynecol. 1990; 75:899–905.Google Scholar PubMed

Sauer, M. Reproductive prohibition: restricting donor payment will lead to medical tourism. Hum. Reprod. 1997; 12:1844–1845.Google Scholar

Williams, RA, Machin, LL. Rethinking gamete donor care: a satisfaction survey of egg and sperm donors in the UK. Plos One 2018; 13:e0199971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199971.Google Scholar

American Society for Reproductive Medicine.Guidelines for gamete and embryo donation. Fertil. Steril. 1998; 70:1S–4S.Google Scholar

Prateek, S, Sindhu, SG. Ethical and legal aspects in ART. In: Talwar, P, Sindhu, SG, eds., Step by Step Protocols in Clinical Embryology and ART. New Dehli: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. 1995; 441–461.Google Scholar

Linden, JV, Centola, G. New American Association of Tissue Banks standards for semen banking. Fertil. Steril. 1997; 68:597–600.Google Scholar

Trounson, A, Leeton, J, Besanko, M, Wood, C, Conti, A. Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilised in vitro. Br. Med. J. 1983; 286:835–838.Google Scholar

Rosenwaks, Z. Donor eggs: their application in modern reproductive technologies. Fertil. Steril. 1987; 47:895–909.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sauer, MV, Paulson, RJ, Lobo, RA. A preliminary report on oocyte donation extending reproductive potential to women over 40. N. Engl. J. Med. 1990; 232:1157–1160.Google Scholar

Domingues, TS, Aquino, AP, Barros, B, et al. Egg donation of vitrified oocytes bank produces similar pregnancy rates by blastocyst transfer when compared to fresh cycle. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2017; 34:1553–1557.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Van Katwijk, C, Peeters, LL. Clinical aspects of pregnancy after age of 35 years: a review of the literature. Hum. Reprod. Update 1998; 4:185–194.Google Scholar

Sauer, M, Paulson, RJ, Lobo, R. Oocyte donation to women of advanced age: pregnancy results and obstetrical outcomes in patients 45 years and older. Hum. Reprod. 1996; 11:2540–2543.Google Scholar

Jacobsson, B, Ladfors, L, Milsom, I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 104:727–733.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Simchen, MJ, Yinon, Y, Moran, O, Schiff, E, Sivan, E. Pregnancy outcome after age 50. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 108:1084–1088.Google Scholar

Cleary-Goldman, J, Malone, FD, Vidaver, J, et al. Impact of maternal age on obstetric outcome. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 105:983–990.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Joseph, KS, Allen, AC, Dodds, L, et al. The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005; 105:1410–1418.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Schutte, JM, Schuitemaker, NW, Steegers, EA, van Roosmalen, J; Dutch Maternal Mortality Committee. Maternal death after oocyte donation at high maternal age: case report. Reprod. Health 2008; 5:12.Google Scholar

Cohen, J, Scott, R, Schimmel, T, Levron, J, Willadsen, S. Birth of infant donor after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. Lancet 1997; 350:186–187.Google Scholar

Cohen, J, Scott, R, Alikani, M, et al. Ooplasmic transfer in mature human oocytes. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 1998; 4:269–280.Google Scholar

Dale, B, Wilding, M, Botta, G, et al. Pregnancy after cytoplasmic transfer in a couple suffering from idiopathic infertility. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16:1469–1472.Google Scholar

Soini, S, Ibarreta, D, Anastasiadou, V, et al. The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2006; 14:588–645.Google Scholar

St John, J. The control of mtDNA replication during differentiation and development. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2014; 1840:1345–1354.Google Scholar

Otten, AB, Smeets, HJ. Evolutionary defined role of the mitochondrial DNA in fertility, disease and ageing. Hum. Reprod. Update 2015; 21:671–689.Google Scholar

Scheibye-Knudsen, M, Fang, EF, Croteau, DL, Wilson, DM III, Bohr, VA. Protecting the mitochondrial powerhouse. Trends Cell Biol. 2015; 25:158–170.Google Scholar

Elliott, HR, Samuels, DC, Eden, JA, Relton, CL, Chinnery, PF. Pathogenic mitochondrial DNA mutations are common in the general population. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008; 83:254–260.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Schaefer, AM, McFarland, R, Blakely, EL, et al. Prevalence of mitochondrial DNA disease in adults. Ann. Neurol. 2008; 63:35–39.Google Scholar

Trushina, E, McMurray, CT. Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases. Neuroscience 2007; 145:1233–1248.Google Scholar

Reeve, AK, Krishnan, KJ, Turnbull, D. Mitochondrial DNA mutations in disease, aging, and neurodegeneration. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2008; 1147:21–29.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Keating, DJ. Mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, regulation of exocytosis and their relevance to neurodegenerative diseases. J. Neurochem. 2008; 104:298–305.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Isasi, R, Kleiderman, E, Knoppers, BM. Genetic technology regulation. Editing policy to fit the genome? Science 2016; 351:337–339.Google Scholar

Tachibana, M, Sparman, M, Sritanaudomchai, H, et al. Mitochondrial gene replacement in primate offspring and embryonic stem cells. Nature 2009; 461:367–372.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Liu, CS, Chang, JC, Kuo, SJ, et al. Delivering healthy mitochondria for the therapy of mitochondrial diseases and beyond. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2014; 53:141–146.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Koopman, WJ, Willems, PH, Smeitink, JA. Monogenic mitochondrial disorders. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366:1132–1141.Google Scholar

Wolf, DP, Mitalipov, N, Mitalipov, S. Mitochondrial replacement therapy in reproductive medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 2015; 21:68–76.Google Scholar

Darbandi, S, Darbandi, M, Khorshid, HRK, et al. Experimental strategies towards increasing intracellular mitochondrial activity in oocytes: a systematic review. Mitochondrion 2016; 30:8–17.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Woods, DC, Tilly, JL. Autologous germline mitochondrial energy transfer (AUGMENT) in human assisted reproduction. Semin. Reprod. Med. 2015; 33:410–421.Google Scholar

Fakih, MHSM, Szeptycki, J, dela Cruz, DB, et al. The AUGMENT treatment: physician reported outcomes of the initial global patient experience. JFIV Reprod. Med. Genet. 2015; 3:154.Google Scholar

Boucret, L, Bris, C, Seegers, V, et al. Deep sequencing shows that oocytes are not prone to accumulate mtDNA heteroplasmic mutations during ovarian ageing. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32:2101–2109.Google Scholar

Liu, S, Li, Y, Gao, X, Yan, JH, Chen, ZJ. Changes in the distribution of mitochondria before and after in vitro maturation of human oocytes and the effect of in vitro maturation on mitochondria distribution. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 93:1550–1555.Google Scholar

Wilding, M, Dale, B, Marino, M, et al. Mitochondrial aggregation patterns and activity in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16:909–917.Google Scholar

Van Blerkom, J, Davis, P, Alexander, S. Differential mitochondrial distribution in human pronuclear embryos leads to disproportionate inheritance between blastomeres: relationship to microtubular organization, ATP content and competence. Hum. Reprod. 2000; 15:2621–2633.Google Scholar

Paull, D, Emmanuele, V, Weiss, KA, et al. Nuclear genome transfer in human oocytes eliminates mitochondrial DNA variants. Nature 2013; 493:632–637.Google Scholar

Craven, L, Tuppen, HA, Greggains, GD, et al. Pronuclear transfer in human embryos to prevent transmission of mitochondrial DNA disease. Nature 2010; 465:82–85.Google Scholar

Shenfield, F, Pennings, G, Cohen, J, et al. ESHRE Task Force on ethics and law 10: surrogacy. Hum. Reprod. 2005; 20:2705–2707.Google Scholar

Blake, L, Carone, N, Raffanello, E, et al. Gay fathers’ motivations for and feelings about surrogacy as a path to parenthood. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32:860–867.Google Scholar

Murphy, DA. The desire for parenthood: gay men choosing to become parents through surrogacy. J. Fam. Issues 2013; 34:1104–1124.Google Scholar

Lindenman, E, Shepard, MK, Pescovitz, OH. Müllerian agenesis: an update. Obstet. Gynecol. 1997; 90:307–312.Google Scholar

Beale, JM, Creighton, SM. Long-term health issues related to disorders or differences in sex development/intersex. Maturitas 2016; 94:143–148.Google Scholar

Aflatoonian, N, Eftekhar, M, Aflatoonian, B, Rahmani, E, Aflatoonian, A. Surrogacy as a good option for treatment of repeated implantation failure: a case series. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 2013; 11:77–80.Google Scholar PubMed

Wang, AY, Dill, SK, Bowman, M, Sullivan, EA. Gestational surrogacy in Australia 2004–2011: treatment, pregnancy and birth outcomes. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2016; 56:255–259.Google Scholar

Blyth, E, Landau, R. (Eds.) Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures: Social, Legal and Ethical Perspectives. London; New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 2004.Google Scholar

Thompson, C. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge; London: MIT Press. 2005.Google Scholar

Jennings, S, Mellish, L, Tasker, F, Lamb, M, Golombok, S. Why adoption? Gay, lesbian, and heterosexual adoptive parents’ reproductive experiences and reasons for adoption. Adopt. Q 2014; 17:205–226.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.