SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hipokrat Tıp Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3

ETHICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVES IN GAMET DONATION PRACTICES

GAMET DONASYONU UYGULAMALARINDA ETİK VE YASAL PERSPEKTİFLER

Kübra Dönmez(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ ENSTİTÜSÜ)0009-0001-2034-7031
Yakup Baykuş(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-5730-8477
Yılda Arzu Aba(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, HEMŞİRELİK BÖLÜMÜ, KADIN SAĞLIĞI VE HASTALIKLARI HEMŞİRELİĞİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-6660-4964
Rulin Deniz(BANDIRMA ONYEDİ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-7306-8212
Pages
115–125
Publication Date
2025-12-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It summarizes medical indications and psychosocial effects on donors, recipients, and donor-conceived children, while also evaluating international approaches to donor selection, anonymity, and transparency, highlighting the major distinctions between liberal and restrictive regulatory systems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Gamete donation, one of the assisted reproductive techniques, offers new opportunities for individuals and couples affected by infertility, genetic disorders, or age-related fertility decline.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Beyond its medical importance, gamete donation has generated global ethical and legal debates shaped by cultural norms, religious beliefs, and regulatory frameworks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It summarizes medical indications and psychosocial effects on donors, recipients, and donor-conceived children, while also evaluating international approaches to donor selection, anonymity, and transparency, highlighting the major distinctions between liberal and restrictive regulatory systems.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Etik · gamet donasyonu · yardımcı üreme teknikleri

Abstract

Gamete donation, one of the assisted reproductive techniques, offers new opportunities for individuals and couples affected by infertility, genetic disorders, or age-related fertility decline. Beyond its medical importance, gamete donation has generated global ethical and legal debates shaped by cultural norms, religious beliefs, and regulatory frameworks. This review aims to examine the medical, social, legal, and ethical dimensions of gamete donation across countries. It summarizes medical indications and psychosocial effects on donors, recipients, and donor-conceived children, while also evaluating international approaches to donor selection, anonymity, and transparency, highlighting the major distinctions between liberal and restrictive regulatory systems.

Özet

Yardımcı üreme tekniklerinden biri olan gamet donasyonu, infertilite, genetik bozukluklar veya yaşa bağlı fertilitenin azalması gibi nedenlerle bireylere ve çiftlere yeni fırsatlar sunmaktadır. Tıbbi önemi dışında, gamet donasyonu çeşitli kültürel normlar, dini inançlar ve düzenleyici çerçeveler tarafından şekillendirilmiş, dünya çapında önemli etik ve yasal tartışmalara yol açmıştır. Bu derlemenin amacı, farklı ülkelerdeki gamet bağışı uygulamalarının tıbbi, sosyal, hukuki ve etik boyutlarını analiz etmektir. Derleme, gamet donasyonunun tıbbi endikasyonlarını ve donörler, alıcılar ile donörden doğan çocuklar üzerindeki psikososyal etkileri özetlemektedir. Ayrıca donör seçimi, anonimlik ve şeffaflığa ilişkin farklı uluslararası yaklaşımları değerlendirerek, liberal ve kısıtlayıcı sistemler arasındaki temel farklara dikkat çekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dönmez, K., Baykuş, Y., Aba, Y. A., Deniz, R. (2025). ETHICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVES IN GAMET DONATION PRACTICES. Hipokrat Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 3, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.58961/hmj.1801583

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (55)

  1. Jain M, Singh M. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) techniques. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK576409/
  2. Raperport C. 'It takes a village' – fertility treatment using donor gametes, embryos and/or surrogacy. Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;25(3):173–180. doi:10.1111/tog.12830
  3. Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 14: equity of access to assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(4):772–774. doi:10.1093/humrep/den037
  4. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: New thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–426. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmv016
  5. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Üremeye Yardımcı Tedavi Merkezleri Yönetmeliği. Resmî Gazete. 2014; no.29135. Available from:https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=20085&MevzuatTur=7&MevzuatTertip=5
  6. Aslan Demirtaş F, Aslan E. Özel durumlarda yardımcı üreme tekniklerinin kullanımı. Ordu Univ Hem Calis Derg. 2023;6(1):217–225. doi:10.38108/ouhcd.1030647
  7. Mermer GG, Bulut E. Gamet ya da embriyo bağışında etik sorunlar ve yasal düzenlemeler. In: Yılmaz DV, Emül TG, editors. İnfertilite hemşireliği. Bölüm 12. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi; 2021. p.248–250. doi:10.37609/akya.856
  8. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Donating your eggs [Internet]. London: HFEA; 2024. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/donation/donors/donating-your-eggs/
  9. Inhorn MC. Making Muslim babies: IVF and gamete donation in Sunni versus Shia Islam. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2006;30(4):427–450. doi:10.1007/s11013-006-9027-x
  10. Görgülü Ü, Demir Z. Üreme turizmi yoluyla kadınların nesneleştirilmesi – dinî perspektiften bir değerlendirme. J Anal Divinity. 2023;7(1):9–28. doi:10.46595/jad.1266651
  11. Savaş F, Kahyaoğlu Süt H. Hemşirelik öğrencilerinin gamet donasyonu ve taşıyıcı annelik hakkındaki görüşleri. Ankara Saglik Bilim Derg. 2024;13(1):14–29. doi:10.46971/ausbid.1459943
  12. Rumpíková T, Oborná I, Konečná H. Současné trendy v psychosociální a etické problematice dárcovství gamet [Current trends in gamete donation: Psychosocial and ethical issues]. Ceska Gynekol. 2017;82(4):293–299.
  13. Greenfeld DA, Klock SC. Disclosure decisions among known and anonymous oocyte donation recipients. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1565–1571. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.041
  14. Hudson N. Egg donation imaginaries: Embodiment, ethics and future family formation. Sociol. 2020;54(2):346–362. doi:10.1177/0038038519868625
  15. Sadeghi MR. Coming soon: disclosing the identity of donors by genealogical tests of donor offspring. J Reprod Infertil. 2019;20(3):119–120.
  16. Peyser A, Brownridge S, Rausch M, Noyes N. The evolving landscape of donor egg treatment: success, women's choice, and anonymity. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(9):2327–2332. doi:10.1007/s10815-021-02262-6
  17. Pennings G. The management of donor information, donor anonymity and family limits by international sperm banks. Ethics Med Public Health. 2025;33:101153. doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101153
  18. Konečná H, Elišková Z, Honzová I. New recommendations for informing patients and gamete donors in assisted reproduction [Nová doporučení k informování pacientů a dárců gamet v asistované reprodukci]. Ceska Gynekol. 2024;89(1):66–71. doi:10.48095/cccg202466
  19. Henry L, Antsaklis A, Feldberg D, et al. FIGO position statement: gamete donations. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2025;170:15–24. doi:10.1002/ijgo.70200
  20. AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. AMA code of medical ethics: 4.2.2 gamete donation. In: AMA principles of medical ethics. Chicago (IL): American Medical Association; 2020.
  21. Sabatello M. Regulating gamete donation in the U.S.: ethical, legal and social implications. Laws. 2015;4:352–376.
  22. Frith L. Gamete donation and anonymity: the ethical and legal debate. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):818–824. doi:10.1093/humrep/16.5.818
  23. Chervenak EFA, McCullough LB. FIGO ethics and professionalism guidelines for obstetrics and gynecology [Internet]. London: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO); 2021. Available from: https://www.figo.org/guidelines
  24. Casteels P, Nekkebroeck J, Tournaye H. Perspectives on sperm donor anonymity: insights from donor-conceived adults in Belgium. Hum Reprod. 2024;39(9):2021–2031. doi:10.1093/humrep/deae160
  25. Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, Scaravelli G, Smeenk J, Vidakovic S, Goossens V; European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(1):hoz044. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoz044
  26. Stoll J. Swedish donor offspring and their legal right to information [Licentiate thesis]. Uppsala: Uppsala University; 2008. Available from: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-146449
  27. Shenfield F, de Mouzon J, Pennings G, Ferraretti AP, Andersen AN, de Wert G, Goossens V. Cross-border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1361–1368. doi:10.1093/humrep/deq057
  28. Kawwass JF, Monsour M, Crawford S, Kissin DM, Session DR, Kulkarni AD, Jamieson DJ; National ART Surveillance System (NASS) Group. Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000–2010. JAMA. 2013;310(22):2426–2434. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.280924
  29. Baylis F. The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(6):531–534. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.03.006
  30. Schenker JG. Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(3):310–319. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61789-0
  31. Silber SJ. Judaism and reproductive technology. In: Woodruff T, Zoloth L, Campo-Engelstein L, Rodriguez S, editors. Oncofertility: ethical, legal, social, and medical perspectives. New York (NY): Springer; 2010. p.471–480. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_38
  32. United Kingdom. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, c.22 [Internet]. London: The Stationery Office; 2008. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22
  33. Janssens PMW, Simons AHM, van Kooij RJ. A new Dutch law regulating provision of identifying information of donors to offspring: background, content and impact. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(4):852–856. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei407
  34. Trianglen Fertility Clinic. Egg donation information for recipients of eggs [Internet]. Hellerup (Denmark): Trianglen Fertility Clinic; 2023 Dec 28 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.trianglen.dk/sites/trianglen/files/2024 01/Egg%20donation%20information%20for%20recipients%20ENGLISH.pdf
  35. Eriksson L. Finland as a late regulator of assisted reproduction: a permissive policy under debate. In: Lie M, Lykke N, editors. Assisted reproduction across borders: feminist perspectives on normalisations, disruptions and transmissions. London: Routledge; 2016. p.124–135. doi:10.4324/9781315561219-18
  36. Civio. How much money do egg and sperm donors receive across Europe? [Internet]. Madrid (Spain): Civio; 2022 Mar 7 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://civio.es/sanidad/2022/03/07/egg-sperm-donors-financial-compensation-europe/
  37. Österreich.gv.at. General information about medically assisted reproduction [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): Federal Government of Austria; 2024 Jan 1 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/en/themen/familie_und_partnerschaft/geburt-eines-kindes/medizinisch_unterstuetzte_fortpflanzung/Seite.3430001.html
  38. Council of Europe. Access of persons conceived by gamete donation to information on their origins [Internet]. Strasbourg (France): Council of Europe; 2022 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/cdcj-2021-20e-final-publication-format-17122022/1680a97134
  39. Yıldız C, Kartal DB, Tiryaki B. Yardımcı üreme teknikleri raporu [Internet]. İstanbul (Türkiye): Hasta Hakları Aktivistleri Derneği; 2016 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.muharrembalci.com/yayinlar/raporlar/154.pdf
  40. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidance regarding gamete and embryo donation. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(6):1395–1410.
  41. California Legislative Information. California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 4.2: Donations of organs, tissues, or body fluids [Internet]. Sacramento (CA): State of California; 2020 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=1644.3
  42. The Florida Senate. Florida Statutes, Chapter 742: Determination of parentage [Internet]. Tallahassee (FL): The Florida Senate; 2011 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter742/All
  43. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Financial compensation of oocyte donors [Internet]. Birmingham (AL): ASRM Ethics Committee; 2019 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/asrm/asrm-content/news-and-publications/ethics-committee-opinions/financial_compensation_of_oocyte_donors.pdf
  44. The New York State Senate. Krueger introduces bill to strengthen protections for surrogacy and egg and sperm donation [Internet]. Albany (NY): The New York State Senate; 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/liz-krueger/krueger-introduces-bill-strengthen-protections-surrogacy
  45. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Ethical considerations of anonymous sperm donation. Fertil Steril. 2020;114(5):891–897.
  46. Spar DL. The baby business: how money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Boston (MA): Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
  47. Hibino Y, Allan S. Absence of laws regarding sperm and oocyte donation in Japan and the impacts on donors, parents, and the people born as a result. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;19(3):295–298. doi:10.1002/rmb2.12329
  48. Heng BC. Stringent regulation of oocyte donation in China. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(1):14–16. doi:10.1093/humrep/den352
  49. Lee S. Gamete donation in South Korea: legal and ethical considerations. Issues Law Med. 2023;35(2):123–145. Available from: https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Lee_35n2.pdf
  50. Esmail ZA. What is the Islamic view on commercial surrogacy through artificial insemination? [Internet]. Al-Islam.org; [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://al-islam.org/ask/what-is-the-islamic-view-on-commercial-surrogacy-through-artificial-insemination/zoheir-ali-esmail
  51. Tremayne S. Anonymous gamete donation in Iran: lineage revisited. Muslim World. 2022;112(3):345–362. doi:10.1111/muwo.12439
  52. Farid MS. Ethical issues in sperm, egg and embryo donation: Islamic Shia perspectives. HEC Forum. 2024;36(2):167–185. doi:10.1007/s10730-022-09498-4
  53. Abduljabbar HS, Amin R. Assisted reproductive technology in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2009;30(4):461–464. Available from: https://smj.org.sa/content/smj/30/4/461.full.pdf
  54. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti. Organ ve Doku Alınması, Saklanması, Aşılanması ve Nakli Hakkında Kanun (Kanun No: 2238) [Internet]. Resmî Gazete, Sayı 16655; 1979 Jun 3 [cited 2024 Jan 5]. Available from: https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=2238&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5
  55. Evsel G. Üremeye yardımcı teknoloji yasaklarına karşılık pratik-rasyonel davranış. Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2021;24(1):216–246. doi:10.18490/sosars.911397