you're reading...
Women's Birthing Rights, Women's Bodies

Hands Off Our Ovaries!

Hands Off Our Ovaries!


Current debate both in the media and among politicians mostly centres around two angles:

1. Against embryonic stem cell research because it destroys embryos (the religious view);

2. For embryonic stem cell research because it offers hope for sufferers of genetic diseases (the pro-technology view).

What both sides forget to consider is the question: where does the raw material for this research – the eggs and embryos – come from?

Answer: they are needed in the thousands and they come from within women’s bodies: egg cells don’t just ‘plop’ from heaven but need to be ‘harvested’ through an invasive procedure from women’s ovaries after weeks of debilitating and dangerous hormonal stimulation that may have serious short- and long-term consequences for the women, their own future fertility and their health.

FINRRAGE (the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering), together with other groups such as WFA (Women’s Forum Australia) and HOOO (Hand Off our Ovaries, an international pressure group)urge you to reject the two Cloning Amendment Bills (by Senators Patterson and Stott Despoja). We believe one cannot attempt to do good, ie find cures from embryonic stem cells, by first doing harm, ie violating the health of thousands of women who provide the necessary egg cells without any benefits to themselves.

Proposing to build Australia’s wealth through an elusive national biotechnology industry (so far a great tax loss!) by mining parts of women’s bodies – their egg cells – we believe is deeply unethical and reprehensible.

In the 33-page long Majority Senate Committee Report (Chapter 3) only a few paragraphs (p. 45) deal with the central question: where do the eggs come from? Egg ‘donation’ is dismissed as being regulated like ‘any other tissue donation’ which is a gross misrepresentation. Unlike in a kidney donation, an egg donor’s whole ovary is irreversibly bombarded with at least 3 different types of hormones thus risking possible long-term damage to all remaining egg cells. Further, unlike in kidney donation where the recipient is often known to the donor, any cures derived from embryonic stem cell lines are decades away (if they eventuate at all) and/or could even be sold back to the altruistic egg donor as invariably patents will be taken out on any potential results!

In the Majority Report it is even suggested that ‘relatively few [egg cells] would be required’ (p. 45). This flies in the face of evidence: disgraced Korean researcher Hwang reportedly used 2061 eggs from 129 women for his research (in Steinbrook, N Engl J Med 354:4, 2006) which later was found to be fraudulent and also exposed serious professional breaches of getting his junior female researchers to produce some of these eggs (Korean women have lodged a number of law suits). Also, in the UK, where embryonic stem cell research has been permitted for a few years, eggs have been so difficult to obtain from ‘voluntary donors’ that, beginning in 2006, women are now offered half-price IVF if they ‘donate’ some of their eggs for research. Such incentives are currently ruled out in Patterson and Stott Despoja’s Bills but could no doubt be revisited in 3 years’ time.

In the Senate Hearing (24.10.06) Senator Patterson claimed that research on egg cytoplasm would within short time make redundant the huge number of eggs necessary for SCNT or egg/sperm embryo creation. However, not only is there no solid new research to substantiate this claim, we believe that with this statement Senator Patterson gave the perfect rationale for leaving the current legislation in place: let researchers in other parts of the world provide solid and replicable results that viable stem cell growth can be triggered from cytoplasm’s mitochondrial DNA instead of damaging the health of thousands of Australian women.

Indeed, health concerns for the donors rate so low on the agenda that Senator Patterson’s Amendment Bill’s proposal for a Review in three years’ time does not even contain an item to evaluate the health of the women who have donated the eggs. Had it not been for the collective effort of women’s groups to draw attention to the central item necessary for any research cloning – women’s eggs – the whole Australian debate might have remained one of religious vs scientific values!

We fully understand why an embryonic stem cell researcher might want the proposed legislative changes as it allows them access to fresh egg cells rather than the frozen excess embryos from IVF programs currently permitted. Firstly, frozen material is always second rate — even fresh embryos are preferable: this too is asked for in the proposed Bills! Freezing extra eggs from IVF has never properly worked due to egg yolk properties that are not conducive to freezing.

Secondly, women on IVF programs are usually older and they – or their partners – have chromosomal abnormalities: not good starting material for researchers’ foray into the unknown land of embryonic stem cell research.

An embryonic stem cell researcher’s dream might well be petri dishes full of young freshly harvested eggs from teenage women who have had very few divisions of their egg cells. Get them young, they are the best.

FINRRAGE urges you to read Chapter 4 in the Senate Committee Report (The Case Against) and to consult WFA’s Katrina George and my own Testimonies to the Senate Committee (both 24.10.06) as well as our respective Submissions to the Senate Inquiry (FINRRAGE No 3; WFA No 80).

In order to understand what egg ‘donation’ entails, we now briefly detail the process:

The Egg ‘Donation’ Procedure

After various blood checks and scan of ovaries, drug taking begins.

Please note that there are many drug combinations and times used in different clinics and they may also vary each time a woman undergoes egg ‘harvesting’ but here is one example:

1. A GnRH Agonist (that’s a gonadotrophin releasing hormone such as Buserelin or Lucrin – Lupron in the USA) is given as nasal spray every 4 hours for approximately 14 days or administered as subcutaneous injections for up to 25 days. After an initial (potentially dangerous) flare up of egg cell growth through an LH surge (luteinizing hormone), it de-sensitizes the pituitary and stops egg cell growth. The idea is to shut down the ‘normal’ egg cell growth, turn off hormone production and block ovulation. *Put differently, the GnRH Agonist puts the woman in a temporary chemical menopause.*

2. Once the egg cell production has stopped, women are then given follicle stimulating hormones (FSH) such as Perganol, Metrodin HP, Gonal-F (the last two are genetically engineered). This process of stimulating egg cell growth – called ovarian hyperstimulation – leads to enlarged and painful ovaries and at times to the formation of cysts. In 5-10% of women it leads to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): excessive fluid from painful ovaries is released into the abdomen, vomiting or extracting fluid causes dehydration and thickening of the blood. This may lead to serious thrombosis such as stroke and even death.

In order to avoid this, the woman needs to have daily or twice-daily scans – the aim is NOT to hyperstimulate too much but stimulate enough to get lots of near-to-mature egg cells ready for harvesting.

This is an important point, because in women ‘donating’ eggs for research the aim for scientists is to retrieve as many eggs as possible… So it might be tempting to perhaps administer a bit more FSH and wait a bit longer until starting the administration of hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) and starting the egg retrieval procedure.

(Moderate to severe OHSS is treated in hospital with fluid administered intravenously; an older drug protocol which is still frequently used, combines Clomiphene and Pergonal before hCG injection. Clomiphene has a multitude of well documented mild as well as severe adverse effects.)

3. After all of this, the egg ‘harvesting’ starts. Following the administration of hCG (human chorionic gonadotrophin eg Profasi) 38 hours later, the eggs are retrieved using a special vaginal ultrasound probe with an instrument attached to it so that the doctor can pierce the wall of the vagina, access the ovaries and retrieve the eggs. This is painful, may require general anaesthesia and has led to extensive bleeding. Given the hormonal cocktail involved, the whole’donating’ procedure leads to sometimes severe mood swings, water retention, and just plain feeling ill.

Question: – does this sound like an ‘easy’ and quick ‘donation’ that you/your partner – or your daughter(s) – would like to undergo? And how do you feel – as has been suggested – that young women who have a disease such as cystic fibrosis or juvenile diabetes – should be the ones asked to ‘donate’ these eggs? Or that young women from families where a relative has a genetic disease should be altruistic and put their own health at risk?

Answer: FINRRAGE believes that egg ‘donation’ must be publicly acknowledged as a drawn out, painful and dangerous procedure with the possibility of not only short-term but also long-term adverse effects including uterine, ovarian or breast cancer and fertility problems. In other words, the preferably young ‘donor’ woman might jeopardize her own fertility and long-term health.

FINRRAGE contends that this contravenes the principle that medicine should do no harm. Together with WFA and Hands Off Our Ovaries we ask for a MORATORIUM on egg harvesting and – as a consequence – on embryonic stem cell research. Because, just to repeat our central point:

No eggs, no embryos (SCNT or sperm/egg), no embryonic stem cells. In other words, without women there is no research cloning.

In addition, we are also critical of some of the other Amendments in Senator Patterson’s Bill such as Amendment 21 (on p. 10): to create via cytoplasmic transfer a human embryo that contains mitochondrial genetic material produced by more than 2 persons – that’s actually 2 women. What it means is that in IVF, an egg ‘donor’ has her egg yolk injected into an older woman’s egg (or from a woman who has a genetic disease) because it is precisely the mitochondrial DNA in the egg yolk that enables the production of stem cells. In fact, we are puzzled about this Amendment: it seems that such research would benefit IVF treatment rather than stem cell research so with due respect, who is pushing this Bill? The convenient fact that many IVF clinics are linked to Stem Cell Research Centers (which of course is a must as ‘harvested’ eggs con be transferred quickly)?

Importantly, FINRRAGE’s objection to embryonic stem cell research does not mean the end to all stem cell research. Indeed, only a small number of researchers focus on embryonic stem cells and as the Senate Report (especially Chapter 4) indicates, adult stem cell research is much less problematic.

We also urge you to remember the hype of the promises of Gene Therapy that abounded at the end of the 1980s. Exactly the same words (including threats by researchers to leave Australia!) are re-used in 2006 to conjure up the wondrous cures that embryonic stem cells will provide. Sadly, gene therapy never lived up to its promises and its image was severely damaged in 1999 when 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger died when he was a volunteer in a US gene therapy experiment (he was not seriously sick). How many women have to be rendered severely ill – or die – before our concerns are heeded? Other gene therapy projects in France and in Germany were abandoned in 1999 and 2006 when patients undergoing these experimental therapies died (Gen-Ethischer Informationsdienst, 2006, p. 35). Why, in the wake of this stunning failure, should we yet again trust researchers’ promise of embryonic stem-cell cures?

FINRRAGE urges you not to sacrifice real live women’s health to spurious promises of utopian cures. Please keep researchers’ Hands Off Our Ovaries. Reject the two proposed Amendment Bills.

Thank you for reading this. Feel free to contact me if you want to discuss details.

Dr Renate Klein

(Via the Global Sisterhood Network)



9 thoughts on “Hands Off Our Ovaries!

  1. OMG this is educational. And here I was, believing that they’d only use ‘leftover’ eggs etc. from their other experiments (like in vitro, which already makes my skin crawl).

    Posted by profacero | November 6, 2006, 7:29 am
  2. Thanks for posting this. I knew that fertility treatment for women was invasive with at least short-term, possibly long-term health risks, but this certainly illustrates how bad it is.

    It has always amazed me that in many countries, men are paid for sperm donation, and women, never or almost never, paid for ova donation (and a discount on IVF is NOT the same as payment). The risks and inconvenience are hardly comparable.

    Posted by stormcloud | November 6, 2006, 12:18 pm
  3. I’ve said it before: The old adage that if men had abortions it would be a sacrament is false. (predominately) male scientists create embryos to kill but this is different than women who didn’t mean to get pregnant getting abortions. This is proven by comparing the public discourse around each. They are not talking about whether or not stem cell research should be legal, but whether tax dollars should go to fund it. The government doesn’t pay for abortion, this is not even discussed. What is questioned is whether abortion should ever be allowed.
    The fact that no one is fighting for the life of embryos created in a lab proves that the abortion question is about hating women’s sexuality.

    Posted by saltyC | November 6, 2006, 7:14 pm
  4. Yeah the matter of how the ovaries are harvested is totally erased from the picture. I’m sure that if other technologies are developed from research, such as anti-wrinkle cures, you know a massive industry will follow requiring beaucoup eggs from disenfranchised women, preferably as diverse a genetic sample as possible.

    Posted by saltyC | November 6, 2006, 7:19 pm
  5. I first heard about this with the cloning fiasco in Korea. I think some scientists let it slip. They used poor Korean women for their eggs.
    All Hail the new religion; science will give you immortality. Women must rush to save the world from debilitating diseases. Donate now! It is the new bait and switch clothed in lovely language. It’s for the good of all. What is wrong with you, don’t you want to help solve the medical problems of the world? You selfish bitch. Mary Daly is right. Bless her.

    Posted by rhondda | November 6, 2006, 10:30 pm
  6. This was interesting. Having gone through traditional interuterine insemination (aka artificial insemination), I can attest to several of the points made in the piece above.

    Just a few points of clarification–women in the US are paid for egg donation (it doesn’t make it pleasant or good). I had a student who did it and was paid thousands of dollars. The assertion in the piece that people getting IVF have genetic abnormalities is also false. There are many causes of infertility, one such cause that could lead to IVF is scared fallopian tubes. STDs or steriods can also produce infertility in men, etc. etc.

    Nevertheless, I agree with the point of the post. Women are completely removed from the discourse on stem cell research, and we are often treated like disembodied egg machines.

    Personally, I find the whole infertility treatment process very sexist, and it is part of the reason I am reluctant to continue with the treatment. It makes you feel like your body is your enemy, which is probably true of infertility generally. Sure there is some biology in all of it, but the sexism is there too.

    Posted by Rachel | November 7, 2006, 3:01 am
  7. FINRRAGE states adult stem cell research is much less problematic. AFAIK, not only is this true, but the results to date show that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells are more likely to be useful. So the framing of the debate over embryonic stem cells as between science and religion is totally off base. Some forms of technology are not worth the risks involved, and embryonic stem cell research, at least using current methods of obtaining the stem cells, is one of them.

    Posted by Aletha | November 7, 2006, 4:52 am
  8. Aren’t they talking about using eggs from cows?

    Posted by Little Red | November 8, 2006, 6:27 am
  9. Hi, I realize the process of donating eggs is very painfull and timely, but instead of hyperstimulating ovaries to trigger egg growth and placing the ovary through temporary menapause, can a person donate whole ovaries by having their ovaries surgically removed and giving them up for stem cell research? does this process exist? noone has yet to talk about this matter. Is it possible to store whole ovaries instead of storing eggs? I don’t want my questions to appear thoughtless, but I was pondering over the whole process of egg donation and was wondering if it would be any easier to donate whole ovaries for medical purposes, for people who were in a position to donate their ovaries but not willing to go through the heart ache of egg donation procedures?


    Posted by amme | January 31, 2008, 9:09 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,600,141 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo