On the periphery: egg donation for reproduction and the nuclear
family
Margaret Boulos
University of Sydney
Introduction
Experiences of gamete donation for reproductive purposes are contextual because
national and/or state regulations impact on the nature of the exchange. In Australia,
personal relationships between egg donors and recipients, however perfunctory, may
be considered inevitable given that individuals must find each other outside the
clinic.1 However, the social status of the egg donor is complex since they exist
outside the normative nuclear family where one mother and father are expected to
pass on genetic make-up to their children, an important basis of identity in EuroAmerican societies (Strathern 1992; Thompson 2005). Indeed, as Orobitg & Salazar
(2005: 49) argue ‘for egg donation to make sense, kinship and biology must come
apart’. Egg donors embody this uncoupling by speaking paradoxically of their
contribution: they refer to their eggs in ways that reduce their ontological significance
implying that this is just DNA and refuting the idea of parenthood on the basis of this
genetic connection, preferring to highlight the roles of gestation and rearing to be the
constitutive elements of motherhood. This rather simple picture of the altruistic donor
who is interested in the welfare of others becomes more complex when examining the
meanings attached to non-reproductive egg donation, namely stem cell research.
1
Unlike American (Thompson 2005) or Spanish (Orobitg and Salazar 2005) fertility clinics,
Australian clinics do not act as brokers between parties until mandatory counselling and consent are
undertaken in the later stages. Clinics encourage patients to find donors through their own social
networks or by advertising in publications such as Sydney’s Child. Donors take medication to stop and
then overstimulate their ovulation to produce more than the regular egg which is matured every month.
Eggs are extracted in a day surgery procedure which involves light sedation and aspirating eggs via a
glass needle inserted into the vagina. Eggs are immediately fertilized as technology to freeze them is
still highly experimental. Embryos which are formed will be implanted between days two and five or
frozen for future use.
Reproductive egg donors are less likely to consider providing their eggs to stem cell
research precisely because it does not result in a baby. Hence, donors privilege the
reproductive meanings of their eggs. This shows that reproductive egg donors want to
utilise their eggs as reproductive tissue even though it will not necessarily result in
socially-recognised kinships of their own. This is not to suggest that all eggs at all
times have inherently reproductive meanings (Haimes and Luce 2006) or that they are
not part of the donor’s own body project (Shaw 2008) but that donors are reluctant to
perceive them outside the ethics of kinship for others (Roberts 2007). This paper will
show that reproductive egg donors constantly manage the tension between the egg as
a cell that does not signify kinship between the donor and the child and the imagined
kinships it will help to create for others. Furthermore, this paper argues that this
opposition is part of a process in constructing an appropriate egg donor: a woman
with enough concern for the infertility of others to provide the material needed but
who will not become the problematic figure of ‘second mother’ by claiming parental
responsibilities and intruding into the normative nuclear family.
The study
The data are drawn from a three-year ARC funded project titled: Oocytes for stem
cell research: donation and regulation in Australia. This study adopts a qualitative
approach to investigate the social and bioethical issues related to the introduction of
legislation in 2007 which permitted the technique of therapeutic cloning called
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT).2 Stem cell research utilises the reproductive
capacity of eggs to produce patient specific stem cells, and has instituted a significant
new demand which will compete with the established trade of eggs for reproductive
purposes. This study explores how, if at all, stem cell research donation is different to
reproductive egg donation from the perspective of potential egg donors.
2
SCNT involves the insertion of the nucleus of an adult cell into the enucleated egg (this means that
the egg has had its own DNA removed). With manipulation, enucleated eggs still have the capacity to
'unpack' the information of the adult cell or reprogram it to behave like embryonic stem cells. SCNT is
a form of cloning cells because the tissue derived from the process is expected to be the exact genetic
match of the adult cell, in contrast to stem cells derived from embryos which will not be patientspecific (Dennis 2006; Roberts and Throsby 2008). If an SCNT embryo were to be implanted into a
uterus, it could theoretically develop into a being, however, this is illegal in all countries that regulate
stem cell research.
The participants were identified through the grant partner’s database.3 Egg donation
is quite rare in Australia; the fertility clinic had ten donors from the last two years on
their records, two of whom were excluded from the study because they lived in rural
areas. Five participants make up the cohort from which the data are drawn. Their ages
range from 26 to 40 years and all are educated beyond high school certificate level.
While the ideal egg donor is expected to be under 35 and already have at least one
child as a demonstration of her fertility, only 2 donors in our cohort adhere to these
requirements. A letter inviting donors to participate in the study was sent with a
‘contact consent’ form which was returned to the research team to negotiate an
interview time. Interviews usually ran for ninety minutes and took place in the
interviewee’s home. Participants were asked a variety of questions about their
decision to donate for reproduction, their feelings, health and wellbeing effects of
their decision, and their ideas about appropriate consent and protection procedures for
research donation. The participants were also asked about their relationship with the
clinic and its role in their donation decision and feelings. The interviews also covered
perceptions and understandings of stem cell research and SCNT and egg donation for
research.
Findings
A technical focus: ‘it’s just an egg’
Reproductive egg donors assist others in attempts to achieve pregnancy and the
situations in which this occurs vary widely. There is not one definitive donation story
and the meanings managed by donors and recipients reflect the complexity of
producing kinships that are enabled by technological advancements. While some of
the novel forms of kinship that have emerged in the late 20th century can be
considered socially and politically radical (Ryan-Flood 2009), the narratives of
reproductive egg donors tend to reinforce norms about the nuclear family where
children are expected to be produced by one mother and father. Donors enact their
3
This project is partnered by an established fertility clinic in metropolitan Sydney. The clinic is notfor-profit and attached (physically) to a large teaching hospital.
own effacement by portraying their eggs as insignificant, merely DNA-bearing cells.
In the following extract, the donor explicitly rules out that she is creating a child of
her own by focusing on the role of gestation which is to be undertaken by another
woman. Ursula uncouples the traditional connection between biology and kinship by
downplaying the ontological significance of her egg:
And people don’t really understand it’s just an egg. But a lot of people think,
‘Well, that’s almost like that’s like your child as well?’ And it’s not, because
I’ve seen it grow in somebody else, and it’s all their child – so for some people
it’s a bit... ‘Oh, that’s a bit weird!’ Ursula.
Donors position themselves as components external to the recipient’s reproductive
path in that their eggs are required to initiate the process, but they become excluded
once the eggs are extracted and can become embryos. As other studies (Kirkman
2003; Orobitg and Salazar 2005; Thompson 2005; Nahman 2008; Shaw 2008; Teman
2010) show, donors, like surrogates, make clear distinctions between different aspects
that define motherhood such as genes, gestation and rearing and in this way disclaim
ownership of the child. While behaving as suitable donors should, these meanings,
are often contested by friends and family whose opinions challenge the technical
status of the egg that the donor employs:4
Some of my friends were, like, ‘Never! I would never do that! Oh, my god.
That’s half your child out there! Oh, my god!’ And I’m like, ‘No, no, it’s
not!’…OK, genetically it’s half me, but I’m also really fascinated with the
whole nature-nurture debate…I never see it as ‘my child’ or ‘half my child’, I
guess…again, I guess it’s all just perspective. It’s in her. She’s going to be
pregnant, she’s going to give birth to her. Agnes.
Similarly, Ursula suggests that despite resemblances between herself and the child
that may imply a bond between them, she considers the recipient woman’s pregnancy
as an important visual reminder that she cannot claim motherhood because here,
4
The sentiments expressed by the donor’s friends and family can be considered mainstream social
views about families. In contesting their values, the donor can reaffirm her own meanings.
motherhood is constituted as inherently embodied. However, there is a glimpse that
such a distinction is not inevitable and the donor must psychologically reinforce this
for herself.
Um, I think because it’s... Your brain still has to disconnect from the fact that
it’s got nothing to do with you, even though this child is going to look like you
and have your same mannerisms, it’s not yours. And seeing her pregnant – it’s
totally... It’s actually very good, because…as soon as you see someone
pregnant – ‘That’s not your kid; that’s theirs.’ Ursula
In the following extract, the donor constructs her contribution as virtually invisible.
This effacement is based on idea that the dominant genes of the recipient male would
ordinarily overwhelm those of the recipient woman. The donor renders her own
presence innocuous by emphasising that the child would resemble its father in any
case:
When I met John [recipient’s partner] he’s got brown eyes, I’ve got brown eyes,
he’s got brown hair, I’ve got brown hair…and Angela’s blond hair, blue eyes,
so the child would definitely look like John. It wouldn’t look like me. Paola
Expanding the meaning of eggs: giving good parents a child
While egg donors reject the notion that they are mothers to their genetic offspring,
they also organise their experience in ways that reveal that donating their eggs is
more than just giving away cells. One way of doing this is taking responsibility about
who is an appropriate recipient for their eggs. Initial negotiations between donors and
recipients5 tend to have the flavour of vetting, perhaps resembling a less formal
version of interview that prospective adopters experience. Some issues that are raised
include financial status, relationship stability and personality and in particular, many
5
Initial contact involves both donors and recipients making personal assessments about the suitability
of each party. Once the ‘exchange’ has been agreed upon, the recipient must arrange with her fertility
clinic for the donor to undergo a series of tests, both medical and psychological, as well as partake in
mandatory counselling sessions prior to informed consent.
donors talked about the worthiness of their recipients, either in socio-economic terms
or desired parental skills.
I wouldn’t just donate and not know…I sort of need to know the couple’s
financially secure and that their marriage, or relationship – I don’t care if
they’re gay or whatever – that their relationship is strong. They’re really two
important factors for me. Raja
Apparently…there’s a couple of local magazines where you can actually put an
ad in and say, ‘I’m willing to donate my eggs’, but I’d rather do it with
someone I know… I’ve known Angela for a while, I’ve met her husband, I’ve
met all her children…and I know for a fact that Angela would be a good
parent…She’s quite strict with her children. If she’d been my mum, I might
have finished school, you know? Very strict. So any kid having that kind of
parent would be a good child. Paola
These findings concur with Kirkman’s study (2003) which highlights that while
donors do make strong distinctions between the offspring of donated eggs and their
own children, they do not simply ‘abandon’ the would-be children but rather entrust
them to ‘good’ parents. Thus the donors are interested in the long-term consequences
of their decision and attempt to make ‘ideal’ kinships based on their values and
information that is current at the time.6 This is further evidenced by the fact that
anonymous donation is largely spurned because the information required to imagine
the future family is not available.
It is possible to situate the ambiguous investments donors make in their eggs within
Roberts’ idea of kinship ethics (Roberts 2007). Reproductive tissues such as embryos
(and eggs) exist within ‘kin’ or ‘life’ ethical frameworks. Roberts argues that because
embryos are produced for the purpose of kinship, decisions relating to their use
continue to be made within this framework. Hence, despite being potential kin,
6
Interestingly, these two participants identified characteristics lacking in their own childhoods (Raja
was raised by a single mother).
embryos are often given to scientific research. While this effectively destroys the
embryo, it is preferable to allowing the embryos to be born in another family and thus
disturbing the bonds between kinship and biology. In contrast, ‘life’ ethics
emphasises that it is the life or death of the embryo that is at stake and that they
should be placed outside the genetic family network to ensure their survival. Similar
reasoning may be instrumental in donors’ decisions about their eggs. In preferring to
donate eggs for others to have children rather than be used for scientific research, egg
donors affirm that their eggs are within the ethics of kin for others. The egg cell does
not have to constitute the donor’s kin to remain excluded from scientific research
because they can be defined as the potential kin of others. Donors want others to
experience the joys of parenthood and they work to enable a couple to become a
family,7 however, in de-emphasising the nature of their contribution, donors show
that helping to create a family is done by maintaining boundaries around precisely
whose family is being created.
Um I think at the end of the day, for the couple, it’s going to be a child
hopefully. And I mean I know how fantastic it is, having my own and seeing
the joy of what they’ve gone through, and finally they’re successful... That’s
probably a bit more of a personal reward, that you’ve given them something
that’s been wanted for so long, and it’s going to change their life. Ursula
Children as outcomes: preferring reproductive over scientific donation
So far I have outlined that when donors provide their eggs for others to have children,
they effectively reinforce normative notions of the nuclear family by minimising their
contribution to that of an insignificant cell. However, donors are also deeply invested
in the consequences of their decision by trying to ensure that the child is going to
‘good’ parents. Furthermore, ongoing relationships with children are not prioritised
by the donor. What is significant is that good connections with the recipients are key
to donors’ decisions and experience of ovarian stimulation and egg extraction – this is
7
Donors three & four (Ursula and Jenny) had their own children while Donor one (Agnes) was
planning children in her mid to long term future. Donors two and five (Paola and Raja) did not plan on
having children at the time of the interview.
an important point of comparison to make with donation for scientific research where
there is no individual in whom a narrative of parenthood is embedded. Below, two
donors emphasise the connection between themselves and recipients.8
I think what made it easier was that the couple was really nice. That made it a
lot easier. If it had been just an anonymous donation, and having that similar
experience, I don’t think I would have gone through with that. I think I would
have stopped. But it’s just because the couple were really nice. Raja
She was like a 43 year old version of me. Like…it was very interesting. The
same personality, temperament…we’re both nerds. We sit at home, reading a
million books. Mm. Very nice. Agnes
For the donors in our sample, identification with their recipients is an important
dimension to their experience. Giving eggs involves deep emotional investment in the
recipients’ future family and significant labour to take medication and have eggs
extracted. Reproductive egg donors insist that the process is a taxing but ultimately
rewarding one where fulfilment is achieved through helping a couple attempt to get
pregnant.
I feel quite good about it, actually, in a way, because you do feel like you’re
giving someone such a gift, or a chance. That’s what it is. There’s a chance
none of her eggs will take, and that will be quite sad, but at the very least I’ve
given her a chance. Paola
In contrast, the provision of eggs to research does not have a similar status because
the immediate connection and ‘pay off’ is absent: it does not result in a baby. The
following quotation shows that while this donor does not dismiss the ‘greater good’
dimension of scientific research, she does not feel it will be as rewarding as
reproductive donation.
Interviewer: Okay. Would you ever donate eggs for research into infertility?
8
Often, donors talk to or about the recipient woman more than the man or couple.
Ursula: Probably once I’d got to the point that I’ve done enough for family
reproduction, then…maybe in another few years, before my eggs stop, I
probably would… though I know the research is going to be a fantastic…down
the track, that’s an initial understanding with a couple, that…you’re doing it for
them... The little bit more of a personal…and you can…see it instantly? And
you go, ‘God, the joy that I’m giving to them is enough for me!’ … Maybe it’s
that whole, ‘This is a huge process for me!’ and because it’s somebody you
don’t know on the other side, who’s just going to take them [eggs] and do what
they need to do, it may not be the same... personal recognition? Yeah, because
it’s a pretty invasive thing!...Where giving to science – it could in the long run
help somebody, you know, be healed from a actual disease, but there’s no direct
link; I don’t get a direct reward from that… Ursula
Conclusion
This paper has shown that reproductive egg donors make their meanings about
donating in ways that adhere to mainstream ideas about families. All donors in the
cohort initially refer to the contribution of eggs in ways that downplay their
ontological significance, severing connections between biology and kinship by
emphasising the embodied experience of gestation as being constitutive of
motherhood. As required by law, donors relinquish any claim to the would-be child
but they must also resist socially accepted norms about genetic inheritance in order to
naturalise the act of egg donation and their extraordinary part in the nuclear family.
However, by attempting to ensure the potential recipients are ‘good’ parents, donors
reveal they are not just giving away eggs but children. More broadly, one may
assume that under the circumstances, reproductive egg donors have less personal
investment in their eggs as reproductive tissue, even a casual attitude towards their
general fertility, especially compared to fertility patients who characterise their eggs
as too precious to give away until their own desires for fertility are achieved. As such,
they may represent the ideal donor population for stem cell researchers who need an
ongoing supply of fertile eggs. However, this assumption is challenged when donors
are questioned about their attitudes to egg donation for stem cell research. The
preference for reproduction egg donation over research,9 shows that while egg donors
do not claim the child as kin, they nevertheless want to create the kinships of others.
Donors privilege reproductive donation over research precisely because reproduction
utilises the egg in a reproductive way. Thus, while reproductive donation may be
inflected with ambiguities about the egg donor’s status, it is primarily the ability and
opportunity to create a family that motivates donors and frames their experience as
rewarding.
References
Haimes, Erica, and Luce Jacquelyne. "Studying Potential Donors' Views on
Embryonic Stem Cell Therapies and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis."
Human Fertility 9, no. 2 (2006): 67-71.
Kirkman, Maggie. ‘Egg and Embryo Donation and the Meaning of Motherhood.’
Women & Health 38, no. 2 (2003): 1-18.
Nahman, Michal. “Nodes of Desire: Romanian Egg Sellers, 'Dignity' and Feminist
Alliances in Transnational Ova Exchanges." European Journal of Women's
Studies 15, no. 2 (2008): 65-82.
NSWHealth. ‘Information for Donors on the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act
2007.’ edited by NSW Health, 2010.
Orobitg, Gemma, and Salazar, Carles. ‘The Gift of Motherhood: Egg Donation in a
Barcelona Infertility Clinic.’ Ethnos 70, no. 1 (March) (2005): 31-52.
Roberts, Elizbeth F.S. ‘Extra Embryos: The Ethics of Cryopreservation in Ecuador
and Elsewhere.’ American Ethnologist 34, no. 1 (2007): 181-99.
Ryan-Flood, Roisin. Lesbian Motherhood: Gender, Families and Sexual Citizenship,
Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Family and Intimate Life. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
9
Donors never fully reject donation for scientific research.
Shaw, Rhonda. ‘Rethinking Reproductive Gifts as Body Projects.’ Sociology 42, no.
1 (2008): 11-28.
Strathern, Marilyn. ‘The Meaning of Assisted Kinship.’ In Changing Human
Reproduction, edited by Meg Stacey. London: SAGE Publications, 1992.
Teman, Elly. Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.
Thompson, Charis. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive
Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.
Waldby, Catherine, and Mitchell, Robert. Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs and Cell
Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.