Times like this I wish we could ditch issues of feminism and look at it from a broader perspective.

While this will largely affect women, there are plenty of men - fathers, husbands, sons, who still care for the women involved.

This shouldn't be approached from a feminist angle, rather, an ethics one in general.

I'm willing to accept there are dangers involved in harvesting women's eggs, and these need to be addressed.

But I simply can't countenance the notion that because there are risks, we should ban it altogether.

I'm sorry, that's not a solution. In most instances, it's using the circumstances to fulfil a particular ideological agenda.

In the circumstances where this is not the case and the concern is entirely motivated by health risks, then perhaps measures to protect women from opporunism would be more appropriate, instead of ultimately, robbing people of the choice to contribute to science.

"Scientists will not butcher women to get their eggs. If you truly believe that they intend to harm women then you are delusional. Safety is their foremost concern".
Well, Steele, introduce me to your leader, take me to your world...cos you obviously don't live in mine.
In my world whether you are a man or a woman there are groups of people happy to exploit you to the max.
All I want to say is thank you to Renate for an interesting and informative article.

Where is the evidence that women are being forced to donate eggs, or that women are somehow incapable of making an informed choice?

Why do radical feminists talk down to women and regard them as incapable of making their own decisions?

The emotive appeals in this article remind me of controversial claims made by some about the 'dangers' of RU 486.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4014

No woman has lost her life due to OHSS in Australia.

Centre for the Study of Mothers' and Children's Health, La Trobe University, Carlton 3053, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Risks associated with IVF and related assisted reproduction technologies include complications of ovarian stimulation, surgical procedures and pregnancy itself. Serious complications are uncommon but may be potentially life threatening. The aims of this study were to compare the mortality rates of women who received IVF treatment, with the mortality rate in the general female population, to determine the maternal mortality rate following IVF conception and to establish whether any deaths had occurred as a result of treatment complications. METHODS: Deaths were identified in a cohort of 29 700 Australian IVF patients by record-linkage with the National Death Index and a cancer registry. RESULTS: The all-cause mortality rates in IVF patients (treated and untreated) were significantly lower than in the general female population of the same age. In treated women, 72 deaths were observed and 125 deaths were expected giving an age-standardized mortality ratio of 0.58 (95% confidence interval). Two maternal deaths were identified in the 42 days of the puerperium. Complications of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome could not be directly related to any of the deaths identified in this cohort.

Hey girls guess what, you are more likely to die if your ovaries are not stimulated.

I note the use of the word "choice" is this a snide comment on pro-choice?

Consent is the only word.

Dear Renata,

thanks for responding to my article, though I must take issue with a number of your claims.

1. I do not 'dismiss" concerns about risks to women. I argue that women are entitled to learn about these risks - including ones that can not be precisely quantified (a problem not specific to egg donation))- and to make their own assessment about whether or not they wish to participate. If egg donation is as dangerous as you say, then this information will surely lead thinking women to reject participation. Or perhaps some may decide that however risky, they wish to undertake it to contribute to the curing of a disease from which they or others they love suffer. I'm afraid I do not see how the continued imposition of your assessment of what the risks are, and how every woman must evaluate them, gets us past the problem of paternalism. A paternalism that says you think egg donation is so risky, that other women shouldn't be allowed to do it. This paternalism, as you know, is one you share with the pro-life women with whom you are now in bed.

2. Renate, I have not distorted the simplistic or patronizing nature of WFA's arguments against allowing women the freedom to choose or reject egg donation at all. They are all there, including the distorted use of Carol Gilligan's work on female morality, in WFA's contribution of the Senate inquiry. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/leg_response_lockhart_review/submissions/sub80.pdf

WFA claims that "social and cultural expectations of feminine self-sacrifice which
impact on women" means that women will be "exploited" if they are given a chance to decide for themselves if they will be an altruistic donor (page 9). I f I had called this claim simplistic, it would be going easy on it. It's also offensively essentialist and uses outdated sexist and essentialist notions of "what women really are" as a justification for handing the state control over women's reproductive lives and choices. (page 9)

3. I have no sectarian interests. I belong to no political party, am not a practicing member of any religion, and have no formal or fiscal relationships with companies commericalising stem cells cures. I disclose all my unpaid work as an activist and for pro-choice orgs on the front page of my website: a link to which can be found on my profile page.

4. I neve said you are not a feminist though we both know your philosphy - and that of Finnrage - has been intellectually discredited because it discounts individual autonomy, a key principle of modern bioethics. I do agree that women with long histories as anti-choice activists and members of extreme anti-choice religious sects should disclose this when they claim that their concerns about egg donation (or IVF which they also oppose) comes from a "feminist position".

I don't say that the fact these women have such affiliations proves they are not adequately independent. I can't say with certainty where their opposition to women having choices about egg donation comes from. But these affiliations certainly suggest the possibility that these affiliations are behind their views, rather than concerns about women's well-being. Readers deserve a chance to consider that possibility. The fact that WFA works so hard to stop me disclosing this information, and to stop others disclosing facts like that their main campaigns are those opposing RU486, opposing transparency in advertising of pregnancy counselling services and opposing stem cell research, increases my certainty that they at least do think this information - were they to disclose it - would shape the way people read their arguments.

5. Re: your claim that women who donate eggs are currently being denied real informed consent. A professor friend of mine just did a literature search to see if there was any oz or international data on women's egg donation consent experience. He found zip. So can you please post full details of the "recent journal article" you claim shows consent in this country is poor.