Some numbers this morning made me think.
First, the cost of an egg. Sigal Klipstein wanted to know whether the $5000-$10,000 paid to women who donate their eggs in the US is too much. So she asked them how they spent it.
40% used the cash to pay back loans or debt; 20% saved it; 20% paid college expenses; 20% used it as a down-payment on a house. Klipstein concluded that these women were not being coerced into donating their eggs, because they weren’t using the money to pay for rent, food or to escape poverty.
Hmm. It seems rather convenient to find that the amount being paid is just the perfect amount to recruit enough egg donors without pressurising them into donating. I doubt this will resolve the debate about the appropriate price for an egg. (And anyway, some places pay extra for a more ideal egg – from tall, blue-eyed women with good exam scores.)
Second, the cost of embryos. One of the biggest problems in assisted reproduction is that of multiple births: there is pressure to place multiple IVF embryos into women (to boost the chances of a pregnancy); but this increases the risk of having twins, triplets or more, with well-documented health hazards for mother and baby. Some European countries have laws limiting the number of embryos transferred. There are no such laws in the US.
But maybe, as is so often in this country, economics will force the issue in the end. Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College estimated that health insurers would save around $7,000 per couple if they paid for IVF treatment (something hardly any do) and mandated that only a single embryo be transferred per cycle.
That’s because the costs of IVF would be far outweighed by the money saved on intensive care needed for sick newborns from multiple births. And it would save all those people from mortgaging their houses to have a baby.
Leave a Reply