On 11 February 2026, the UK’s Women and Equalities Committee held the second oral evidence session in Westminster probing the safety, ethics and regulatory framework governing egg donation and egg freezing — procedures that are becoming increasingly common yet remain surrounded by contested evidence and limited long-term research. Unlike the first panel in January — which focused more on reproductive medicine and sociology — this session zeroed in on real-world concerns raised by advocacy groups, clinicians and women’s health experts about how the system currently operates and whether it truly safeguards women’s health and interests.

The hearing featured two panels of witnesses. The first raised profound concerns about egg donor protection and advertising practices. The second brought voices from clinical practice and counselling into the chamber, offering both defense and critique of current “safeguards”. Together, the discussion focused on the regulatory framework for both egg donation and egg freezing, associated health impacts, advertising and the level of compensation for egg donation, and current counselling and donor recruitment practices.

Witnesses included:

  • Helen Gibson, Founder of Surrogacy Concern UK
  • Dr Zeynep Gurtin, Lecturer in Women’s Health, University College London
  • Dr Ippokratis Sarris, Executive Committee Member and Consultant in Reproductive Medicine at the British Fertility Society
  • Angela Pericleous-Smith, Chair of Accreditation at British Infertility Counselling Association

Key Issues

  1. Inadequate Protection & Safeguarding for Donors in “A Culture Where Women’s Eggs Are a Resource”

Helen Gibson delivered some of the most pointed testimony, framing the UK system as insufficiently protective. She stated, “We have significant concerns around egg donation… because of the culture we think it gives rise to in a society where women’s eggs are seen as something people have access to as a resource, and a globally traded commodity.”

Gibson rightly criticized the current regulatory framework for allowing ads to “highlight the so-called compensation of £985 in big letters”, arguing that the practice breaches the spirit — if not the letter — of rules meant to prevent undue incentives.

She also confronted the lack of long-term oversight by the fertility regulator. She stated, “There is no long-term tracking of egg donors’ data after they have donated… The HFEA is not gathering that data…” Unfortunately, it seems the UK is not alone. The USA also fails to collect this data and follow the long-term wellbeing of women who sell or freeze their eggs. Gibson highlighted that while UK regulation intends to offer protections, in practice it lacks enforceable mechanisms to ensure donor wellbeing decades after giving eggs — a period over which some women may experience unforeseen harms.

Throughout her testimony, Helen Gibson articulated other deep concerns about how egg donation is currently framed and regulated, including:

  • The minimum age for donation is “too low,” putting young women at risk of being targeted or unduly influenced.
  • Financial incentives — even limited compensation — may act as de facto coercion, especially when advertising emphasizes payment rather than risks.
  • Counselling, while offered, is not mandatory, and there is no compulsory “cooling-off” period to ensure donors have truly reflected on their decision.
  1. Regulation is Out of Date & Not Fit for Purpose

Dr. Zeynep Gurtin struck a tone that was both affirming and critical. Acknowledging the UK’s robust regulatory pedigree, she said, “Overall, in the UK, our fertility sector is very good; it is very well regulated… one of the best and a gold standard.” I’ve said it before and I am sure I’ll say it a thousand times more, regulations care not about health risk. The best regulations in the world cannot protect a woman from known and unknown risk.

However, Dr. Gurtin also stressed that the foundational legislation — the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act — dates from 1990 and has not kept pace with modern practice. There is, she said, real room to update regulatory tools, especially around advertising, reporting and the scope of oversight. You could say that again! The whole fertility industry has outpaced ethical oversight, moral reflection, and medical guardrails. At a minimum, updating oversight and data collection is necessary to match the pace of technological and clinical changes that are occurring in the fertility industry.

This aligns with broader concerns — noted in the inquiry’s terms of reference — about whether current regulations truly safeguard physical and psychological wellbeing in the long run.

  1. Counselling and Communication: More Than Just Written Information?

The second panel shifted the focus to how information is communicated to egg donors and women freezing their eggs. I’d argue that true informed consent in impossible in these practices as we still do not clearly understand how egg harvesting affects the daily and long-term well-being of women selling, donating, or freezing their eggs. However, Angela Pericleous-Smith, representing counselling professionals, told MPs that clinics generally do provide risks and health information at consultations. She stated, “From a counsellor’s perspective… those health risks are portrayed quite well to patients within their consultations, the written information, and the guidance given to clinics.” But she acknowledged that communication quality — not merely quantity — matters, and that easier-to-understand guidance and robust support resources are necessary to ensure truly informed consent. Is a handout lacking true data really enough?

  1. Clinical Perspective: Balancing Safety and Demand

Dr. Ippokratis Sarris emphasized that actual egg donation cycles in the UK are relatively few compared with overall fertility treatments, and that demand often leads prospective parents to seek donors abroad — a phenomenon not tracked by UK data. She stated, “There are very, very few egg donation cycles compared with the number of IVF cycles… What is increasing… is the ability to import donors from overseas clinics.” While Dr. Sarris highlighted the growing ability to import donor gametes from overseas clinics, this expansion raises critical questions about regulatory arbitrage, transparency, and consistency of donor protections across jurisdictions. The reliance on international supply chains may alleviate domestic shortages, but it also distances treatment from the UK’s ethical and clinical safeguards, creating a system in which demand is met without equivalent accountability.

Sarris also noted that fertility market trends point to an expanding services sector as demographic pressures — such as later childbearing — persist, but denied that clinics profit excessively from donation alone. Yet this distinction may understate the broader commercial ecosystem in which donation operates. Even if egg donation is not the principal revenue driver, it functions as a gateway service within an expanding fertility marketplace. The cumulative financial incentives across treatment cycles, add-ons, storage, and cross-border arrangements warrant closer scrutiny than was acknowledged.

His testimony illustrated a recurring tension throughout the session: the framing of regulation as a matter of “balancing” safety with access. However, presenting the issue as neutral risks normalizing market expansion as inevitable rather than interrogating whether regulatory frameworks are keeping pace with — or being shaped by — commercial pressures. As reproductive technologies become more embedded in mainstream healthcare, the question is not simply how to accommodate growth, but whether existing safeguards are robust enough to prevent the commodification of donor bodies and the offshoring of ethical risk.

Central Questions Left Unresolved

Across both panels, MPs returned repeatedly to two core themes:

  • Are women truly able to give informed consent? Gibson and others argued that without clear long-term safety data and transparent communication, consent is incomplete. Pericleous-Smith countered that information is given, but that practice could improve.
  • Should broader reforms be made to UK regulation? Gurtin and Sarris acknowledged that rules are outdated and could be strengthened, especially around advertising, reporting frameworks and counselling standards. Gibson called for specific safeguards — like age limits, mandatory follow-up, and data collection — to be introduced.

Overall, it was apparent that data collection and reporting need fundamental reform rather than expansion within current frameworks. Basically, we need to pause and reflect.

Final Takeaway: A Flawed System with Major Concerns

The February 11th session revealed a striking gulf between concern over potential long-term harms and confidence in the safety of current practice in the UK. While clinical experts largely defended existing frameworks and emphasized solid baseline protections, advocates and researchers highlighted data gaps, regulatory lag, and safeguarding weaknesses that are not yet fully addressed. This second session reinforced a theme first flagged in the 28 January hearing and in written submissions: while UK regulatory structures are well-meaning on paper, they do not yet match the lived reality of egg donation and freezing practices.

For women considering egg donation or egg freezing, this debate underscores a critical point: procedures may be medically commonplace, but the ethical and regulatory context around them is still unsettled, with significant questions about informed consent, follow-up, advertising and long-term health outcomes remaining unresolved at the highest level of UK parliamentary scrutiny. The inquiry’s deliberations signal that not all risks are fully understood or communicated and that systemic safeguards lag behind the pace of clinical practice.

As the inquiry continues, with further testimony from clinicians and counselling professionals, these issues are likely to take center stage — shaping future recommendations and possibly regulatory reform.

Author Profile

CBC-Network
CBC-Network