Compensation for Human Eggs Approved by Key California Senate Committee, But Not For CIRM Researchers

By Dr. Matthew Watson

Legislation that would permit women in
California to be paid for their eggs for scientific research
yesterday cleared a key state Senate committee and is likely headed
for the governor's desk.

The measure by Assemblywoman Susan
Bonilla, D-Concord, was approved on a 6-1 vote by the Senate Health
Committee and now goes to the Senate floor. Earlier, it passed the
Assembly on a 54-20 vote.

Some stem cell researchers and other
scientists have chafed under state restrictions that bar compensation
for eggs while that the same time fertility clinics are paying an average of $9,000 a session for eggs, with some prices going as high as $50,000.

However, the legislation will not
affect researchers using grants from the $3 billion California stem
cell agency. The agency's regulations bar compensation for eggs in
the research that it funds. That means that at least a two-tiered
research system would exist in California not to mention another tier
created by federal regulations that differ from both those of the
stem cell agency and those set by the legislation.

CIRM's restrictions are required by
Proposition 71, which created the agency in 2004, and cannot be
changed without a 70 percent vote of the legislature. Bonilla's bill
requires only a majority vote.

Bonilla's legislation is sponsored by
American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the chief industry
group for the largely unregulated fertility industry.

The analysis prepared for yesterday's
committee session summarized Bonilla's arguments for the measure in
this fashion:

“This bill seeks to create equity in
the field of medical research compensation by removing the
prohibition on compensation for women participating in oocyte (egg)
donation for medical research. All other research subjects are
compensated for their time, trouble, and inconvenience involved in
participating in research. AB 926 ensures that women are treated
equally to all other research subjects - allowing them to actively
evaluate their participation in research studies. Unfortunately, the
ban on compensation has had serious unintended consequences. It has
led to a de facto prohibition on women’s reproductive research in
California, adversely impacting the same women that the ban intended
to protect. With few oocytes donated, fertility research and
fertility preservation research has been at a standstill. This
greatly affects women suffering from fertility issues and women
facing cancer who would like to preserve their oocytes.”

A number of organizations are opposed
to the bill including the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley
and the Catholic Church. The bill analysis summarized some of the
opposition arguments in this fashion:

“Egg harvesting exposes healthy young
women to multiple synthetic hormones in order to produce many times
the normal number of eggs per cycle. One of the potential harms is
OHSS, which has resulted in hospitalizations and at least a few
documented deaths. These groups state that many experts remain
concerned about the long-term risks of these drugs, especially
their potential impact on infertility and various cancers.
Follow-up research on egg providers, which could establish the
frequency and severity of these adverse outcomes, is widely
recognized to be grossly inadequate.”

In addition to risk and religious
objections, opponents also argue that poor and minority women are
likely to be exploited by enterprises seeking their eggs to resell at
a profit.

No major stem cell research
organizations, including the California stem cell agency, have taken
a position on the bill. The legislation has received little public
attention, although The Sacramento Bee carried an article last March.
Ruha Benjamin, author of "People's Science" and assistant professor at Boston
University, also wrote about the measure in April on the Huffington
Post. Benjamin said,

“UC Berkeley professor Charis
Thompson compares egg
donation to 'other kinds of physically demanding service work,'
arguing for a 'salary negotiation between the state agency (or
relevant employer) and the donor.' This, she contends, is a 'sensible
and dignified recognition of [the donor's] work, time, and effort.'
And instead of refusing compensation to women, Thompson suggests that
we 'direct our efforts to understanding and minimizing' the risks.

“Indeed. Now more than ever, we must
redouble our efforts, because the market in eggs appears to be
expanding from private reproduction to public research, and
increasingly overseas, if the surrogacy
industry is any indication of how 'cheaper' women become a
reserve army of bio-labor in less regulated regions.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/SVuriAz87l0/compensation-for-human-eggs-approved-by.html