From the perspective of professional ethics, the reporter's conduct, as described by Jen Whitcomb, is doubly unfortunate. First, because it is blatantly deceptive. The ad is misleading and creates false expectations in the respondent - all so that the reporter can get a good story. This is a sad way to convey to college students the ethics of at least one practitioner of an important profession. Unfortunately, this reporter is not alone in her use of deception in research. I have heard esteemed colleagues at Dartmouth and elsewhere defend deceptive social science research as the "only way" to gain important information. This is one source of the pervasive mistrust faced by scientific researchers - and journalists - today.
But the problem goes deeper. A second concern is the serious misimpression this ad creates about the state of reproductive medicine in general and egg donation in particular. Earlier this year, one couple apparently placed ads in college newspapers offering $50,000 for eggs from a donor with the desired physical and intellectual qualities. We can debate the ethics of that couple. My own view is that if they want to spend (or waste) their money on the search for a "perfect" child, that is their business. In my experience all such searches for perfection crash on the rocks of teenager-hood. On her side, if a Dartmouth student wishes to reply to such an add, that is also her business. She should be fully informed of the risks she faces. The stimulation regimen used to elicit eggs has some slight, but not negligible danger for her short and long term health and her reproductive future (the jury is still out on the question of whether these medications cause cancer). There is also the risk that when she tries to start a family, she may prove infertile herself, leading to lifelong regret over the decision that she may perceive as having "given away" her one opportunity at parenthood. Then, too, as Jen points out, a donor is hostage to the recipient parents' decisions about that child from conception onwards.
Nevertheless people have always made foolish decisions and we don't usually forbid them from doing so. For years out society has permitted paid sperm donation by men. Apart from the slightly higher risks for a woman, is it not just sexism that leads us to approve sperm donation and become upset about egg donation?
Whatever we feel about this one couple and those women who replied to their $50,000 offer, it is important to realize that this is a very isolated phenomenon (only one real couple on record so far). Most people seeking donated gametes (eggs or sperm) are not seeking "the perfect child." They are seeking a child like themselves: one who will fit well into their family. This means they want a child that will probably look like them and have sufficient physical and intellectual abilities to fit into their family projects and dreams. Couples seeking donor sperm routinely select from a catalogue that provides information about physical characteristics, educational attainments, etc. Couples seeking egg donors also try to match in this way. On their minds is not perfection, but a "good start" in a difficult and costly process. (With medical, legal and donor expenses, egg donation can easily run $10-15,000 today). Parents not affected by infertility usually want a similar start for their child and take pleasure in valued family traits that are passed along. Why should infertile people be judged more harshly?
Back to our journalist. Apart from violating journalistic ethics, her deceptive advertising thus contributes to the false the impression that there is an "epidemic" of wealthy people pursuing elitist visions and seeking to exploit the reproductive capacity of vulnerable young women. Will this journalist get her story? Given our glimpse into her ethics, we can predict that she will probably get the story she wants: one that sensationalizes and distorts a complex reality. Too bad. Maybe the real ethics story here is not about young women selling their eggs but about professionals willing to sell their integrity for a moment off media fame.
