Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to M R Rimington.
Assisted conception carries with it known and putative medical and surgical risks. Exposing healthy women to these risks in order to harvest eggs for donation when a safer alternative exists is morally and ethically unacceptable. Egg sharing minimizes risk and provides a source of eggs for donation. Anonymity protects all parties involved and should not be removed.
Egg sharing is a form of egg donation where complete strangers can collaborate anonymously to overcome their involuntary childlessness. In a retrospective analysis, results of egg sharing treatments were analysed in 37 consecutive donors and 39 recipients who had achieved concurrent success following IVF treatment. The interval between being accepted onto the programme and receiving treatment was less than 6 months for most patients. Births of 103 infants are expected. Multiple pregnancy rates were high and equivalent in both the groups (donors 32.4%, recipients 25.6%) despite the original number of eggs available being halved at egg collection and equal numbers being allocated to donors and recipients. On average fewer than six eggs were required for the birth of each baby. More successes are expected in time as 33 couples (43.4%) have their excess embryos stored for future use. The programme avoided the need to advertise for donors. This had particular significance for members of minority ethnic groups. It is surmised that promotion of concurrent treatment of egg sharers and recipients will attract funds from insurance providers or health boards who are unimpressed by IVF treatments with indifferent success rates and runaway costs. In the event of such funds materializing, meagre NHS resources for IVF treatment could be better focused. Overall, the benefit derived from applying the simultaneous treatment of anonymous donors and recipients is so compelling as to make it the preferred IVF option for qualifying couples.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Fifty women with polycystic ovaries took part in a prospective randomized study. All women required treatment by in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for reasons other than anovulation. They had all previously undergone ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophin therapy which had failed to result in pregnancy or had been abandoned due to high risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Twenty-five women were treated by long-term pituitary desensitization followed by gonadotrophin therapy, oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer (group 1). Twenty-five women underwent laparoscopic ovarian electrocautery after pituitary desensitization followed by gonadotrophin therapy, oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer (group 2). A significantly higher number of women in group 1 had to have the treatment cycle abandoned due to impending or actual OHSS, determined by endocrine and clinical findings. In addition, the development of moderate or severe OHSS in completed cycles was higher in group 1. The pregnancy rate and miscarriage rates in the two treatment groups were similar. The authors propose that laparoscopic ovarian electrocautery is a potentially useful treatment for women who have previously had an IVF treatment cycle cancelled due to risk of OHSS or who have suffered OHSS in a previous treatment cycle.
Egg donation is associated with medical and surgical risks regardless of the source of eggs, be it through commercial, altruistic or more recent egg-share donors. Egg sharing is the only system that does not turn a healthy woman (the donor) into a patient. Using carefully selected egg-share donors, pregnancy rates for both donor and recipient are as good as any egg-donation programme, with one cohort of eggs being used with more efficiency. We propose that anonymous egg sharing, as licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), minimizes risk, is ethically sound and should be considered as the only acceptable form of anonymous egg donation.