The Egg Man

Wesley Smith writes on Second Hand Smoke that there ought to be an outright ban on the a woman's ability to sell her gametes all together--for fertility treatments, stem cell research, or any purpose at all. He makes this claim that paying women $3000 to $7000 per cycle was troublesome, citing as his reasons health risks and the commoditization of women.

Yet, he argues that altruistic donations of eggs by women would be fine....despite the existence of the same health risks regardless of whether money changes hands or not.

Somehow it seems unjust to me to ask women to undergo what all acknowledge to be a difficult, painful, and for some women risky process to donate eggs--whether for altruistic or other reasons--and at least not compensate her for her time and on some sort of model of "hazard pay".

So explain this argument to me, Mr. Egg Man, why is it okay to ask women to undertake the health risks for no pay, yet compensation for time or effort would be so horrible as to recommending banning the practice?

Summer Johnson, PhD

comments

And why do we ban the sale of kidneys, when we allow the donation of kidneys?

Thomas said it before I did.

The eggman sayeth: If eggs can be bought, the poor will sell and the rich will buy, the poor will suffer the health consequences and the rich and powerful will either try to win Nobel Prizes for cloning or enjoy their babies oblivious of the potential death, infertility, or other problems for women.

Seems obvious to me. But then, I'm not a Ph.D.

I'd like us to forget our fascination with the egg all together and leave young women's ovaries ALONE. ( I mean it ain't like donating sperm...although I think some men, especially the ones who want to get their hands on human eggs, like to think it is.)

Let's remember a kidney saves a life, eggs are used make little lives that may end up frozen indefinitely or pulled apart by scientists in the lab.

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Caplan: Zealot's Bad Study Leads Autism Community Astray for A Decade

As Arthur Caplan tells us in this week's MSNBC column, one bad study and a zealot's pursuit of a theory can lead an entire movement... (more)

It's My Baby and I'll Smoke If I Want To! Except Florida.

How far can a court, and by extension the state, go to protect the health and well-being of the unborn? In Florida, it would appear--much... (more)

"Extraordinary Messiness"

Hollywood has taken up orphan diseases before--remember "Lorenzo's Oil"? And bioethics movies generally have been increasingly common, even just in the last year. Think "My... (more)

Ashley X Revisited: Fost and Lantos Debate on the Bioethics Channel

This month's issue of The American Journal of Bioethics features a Target Article by Diekema and Fost articulating their defense of the Ashley X procedures.... (more)

Did Anyone Know It Was National Vaccination Week?

Over on the Practical Bioethics blog, I asked the above question today, based on a story live from Kansas City, MO. The answer: I didn't.... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags