As we blogged about last week, California now requires that a warning appear in any advertisement soliciting egg donors. Today, a couple of colleagues weighed in on the new statute and, not surprisingly, have different viewpoints.

Robin von Halle, President of Alternative Reproductive Resources, writes:

California has passed a new law requiring the state’s fertility industry to post health risk warnings in their egg donation ads. Advertisements must now encourage women to consult with reproductive health care specialists before making any decisions.

Good advice. But it’s misplaced. The legislation does nothing to solve the problems it addresses. Without demanding real reform or offering practical guidance, it may do little more than spook women.

The law says nothing about requiring businesses to follow the donation guidelines written by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. The law doesn’t have any power to enforce good-conduct practices like minimum compensation or mandatory medical insurance for donors and surrogates.

California lawmakers failed to work with the people who know most about the problems and potentials of fertility treatment: the industry itself. ARR has always recognized the need for a strong ethical backbone within our practice. Ours is an industry steeped in trust — but also legal transparency. That’s why ARR established a code of ethics, based off of ASRM guidelines. We guarantee our surrogates and donors fair compensation and comprehensive medical care. It’s why we vet every donor in our database to ensure they’re healthy in mind and body, fully aware of the risks and rewards that come with helping another conceive.

If California were truly interested in protecting women from irresponsible and predatory businesses, it would work with us rather than excluding us from the process. Instead it’s done nothing more than disorient women and turn them off from what is a safe and often richly fulfilling experience.

Theresa Erickson of Erickson Law offers offers a different point of view:

Of course, it is not enough for those of us in the industry- BUT would we have preferred that it be TOO MUCH? In fact, the original piece had wanted the egg donors to see a different IVF physician for a pre-consult, which would have added additional costs to the Intended Parents’ already steep costs.

I will admit, I did applaud the efforts of the California legislature for being the first state to actually DO SOMETHING. And, despite the NAYSAYERS that are blogging incessantly about how it is not enough, let’s be glad for two things: 1. Is was not TOO MUCH and 2. It is a start in the right direction. The entire purpose of the legislation was to protect the egg donors from being exploited – does it do that perfectly – heck no! Does it need to do more – heck yes!

So, with that in mind, I continue my applause as I, along with others in this industry, continue to push for standards in the industry that further protect the Egg Donors, Surrogates and Intended Parents.

As for me, I guess I fall into the category of of the incessant naysayer blogger who believes that California whiffed at their chance to pass some meaningful legislation. (You can read some of my criticism about this statute at this link.) At a time when this industry is reeling from seemingly never-ending scandals, California’s response was analogous to the United States adding warning labels to alcoholic products back in 1989: well intended for sure, but that legislation had no impact on drinking behavior — which was the desired result.

With respect to California’s egg donation advertisement statute, I am unclear as to what the Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger actually accomplished. To the best of my knowledge, all prospective egg donors are already warned about the medical and psychological risks of proceeding during the screening phase. As anyone who has ever been to a fertility clinic can attest, there are numerous releases and informed consent agreements that have to be signed before any medical procedures can commence. Even the most boilerplate egg donor contract identifies the medical risks of moving forward with a donor cycle. So why even bother with a non-issue when so many more pressing concerns existed? So I have to side with Robin on this debate. At the end of the day, the California statute was nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

Related Posts:

1. An Undercooked Egg: California’s New Oocyte Donation Statute Falls Woefully Short
2. UK Debating Compensated Egg Donation
3. Egg Donation At The Bunny Ranch?
4. ABC News with Diane Sawyer Reporting On The Egg Donation Industry Tonight
5. To Know Or Not To Know: Navigating The Early Decisions When Pursuing Egg Donation
6. Israel Allowing Egg & Embryo Donation For Some Lesbian Couples
7. Arizona’s Proposed Egg Donor Legislation: A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing
8. The Case For Compensated Egg & Sperm Donation
9. The New York Times Looks At Payments Offered To Egg Donors
10. Jewish Law & Egg Donation