Donor insemination: Israel as a representative case of a competitive market examining the possibility of policy reform
Abstract
Aim: To measure the private and social benefits of donor insemination (DI). Methods: An empirical model investigates the general public and DI clients’ willingness to pay (WTP) for DI, and the willingness of potential donors to become altruistic or paid sperm donors. Results: The general public and DI clients value DI and have a positive WTP for it, whereas willingness to donate, altruistically or for payment, is either low or very low. Conclusion: The general public’s and DI clients’ WTP for DI is in average above actual cost, so the government should consider funding or subsidizing DI. The government should encourage altruistic gamete donation through information and education of all parties involved directly and indirectly in the process of donation whose ultimate goal is the birth of a child.
Supplementary Material
File (suppl_material.docx)
- Download
- 40.13 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Almeling R. Gender and the value of bodily goods: commodification in egg and sperm donation. Law Contemp. Probl. 72(3), 37–58 (2009).
2.
Bridgewater PD. Reconstructing rationality: towards a critical economic theory of reproduction. Emory Law J. 56, 1215–1234 (2007).
•• Presents economic realities that raise significant questions relating to the understanding of the motivations, interests and relative power dynamics of parties in the reproductive market.
3.
Becker G. An economic analysis of fertility. In: Demographic & Economic Change in Developed Countries. Universities-National Bureau Conference Series. Columbia University Press, NJ, USA, 209–240 (1960).
4.
Becker G. A theory of the allocation of time. Economic J. 75, 493–517 (1965).
5.
Easterlin R. An economic framework for fertility analysis. Stud. Fam. Plan. 6, 54–63 (1975).
6.
Easterlin R. The economics and sociology of fertility: a synthesis. In: Historical Studies of Changing Fertility. Princeton University Press, NJ, USA, 57–133, (1978).
7.
Easterlin R, Crimmins E. The Fertility Revolution: A Supply-Demand Analysis. University of Chicago Press, IL, USA, 209 (1985).
8.
Spiegel U, Gonen LD, Templeman J. Economic implications of in vitro fertilization using willingness to pay. J. Public Health 21(6), 535–557 (2013).
9.
Sanger C. Developing markets in baby making: in the matter of baby M. Harvard J. Law Gender 30, 67–97 (2007).
10.
Pi VL. Regulating sperm donation: why requiring exposed donation is not the answer. Duke J. Gender Law Policy 16(2), 379–401 (2009).
11.
Bowen JM, Hughes E, O’Reilly DJ, Perampaladas K, Xie F. Presentation to Assisted Human Reproduction Canada (AHRC) (2010). http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/pac-ahrc/H176-2-2011-eng.pdf
12.
Blyth E, Crawshaw M, Haase J, Speirs J. The implications of adoption for donor offspring following donor-assisted conception. Child & Family Social Work. 6, 295–304 (2001).
13.
Golombok S, Murray C, Brinsden P, Abdalla H. Social versus biological parenting: family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. In: Annual Progress In Child Psychiatry And Child Development. Hertzig ME, Farber EA (Eds). Brunner-Routledge, NY, USA, 155–175 (2003).
14.
Murray C, Golombok S. Solo mothers and their donor insemination infants: follow-up at age 2 years. Hum. Reprod. 20, 1655–1660 (2005).
15.
Zeifman DM, MA JE. Experimental examination of women’s selection criteria for sperm donors versus life partners. Pers. Relationships 20, 311–327 (2013).
16.
Silver AJ, Larson JL, Silver MJ et al. Carrier screening is a deficient strategy for determining sperm donor eligibility and reducing risk of disease in recipient children. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers 20(6), 276–284 (2016).
17.
Sims CA, Callum P, Ray M, Iger J, Falk RE. Genetic testing of sperm donors: survey of current practices. Fertil. Steril. 94(1), 126–129 (2010).
18.
Daniels KR, Lewis GM. Donor insemination: the gifting and selling of semen. Soc. Sci. Med. 42(11), 1521–1536 (1996).
• Points to two models of semen provision upon which my paper is based: commercial and donor-based.
19.
Pietrzak A. The price of sperm: an economic analysis of the current regulations supporting the gamete donation industry. J. Law Fam. Stud. 14, 121–135 (2012).
•• Discusses the Laissez-Faire approach to the sperm donation industry and raises several complex questions regarding government intervention, healthcare, insurance, religion, science and ethics.
20.
Swanson KW. Body Banks: A History Of Milk Banks, Blood Banks, And Sperm Banks In The United States. Oxford University Press on behalf of the Business History Conference, Oxford, UK (2011).
21.
Hasan O, Johnson A, Lipton S, Turow R. Infertility treatment: an overview; new ways of making babies: the biology, ethics and policy of infertility. (2013). www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%
22.
Spar DL. The Baby Business: How Money, Science, And Politics Drive The Commerce Of Conception. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA, USA (2006).
• The reproductive market is identified as a ‘market’, given the involved elements of demand and supply, prices that link supply and demand, and businesses that sell their products.
23.
Yee S. ‘Gift without a price tag’: altruism in anonymous semen donation. Hum. Reprod. 24(1), 3–13 (2009).
•• Deals with the concept of altruism in gamete donation, given the complexity and the dynamics involved.
24.
Pennings G. The rough guide to insemination: cross-border travelling for donor semen due to different regulations. Facts Views Vis. OBGYN Mongraph, 55–60 (2010).
25.
Blyth E. Fertility patients’ experiences of cross-border reproductive care. Fertil. Steril. 94, e11–e15 (2010).
26.
Hudson N, Culley L, Blyth E, Norton W, Rapport F, Pacey A. Cross-border reproductive care: a review of the literature. Repro. BioMed. Online 22, 673–685 (2011).
27.
Inhorn MC, Gürtin ZB. Cross-border reproductive care: a future research agenda. Reprod. Biomed. Online 23, 665–676 (2011).
28.
Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum. Reprod. Update 21(4), 411–426 (2015).
29.
McMillan J. The Bazaar: A Natural History of Markets. W. W. Norton, NY, USA (2002).
30.
Gonen LD. Social and private benefits of assisted reproductive technology: a national survey-based evaluation in Israel. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 5(1), 49–63 (2016).
31.
Birenbaum-Carmeli D. Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Repro. BioMed. Soc. Online 2, 16–23 (2016).
• Presents the assisted reproductive technology market in Israel and the donor insemination market included within it.
32.
Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Carmeli YS, Yavetz H. Secrecy among Israeli recipients of donor insemination. Polit. Life Sei. 19, 69–76 (2000).
33.
Safir M. Religion, tradition and public policy give family first priority. In: Calling the Equality Bluff. Swirski B, Safir MP (Eds). Pergamon, NY, USA, 57–65 (1991).
34.
Birenbaum-Carmeli D. “Cheaper than a newcomer”: on the social production of IVF policy in Israel. Social Health Bin. 26, 897–924 (2004).
35.
Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Carmeli YS. Reproductive policy in context: implications on the rights of Jewish women in Israel, 1945–2000. Policy Stud. 24(2), 101–114 (2003).
36.
Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Carmeli YS. Reproduction and reproductive technologies in Israel: an introduction. In: Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technology Among Jewish Israelis. Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Carmeli YS (Eds). Berghahn Books, Oxford and New York (2008).
37.
Ministry of Health, State of Israel, Sperm Bank Regulations. Director General’s circular: management of sperm banks and artificial insemination – regulations regarding the management of a sperm bank and instructions for carrying out artificial insemination. 13 November 1992.
38.
Ravitsky V. The right to parenthood in an age of technological insemination. In Dilemmas in Medical Ethics. Cohen-Almagor R (Ed.). HaKibbutz HaMeuchad and the Van Leer Institute, (2002).
39.
Israeli Ministry of Health. www.health.gov.il/Subjects/Med_Inst/Sperm_Bank/Documents/sperm_banks_Israel.pdf
40.
Donath O. Regretting motherhood: a sociopolitical analysis. J. Women Culture Soc. 40(2), 343–367 (2015).
41.
Israeli Ministry of Health. www.health.gov.il/Subjects/Med_Inst/Sperm_Bank/Documents/sperm_banks_abroad.pdf
42.
Doron A. What is the most highly demanded product? Donor sperm. NRG. (2011). www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/244/578.html
43.
Olsen AR, Smith EP. Introduction to special issue on surveys over time. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 4(4), 328–330 (1999).
44.
Olsen D, Smith R. Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness to pay’ in health and health care. Health Econ. 10, 39–52 (2001).
•• The willingness to pay methodology that I use in the empirical model in my paper is presented.
45.
Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD. Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assesssment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Rowman & Allanheld, NJ, USA (1986).
46.
Mitchell RC, Carson RT. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, WA, USA (1989).
47.
Carson R, Wright J, Alberini A, Carson N, Flores N. A Bibliography Of Contingent Valuation Studies And Papers. Natural Resource Damage Assessment, CA, USA (1994).
48.
Diener A, O’Brien B, Gafni A. Health care contingent valuation studies: a review and classification of the literature. Health Econ. 7(4), 313–326 (1998).
• The cost–benefit analysis on which I based my empirical model is presented.
49.
NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register. 58, 4602–4614 (1993).
50.
Thomas R, Donaldson C, Torgerson D. Who answers ‘willingness to pay’ questions? J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 5, 7–11 (2000).
51.
Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Econ. 4, 439–452 (1995).
52.
Johannesson M, Jonsson B. Economic evaluation in health care: is there a role for cost-benefit analysis? Health Policy 17, 1–23 (1991).
53.
Klose T. The contingent evaluation method in health care. Health Policy 47, 97–123 (1991).
54.
Arrow K. Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. Am. Econ. Rev. 53(5), 941–973 (1963).
55.
Ryan M. Should government fund assisted reproductive techniques? A study using willingness to pay. Appl. Econ. 29(7), 841–849 (1997).
56.
Carmeli YS, Birenbaum-Carmeli D. Ritualizing the ‘natural family’: secrecy in Israeli donor insemination. Sci. Culture 9(3), 301–325 (2000).
57.
Allan S. Donor conception, secrecy and the search for information. J. Law Med. 19(4), 631–650 (2012).
58.
Menken J, Trussell J, Larsen U. Age and infertility. Science 233(4771), 1389–1394 (1986).
59.
Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum. Reprod. 7, 1342–1346 (1992).
60.
Schwartz D, Mayaux MJ. Female fecundity as a function of age: results of artificial insemination in 2193 nulliparous women with azoospermic husbands. Federation CECOS. N. Engl. J. Med. 306, 404–406 (1982).
61.
Shenfield F, Doyle P, Valentine A, Steele SJ, Tan SL. Effects of age, gravidity and male infertility status on cumulative conception rates following artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor semen: analysis of 2998 cycles of treatment in one centre over 10 years. Hum. Reprod. 8, 60–64 (1993).
62.
Van Noord-Zaadstra BM, Looman CW, Alsbach H, Habbema JD, te Velde ER, Karbaat J. Delaying childbearing: effect of age on fecundity and outcome of pregnancy. BMJ 302(6789), 1361–1365 (1991).
63.
Virro MR, Shewchuk AB. Pregnancy outcome in 242 conceptions after artificial insemination with donor sperm and effects of maternal age on the prognosis for successful pregnancy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 148, 518–524 (1984).
64.
Cook R, Golombok S. A survey of semen donation: Phase II – the view of the donors. Hum. Reprod. 10, 951–959 (1995).
65.
Lui SC, Weaver SM, Robinson J et al. A survey of semen donor attitudes. Hum Reprod. 10, 234–238 (1995).
66.
Lyall H, Gould GW, Cameron IT. Should semen donors be paid? A survey of the attitudes of the general public. Hum. Reprod. 13, 771–775 (1998).
67.
Lui SC, Weaver SM. Attitudes and motives of semen donors and non-donors. Hum. Reprod. 11, 2061–2066 (1996).
68.
Healy K. Embedded altruism: blood collection regimes and the European Union’s donor population. Am. J. Sociol. 105, 1633–1657 (2000).
69.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Awareness of family health history as a risk factor for disease. Morb. Mortal. Wkly Rep. 53(44), 1044 (2004).
70.
Ravitsky V. Conceived and deceived: the medical interests of donor-conceived individuals. Hastings Center Report 42, 17–22 (2012).
71.
Turner A, Coyle A. What does it mean to be donor offspring? the identity experience of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Hum. Reprod. 15(9), 2041 (2000).
72.
Jadva V, Freeman T, Kramer W, Golombok S. Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reprod. Biomed. Online 20(4), 523–532 (2010).
73.
Daniels K. Donor gametes: anonymous or identified? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 21, 113–128 (2007).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Published online: 17 November 2016
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Donor insemination: Israel as a representative case of a competitive market examining the possibility of policy reform. (2016) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0066
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.