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
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.
comments
And why do we ban the sale of kidneys, when we allow the donation of kidneys?
- by Thomas on Aug 1, 2008 at 11:21 AM | link
Thomas said it before I did.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Aug 2, 2008 at 7:11 PM | link
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.
- by wesley j. smith on Aug 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM | link