rfhealthЗдравоохранение Российской ФедерацииHealth care of the Russian Federation0044-197X2412-0723Federal Scientific Center of Hygiene named after F.F. Erisman10.47470/0044-197X-2023-67-3-252-258trkzwcrfhealth-1244Research ArticleМЕДИЦИНА И ПРАВОMEDICINE AND LAWПравовое регулирование донорства гамет и эмбрионов: тенденции и мировой опыт (обзор литературы)Legal regulation of gamete and embryo donation: global and national trends (literature review)https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5746-316XБашмаковаНадежда В.BashmakovaNadezda V.noemail@neicon.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9619-2152ПоляковаИрина ГеннадьевнаPolyakovaIrina G.

Науч. сотр. Уральского межрегионального института общественных наук ФГАУО ВО «Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина», 620000, Екатеринбург.

e-mail: irinapolykova@yandex.ru 

Affiliation researcher, Ural Center for Advanced Studies, Ural Federal University, Yekaterinburg, 620000, Russian Federation.

e-mail: irinapolykova@yandex.ru 

irinapolykova@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7591-7230СыманюкЭльвира Э.SymaniukElvira E.noemail@neicon.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4304-3516ХрамцоваАлександра Ю.KhramtsovaAlexandra Yu.noemail@neicon.ruФГБУ «Научно-исследовательский институт охраны материнства и младенчества» Министерства здравоохранения Российской ФедерацииРоссияUral Research Institute of Maternity and Child CareRussian FederationФГАОУ ВО «Уральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина»РоссияUral Federal UniversityRussian Federation202306072023673252258Copyright © Башмакова Н.В., Полякова И.Г., Сыманюк Э.Э., Храмцова А.Ю., 20232023Башмакова Н.В., Полякова И.Г., Сыманюк Э.Э., Храмцова А.Ю.Bashmakova N.V., Polyakova I.G., Symaniuk E.E., Khramtsova A.Y.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.rfhealth.ru/jour/article/view/1244

Вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии (ВРТ) прочно закрепились в жизни современного общества, однако единой законодательной политики относительно донорства гамет и эмбрионов не существует.

Целью обзора является выявление тенденций правового регулирования донорства гамет и эмбрионов и обозначение законодательных «пробелов» и проблем, связанных с тем, что каждый вид репродуктивного донорства имеет свою специфику и свои юридические коллизии.

Поиск публикаций проводился по всем доступным библиографическим и реферативным базам данных (РИНЦ, Scopus, Web of Science, КиберЛенинка, eLibrary, PubMed), которые содержат публикации по тематике статьи. В качестве основных ограничений поиска выступали язык публикаций (английский и русский) и дата публикации (не ранее 2000 г.).

Среди общемировых тенденций можно выделить движение к открытому донорству гамет. Всё большее количество стран принимают законопроекты, разрешающие только известных (не анонимных) доноров. Законодатель действует в интересах детей, рождённых от донорского материала, давая им возможность при желании и по достижении определённого возраста познакомиться с биологическими родителями. В большинстве стран разрешена компенсация расходов доноров, но не гонорар.

Однако вопросы установления родительства и обязанностей доноров и реципиентов остаются спорными и по-разному решаются законодателем. Основные проблемы донорства спермы, нуждающиеся в законодательном регулировании, — это установление отцовства, неформальное донорство в домашних условиях и анонимность. В ряде европейских стран донорство ооцитов запрещено законом, в других — имеются значительные ограничения. В настоящее время медицинское сопровождение доноров ооцитов после окончания протокола лечения не предписано законом, оставляя без правовой защиты здоровье женщин-доноров. В донорстве эмбрионов центральным является вопрос статуса эмбриона. Ответ на этот вопрос определяет дальнейшую судьбу эмбриона: от «усыновления» до научных исследований. Существует необходимость более чёткого регулирования судьбы эмбриона в случае смерти одного из супругов или развода.

Участие авторов

Участие авторов: Башмакова Н.В. — концепция и дизайн исследования, редактирование; Полякова И.Г. — сбор и обработка материала, написание текста; Сыманюк Э.Э. — концепция и дизайн исследования, редактирование; Храмцова А.Ю. — сбор и обработка материала, составление списка литературы. Все соавторы — утверждение окончательного варианта статьи, ответственность за целостность всех частей статьи.

Финансирование

Финансирование. Исследование не имело спонсорской поддержки.

Конфликт интересов

Конфликт интересов. Авторы декларируют отсутствие явных и потенциальных конфликтов интересов в связи с публикацией данной статьи.

Поступила 11

Поступила 11.08.2021Принята в печать 14.12.2021 Опубликована 06.07.2023

While the assisted reproductive technologies have been available for several decades, there still exists a great divergence in legal frameworks regulating reproductive donation.

The article discusses legal regulations on embryo and gamete (sperm and oocytes) donation in Europe, Americas, Canada and Australia. The search for publications was carried out in all available bibliographic and abstract databases (RSCI, Scopus, Web of Science, CyberLeninka, eLibrary, PubMed) containing reports on the subject of the article. The main search restrictions were the language of publications (English and Russian) and the date of reports (not earlier than 2000). We seek to chart global trends and identify major legislative “gaps”; the latter emerge because each type of reproductive donation causes specific conflicts and calls for specific regulations. There is a visible trend towards open gamete donation across the globe as more and more governments insist on deanonymization of donors. Legislators intend to protect children’s interests and to secure their right to identify their biological parents. Financial remuneration is perceived differently, and regulations diverge across the globe. Many governments permit reimbursements, but do not allow any commercial payoffs. Yet, issues of parenthood and donor-recipient obligations remain quite controversial, which results in divergent legal frameworks. Sperm donation is the least controversial and safest procedure; therefore, it is legal in all countries and is allowed in non-medical setting. On the other hand, informal sperm donation requires targeted legal regulations. Parenthood and anonymity in sperm donation also cause concern and require specific legislation. In some countries, oocyte donation is illegal while in others it is under severe limitations. Currently medical treatment and observation of oocyte donors after ART cycles is not yet legally regulated, which leaves women unprotected from post-donation health issues. Embryo donation hinges on the status of the embryo. Specific definition will determine the consequences including from adoption to research use. There remains a problem of authority over embryo’s future in cases of a spouse’s death or divorce.

Contribution of the authors: Bashmakova N.V. — research concept and design, editing; Polyakova I.G. — collection and processing of material, writing the text; Symaniuk Е.Е. — research concept and design, editing; Khramtsova A.Yu. — collection and processing of material, compilation of the list of literature. All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Acknowledgment

Acknowledgment. The study had no sponsorship.

Conflict of interest

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received

Received: August 11, 2021Accepted: December 14, 2021Published: July 06, 2023

донорство гамет (спермы и ооцитов)эмбриональное донорствоправовое регулирование донорстваобзорsurveygamete donationsperm donationoocyte donationembryo donationlegislation on reproductive donationreviewReferencesBoivin J., Bunting L., Collins J.A, Nygren K.G. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum. Reprod. 2007; 22(6): 1506–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem046Boivin J., Bunting L., Collins J.A, Nygren K.G. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum. Reprod. 2007; 22(6): 1506–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem046Beeson D., Darnovsky M., Lippman A. What’s in a name? Variations in terminology of third-party reproduction. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2015; 31(6): 805–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.004Beeson D., Darnovsky M., Lippman A. What’s in a name? Variations in terminology of third-party reproduction. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2015; 31(6): 805–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.004Van den Broeck U., Vandermeeren M., Vanderschueren D., Enzlin P., Demyttenaere K., D’Hooghe T. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2013; 19(1): 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms039Van den Broeck U., Vandermeeren M., Vanderschueren D., Enzlin P., Demyttenaere K., D’Hooghe T. A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2013; 19(1): 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms039Audibert C., Glass D. A global perspective on assisted reproductive technology fertility treatment: an 8-country fertility specialist survey. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2015; 13: 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0131-zAudibert C., Glass D. A global perspective on assisted reproductive technology fertility treatment: an 8-country fertility specialist survey. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2015; 13: 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0131-zWang J., Sauer M.V. In vitro fertilization (IVF): a review of 3 decades of clinical innovation and technological advancement. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2006; 2(4): 355–64. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.2006.2.4.355Wang J., Sauer M.V. In vitro fertilization (IVF): a review of 3 decades of clinical innovation and technological advancement. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2006; 2(4): 355–64. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.2006.2.4.355Lavoie K., Côté I., Montigny F. Assisted reproduction in the digital age: stories of canadian sperm donors offering their gametes online via introduction websites. Journal of Men’s Studies. 2018; 26(2): 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826517737047Lavoie K., Côté I., Montigny F. Assisted reproduction in the digital age: stories of canadian sperm donors offering their gametes online via introduction websites. Journal of Men’s Studies. 2018; 26(2): 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826517737047Graham S., Mohr S., Bourne K. Regulating the ‘good’ donor: the expectations and experiences of sperm donors in Denmark and Victoria, Australia. In: Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., Richards M., Wilkinson S., eds. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge University Press; 2016: 207–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316117446.011Graham S., Mohr S., Bourne K. Regulating the ‘good’ donor: the expectations and experiences of sperm donors in Denmark and Victoria, Australia. In: Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., Richards M., Wilkinson S., eds. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge University Press; 2016: 207–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316117446.011Kelly F. An alternative conception: The legality of home insemination under Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Can. J. Fam. Law. 2010; 26(1): 149–70. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1861339Kelly F. An alternative conception: The legality of home insemination under Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Can. J. Fam. Law. 2010; 26(1): 149–70. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1861339Government of Quebec. An Act Instituting Civil Unions and Establishing New Rules of Filiation. Québec, Canada: Québec Official Publisher; 2002.Government of Quebec. An Act Instituting Civil Unions and Establishing New Rules of Filiation. Québec, Canada: Québec Official Publisher; 2002.Nurudeen S., Levine B., Thornton M. Selecting and screening donors. In: Sauer M., ed. Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation Second Edition. London: Springer; 2013: 31–46. Available at: https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc7121967Nurudeen S., Levine B., Thornton M. Selecting and screening donors. In: Sauer M., ed. Principles of Oocyte and Embryo Donation Second Edition. London: Springer; 2013: 31–46. Available at: https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc7121967Bay B., Larsen P.B., Kesmodel U.S., Ingerslev H.J. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101(1): 252–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.013Bay B., Larsen P.B., Kesmodel U.S., Ingerslev H.J. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101(1): 252–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.013Freeman T., Jadva V., Tranfield E., Golombok S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(9): 2082–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew166Freeman T., Jadva V., Tranfield E., Golombok S. Online sperm donation: a survey of the demographic characteristics, motivations, preferences and experiences of sperm donors on a connection website. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(9): 2082–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew166Janssens P.M., Nap A.W., Bancsi L.F. Reconsidering the number of offspring per gamete donor in the Dutch open-identity system. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.). 2011; 14(2): 106–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2011.577886Janssens P.M., Nap A.W., Bancsi L.F. Reconsidering the number of offspring per gamete donor in the Dutch open-identity system. Hum. Fertil. (Camb.). 2011; 14(2): 106–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2011.577886McWhinnie A. Gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16(5): 807−17. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.5.807McWhinnie A. Gamete donation and anonymity: should offspring from donated gametes continue to be denied knowledge of their origins and antecedents? Hum. Reprod. 2001; 16(5): 807−17. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.5.807Golombok S., Murray C., Jadva V., Lycett E., MacCallum F., Rust J. Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: con- sequences for parent-child relationship and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Hum. Reprod. 2006; 21(7): 1918−24. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del039Golombok S., Murray C., Jadva V., Lycett E., MacCallum F., Rust J. Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: con- sequences for parent-child relationship and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Hum. Reprod. 2006; 21(7): 1918−24. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del039Wright K. Limiting offspring numbers Can we justify regulation? In: Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., Richards M., Wilkinson S., eds. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge University Press; 2016: 185–204.Wright K. Limiting offspring numbers Can we justify regulation? In: Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., Richards M., Wilkinson S., eds. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge University Press; 2016: 185–204.Freeman T., Jadva V., Slutsky J., Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., et al. Sperm donors limited: psychosocial aspects of genetic connections and the regulation of offspring numbers. In: Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., Richards M., Wilkinson S., eds. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge University Press; 2016: 185165–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316117446.009Freeman T., Jadva V., Slutsky J., Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., et al. Sperm donors limited: psychosocial aspects of genetic connections and the regulation of offspring numbers. In: Golombok S., Scott R., Appleby J.B., Richards M., Wilkinson S., eds. Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge University Press; 2016: 185165–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316117446.009Gill L. Who’s your daddy: defining paternity rights in the context of free, private sperm donation. William & Mary Law Review. 2012; 54(5): 1715.Gill L. Who’s your daddy: defining paternity rights in the context of free, private sperm donation. William & Mary Law Review. 2012; 54(5): 1715.Jacobs M. Intentional parenthood’s influence: rethinking procreative autonomy and paternity establishment policy. Am. U. J. Gender & Soc. Policy & Law. 2012; 20(3): 489–508.Jacobs M. Intentional parenthood’s influence: rethinking procreative autonomy and paternity establishment policy. Am. U. J. Gender & Soc. Policy & Law. 2012; 20(3): 489–508.Lima N.S., Álvarez Plaza C., Cubillos Vega C. Donantes de ovocitos: análisis comparativo de dos muestras de Argentina y España so breperfil de donantes, motivaciones y anonimato. Política y Sociedad. 2019; 56(3): 603–22. https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.59726Lima N.S., Álvarez Plaza C., Cubillos Vega C. Donantes de ovocitos: análisis comparativo de dos muestras de Argentina y España so breperfil de donantes, motivaciones y anonimato. Política y Sociedad. 2019; 56(3): 603–22. https://doi.org/10.5209/poso.59726Purewal S., van den Akker O.B.A. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2009; 15(5): 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp018Purewal S., van den Akker O.B.A. Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2009; 15(5): 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp018Shenfield F., de Mouzon J., Pennings G., Ferraretti A.P., Andersen A.N., de Wert G., et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum. Reprod. 2010; 25(6): 1361–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq057Shenfield F., de Mouzon J., Pennings G., Ferraretti A.P., Andersen A.N., de Wert G., et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum. Reprod. 2010; 25(6): 1361–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq057SEF. La Sociedad Española de Fertilidad se manifiestasobre la donación de gametosen España; 2017. Available at: https://www.sefertilidad.net/docs/noticias/donacionGametos.pdfSEF. La Sociedad Española de Fertilidad se manifiestasobre la donación de gametosen España; 2017. Available at: https://www.sefertilidad.net/docs/noticias/donacionGametos.pdfSEF, Sociedad Española de Fertilidad: Informeestadístico de Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida 2015, Registro Nacional de Nacional de Actividad 2015- Registro SEF; 2015. Available at: https://www.registrosef.com/public/docs/sef2015_IAFIVm.pdfSEF, Sociedad Española de Fertilidad: Informeestadístico de Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida 2015, Registro Nacional de Nacional de Actividad 2015- Registro SEF; 2015. Available at: https://www.registrosef.com/public/docs/sef2015_IAFIVm.pdfESHRE. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology: “Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE”. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(8): 1638–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew151ESHRE. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology: “Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE”. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(8): 1638–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew151Kretz M., Ohl J., Letur H., Guivarch A., Catteau-Jonard S., De Mouzon J. Comparative survey of French oocyte donor’s profile and motivations between nulliparous and multiparous donors, 2017–2018. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie. 2020; 48(10): 736–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2020.04.004Kretz M., Ohl J., Letur H., Guivarch A., Catteau-Jonard S., De Mouzon J. Comparative survey of French oocyte donor’s profile and motivations between nulliparous and multiparous donors, 2017–2018. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie. 2020; 48(10): 736–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2020.04.004Burkman R.T., Tang M.T., Malone K.E., Marchbanks P.A., McDonald J.A., Folger S.G., et al. Infertility drugs and the risk of breast cancer: findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study. Fertil. Steril. 2003; 79(4): 844–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04950-6Burkman R.T., Tang M.T., Malone K.E., Marchbanks P.A., McDonald J.A., Folger S.G., et al. Infertility drugs and the risk of breast cancer: findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences Study. Fertil. Steril. 2003; 79(4): 844–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)04950-6Delvigne A., Rozenberg S. Epidemiology and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): a review. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2002; 8(6): 559–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.6.559Delvigne A., Rozenberg S. Epidemiology and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): a review. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2002; 8(6): 559–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.6.559Berg J.W. Risky Business: Evaluating Oocyte Donation. Am. J. Bioeth. 2001; 1(4): 18–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651601317139243Berg J.W. Risky Business: Evaluating Oocyte Donation. Am. J. Bioeth. 2001; 1(4): 18–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/152651601317139243Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority SEED Report. A Report on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s Review of Sperm, Egg and Embryo Donation in the United Kingdom. London: HFEA. Available at: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2477/hfea-report-egg-and-sperm-donation-in-the-uk-2012-2013.pdfHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Authority SEED Report. A Report on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s Review of Sperm, Egg and Embryo Donation in the United Kingdom. London: HFEA. Available at: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2477/hfea-report-egg-and-sperm-donation-in-the-uk-2012-2013.pdfMcMillan J., Hope T. Gametes, money, and egg sharing. Lancet. 2003; 362: 584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14141-4McMillan J., Hope T. Gametes, money, and egg sharing. Lancet. 2003; 362: 584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14141-4Boutelle A.L. Donor motivations, associated risks and ethical considerations of oocyte donation. Nurs. Womens Health. 2014; 18(2): 112–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-486X.12107Boutelle A.L. Donor motivations, associated risks and ethical considerations of oocyte donation. Nurs. Womens Health. 2014; 18(2): 112–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-486X.12107Resnik D.B. Bioethical issues in providing financial incentives to research participants. Medicoleg. Bioeth. 2015; 5: 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/MB.S70416Resnik D.B. Bioethical issues in providing financial incentives to research participants. Medicoleg. Bioeth. 2015; 5: 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2147/MB.S70416Winter H.B., Dondorp W.J. Evaluatie Embryowet en wet donorgegevens kunstmatige bevruchting. Den Haag: ZonMW; 2012.Winter H.B., Dondorp W.J. Evaluatie Embryowet en wet donorgegevens kunstmatige bevruchting. Den Haag: ZonMW; 2012.Bos A.M.E., Bakker M.R.C., Broekmans F.J.M., Weima S.M. Eiceldonatie: wiedoen het en wat kost het ze? Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 2014; 1–5. Available at: https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(17)30200-6/pdfBos A.M.E., Bakker M.R.C., Broekmans F.J.M., Weima S.M. Eiceldonatie: wiedoen het en wat kost het ze? Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 2014; 1–5. Available at: https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(17)30200-6/pdfPennings G. Central role of altruism in the recruitment of gamete donors. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 2015; 33(1): 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0019-xPennings G. Central role of altruism in the recruitment of gamete donors. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 2015; 33(1): 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-015-0019-xGürtin Z.B., Golombok S., Ahuja K. Egg-share donors’ and recipients’ knowledge, motivations and concerns: clinical and policy implications. Clin. Ethics. 2012; 7(4): 183–92. https://doi.org/10.1258/ce.2012.012024Gürtin Z.B., Golombok S., Ahuja K. Egg-share donors’ and recipients’ knowledge, motivations and concerns: clinical and policy implications. Clin. Ethics. 2012; 7(4): 183–92. https://doi.org/10.1258/ce.2012.012024Bass C., Gregorio J. Conflicts of interest for physicians treating egg donors. Virtual. Mentor. 2014; 16(10): 822–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.10.pfor2-1410Bass C., Gregorio J. Conflicts of interest for physicians treating egg donors. Virtual. Mentor. 2014; 16(10): 822–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.10.pfor2-1410Gruben V. Women as patients, not spare parts: examining the relationship between the physician and women egg providers. Can. J. Women Law. 2013; 25(2): 249–83. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.25.2.249Gruben V. Women as patients, not spare parts: examining the relationship between the physician and women egg providers. Can. J. Women Law. 2013; 25(2): 249–83. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.25.2.249Cahn N., Collins J. Fully informed consent for prospective egg donors. Virtual. Mentor. 2014; 16(1): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.1.hlaw2-1401Cahn N., Collins J. Fully informed consent for prospective egg donors. Virtual. Mentor. 2014; 16(1): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.1.hlaw2-1401Cohen G., Adashi E. Embryo disposition disputes: contro-versies and case law. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2016; 46(5): 13–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.600Cohen G., Adashi E. Embryo disposition disputes: contro-versies and case law. Hastings Cent. Rep. 2016; 46(5): 13–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.600Dostalik P. Embryo “Adoption”? The rhetoric, the law, and the legal consequences. New York Law School Law Review. 2011; 55(3): 867–93.Dostalik P. Embryo “Adoption”? The rhetoric, the law, and the legal consequences. New York Law School Law Review. 2011; 55(3): 867–93.Knaplund K. Children of Assisted Reproduction. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2012; 45(4): 899–935.Knaplund K. Children of Assisted Reproduction. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. 2012; 45(4): 899–935.Casolo J., Curry-Ledbetter C., Edmonds M., Field G., O’Neill K., Poncia M., eds. Assisted reproductive technologies. Geo. J. Gender & Law. 2019; 2: 313–54.Casolo J., Curry-Ledbetter C., Edmonds M., Field G., O’Neill K., Poncia M., eds. Assisted reproductive technologies. Geo. J. Gender & Law. 2019; 2: 313–54.Blyth E., Frith L. Donor-conceived people’s access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. Int. J. Law Policy Family. 2009; 23: 174–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebp002Blyth E., Frith L. Donor-conceived people’s access to genetic and biographical history: an analysis of provisions in different jurisdictions permitting disclosure of donor identity. Int. J. Law Policy Family. 2009; 23: 174–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebp002Riggs D.W., Russell L. Characteristics of men willing to act as sperm donors in the context of identity-release legislation. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26(1): 266–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq314Riggs D.W., Russell L. Characteristics of men willing to act as sperm donors in the context of identity-release legislation. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26(1): 266–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq314

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.