{"title":"对南非跨境卵母细胞捐赠的澳大利亚接受者的后果:双胚胎移植和捐赠者匿名。","authors":"Cal Volks, Karin Hammarberg, Andrea Whittaker","doi":"10.1111/ajo.70027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the shortage of oocyte donors in Australia, Australian women increasingly travel overseas for oocyte donation. South Africa is a recognised 'repro-hub' due to the accessibility of relatively affordable, high-quality assisted reproductive technology services and the availability of donors. In contrast to Australia, where only known and identity release altruistic gamete donation is permitted, in South Africa, oocyte donors are anonymous and receive fixed compensation.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore the consequences for Australian recipients of cross-border oocyte donation (CBOD) in South Africa.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 Australian recipients who had at least one live birth after oocyte donation in South Africa between 2012 and 2020. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most participants had failed assisted reproductive treatment in Australia before travelling to South Africa. Inability to secure an Australian donor led to CBOD. Ten recipients had at least one double embryo transfer (DET). Of the 15 pregnancies, participants reported one third were twin pregnancies. Some had more than one double embryo transfer cycle. Donors were anonymous, creating disparity around access to genetic information between children conceived with an Australian donor and those conceived with a South African donor. Some Australian recipients used sleuthing methods to locate donor siblings whose recipient parents had used the same donor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Double embryo transfers increase the possibility of multiple pregnancy and its associated risks of poorer obstetric outcomes, and donor anonymity prevents donor conceived children's ability to officially access information about the donor through donor registers. Strategies to address the shortage of Australian oocyte donors could alleviate the need for CBOD. Education about the consequences of DET and donor anonymity is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consequences for Australian Recipients of Cross Border Oocyte Donation in South Africa: Double Embryo Transfer and Donor Anonymity.\",\"authors\":\"Cal Volks, Karin Hammarberg, Andrea Whittaker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.70027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Due to the shortage of oocyte donors in Australia, Australian women increasingly travel overseas for oocyte donation. South Africa is a recognised 'repro-hub' due to the accessibility of relatively affordable, high-quality assisted reproductive technology services and the availability of donors. In contrast to Australia, where only known and identity release altruistic gamete donation is permitted, in South Africa, oocyte donors are anonymous and receive fixed compensation.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore the consequences for Australian recipients of cross-border oocyte donation (CBOD) in South Africa.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 Australian recipients who had at least one live birth after oocyte donation in South Africa between 2012 and 2020. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most participants had failed assisted reproductive treatment in Australia before travelling to South Africa. Inability to secure an Australian donor led to CBOD. Ten recipients had at least one double embryo transfer (DET). Of the 15 pregnancies, participants reported one third were twin pregnancies. Some had more than one double embryo transfer cycle. Donors were anonymous, creating disparity around access to genetic information between children conceived with an Australian donor and those conceived with a South African donor. Some Australian recipients used sleuthing methods to locate donor siblings whose recipient parents had used the same donor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Double embryo transfers increase the possibility of multiple pregnancy and its associated risks of poorer obstetric outcomes, and donor anonymity prevents donor conceived children's ability to officially access information about the donor through donor registers. Strategies to address the shortage of Australian oocyte donors could alleviate the need for CBOD. Education about the consequences of DET and donor anonymity is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.70027\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.70027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Consequences for Australian Recipients of Cross Border Oocyte Donation in South Africa: Double Embryo Transfer and Donor Anonymity.
Background: Due to the shortage of oocyte donors in Australia, Australian women increasingly travel overseas for oocyte donation. South Africa is a recognised 'repro-hub' due to the accessibility of relatively affordable, high-quality assisted reproductive technology services and the availability of donors. In contrast to Australia, where only known and identity release altruistic gamete donation is permitted, in South Africa, oocyte donors are anonymous and receive fixed compensation.
Aims: To explore the consequences for Australian recipients of cross-border oocyte donation (CBOD) in South Africa.
Materials and methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 Australian recipients who had at least one live birth after oocyte donation in South Africa between 2012 and 2020. Interviews were transcribed and transcripts analysed thematically.
Results: Most participants had failed assisted reproductive treatment in Australia before travelling to South Africa. Inability to secure an Australian donor led to CBOD. Ten recipients had at least one double embryo transfer (DET). Of the 15 pregnancies, participants reported one third were twin pregnancies. Some had more than one double embryo transfer cycle. Donors were anonymous, creating disparity around access to genetic information between children conceived with an Australian donor and those conceived with a South African donor. Some Australian recipients used sleuthing methods to locate donor siblings whose recipient parents had used the same donor.
Conclusions: Double embryo transfers increase the possibility of multiple pregnancy and its associated risks of poorer obstetric outcomes, and donor anonymity prevents donor conceived children's ability to officially access information about the donor through donor registers. Strategies to address the shortage of Australian oocyte donors could alleviate the need for CBOD. Education about the consequences of DET and donor anonymity is needed.
期刊介绍:
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.