Informed consent and coercion in recruitment advertisements for oocyte donors

As the use of donor eggs for in vitro treatment has increased, both medically affiliated and private donor egg agencies have turned to online advertisements to recruit donors. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine provides recommendations encouraging ethical recruitment of donors, however there is no formal regulation for the informed consent process for egg donor recruitment and compensation. Underrepresentation of risks and targeted financial incentives may pose a risk to the informed consent process.

Data from online advertisements for egg donors active between January 1 - August 31, 2020, were collected to analyze content related to risks, Covid-19 precautions, donor payment, and desired donor characteristics. Advertisements for egg donors on Google, Craigslist, and social media were analyzed. Primary outcomes included the mention of the risks of egg donation, including the risk of Covid-19 exposure, in donor egg advertisements. Secondary outcomes included language targeting specific donor characteristics and financial compensation.

103 advertisements were included. 35.9% (37/103) of advertisements mentioned some risk of the egg donation process, and 18.5% (19/103) mentioned risks or precautions related to Covid-19 exposure. Of advertisements for private donor egg agencies, 40.7% (24/59) mentioned any risk, compared to 29.6% (13/44) of medically affiliated egg donation programs; the difference was not statistically significant (p-value = 0.24). Agencies targeting students and donors of a specific race were more likely to offer payments over $10,000 for an egg donation cycle. Among advertisements offering over $20,000 for donor compensation, 72.7% (8/11) recruited women under the age of 21.

Egg donor recruitment advertisements, for both medically affiliated programs and private agencies, were unlikely to mention risks including the risk of exposure to Covid-19. Non-medically affiliated private donor egg agencies were more likely to violate multiple American Society for Reproductive Medicine ethics guidelines, including offering higher than average compensation, and recruiting donors from young and vulnerable populations.