“Diane and Nancy, I'm shocked that
you are either unaware or do not acknowledge that there are studies
of oocyte retrieval surgeries that show very persuasively that the
potential harm from this procedure is manageable. While you refer to 'stories' of women being harmed--that's called anecdotal
evidence and is the antithesis of science--you ignore the established
research in this area, which makes it clear that you are reacting
hysterically rather than responding to empirical evidence. I would
suggest that you read the National Academies Press workshop report:
Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell
Research (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11832).
It cites numerous studies, including a German study that examined the
outcome of approximately 380,000 oocyte retrieval surgeries during
2000-2004. For the procedures for which there was information, the
rate of complications was very low: only 0.002 percent—2 in every
100,000—had complications that required surgery to correct.

“Studies have also examined the
potential risks of retrieval for a woman's future fertility.
“According to one large study, the
rate of infection after oocyte retrieval was about 1 in every 200 IVF
cycles, and surgery is needed to treat pelvic abscesses in less than
1 in 1,000 IVF cycles. 

“About five hundred egg donations
take place in Canada each year, according to the Canadian Fertility
and Andrology Society.The CFAS told me that, between 2001 and 2010,
only two donors in Canada, out of a total of 4,177 donations,
suffered from “severe” OHSS, which usually involves
hospitalization. Fourteen others had “moderate” OHSS. These
numbers are collected in a database called the Canadian Assisted
Reproductive Technologies Registry.

“So sure, you can find your 'stories' but they do not represent a scientific review of the available
data--you are trying to legislate based on fear. That's not science;
that's the dark ages, and it's exactly the tactics used by
anti-abortionists (and indeed by organizations like the Center for
Genetics and Society which opposes such beneficial advances as
mitochondrial replacement surgery).

“Furthermore, because women have a
set of two ovaries and two fallopian tubes, they can remain fertile
even if one set is damaged, and there is no evidence that both might
be threatened simultaneously by the side effects of retrieval
surgery. 

“Today doctors have had two decades
of experience with the use of hormone treatments to maximize the
number of eggs that can be harvested from a woman, and they have
become quite proficient in the production of oocytes. During that
time they have also worked to improve the safety of the procedure and
decrease the potential risks. Despite these improvements some risk
will remain, because hormones have a powerful effect on the body—they
could not increase egg production so dramatically if this were not
true—and anything with a powerful effect on the body has the
potential for harmful side effects as well. 

“Egg donations are done for a reason.
There are risks and benefits. For you to exaggerate the risks based
on 'stories' and ignore the evidence is unconscionable.
It's exactly what anti-abortion groups do and what opponents of
genetically modified foods do--you promote fear around manageable (or
in the case of GMOs, negligible) risk. 

“Your call for 'further studies' is the age old technique of reactionaries trying to control other
people and impose their values on other people. You know darned well,
because of your fundamental ideological opposition to this procedure,
no study results could ever meet your standard of acceptability. 

“You are trying to control other
women's bodies, claiming you have superior knowledge and
wisdom--those are pro-life talking points. Your views, and that of
the organizations that you represent, are illiberal.”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/ib44Z4ZI-j0/pay-for-eggs-legislation-comment-on-risk.html