Simon Jenkins argues for market criteria to be applied to egg donation (In the name of purity, public funds are wasted on the rich, 25 August). Britain's regulator in this field, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, will soon rule on the issue of compensation to egg donors.

Jenkins raises interesting points, in particular: "If we do not pay what the market requires, we will get shortage, profiteering and unfairness." But two important points should be made in the face of his pragmatic market approach – advocating a deregulated payment to donors to increase numbers – and his hatred of "money–loathing", which he says is "rife in the British public service".

First, other factors such as the ending of donors' anonymity may also be relevant to the shortage, as shown by the only European study published to date, by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. And when, as Jenkins points out, "couples travel to Spain" and other countries in search of donors, it may also be because they prefer anonymity. It may be easier to recruit anonymous donors too.

Second, as a former member of the HFEA like Jenkins, I do not need to remind him that payment is not only illegal in the UK, but would also fall foul of European regulations on tissues and other human cells like eggs and sperm. When he mentions "compensation" it is merely to ridicule the principle and the time spent by the regulators to fathom what is proportionate and fair on reimbursing for travel, time, etc.

But I agree with him that allowing couples undergoing IVF to "give" some of their own eggs in exchange for cheaper private treatment is a disproportionate form of compensation which may be seen as actual payment.

The dearth of oocytes lies elsewhere. We need better informed campaigns about this specific treatment – more likely to be needed for women recovering from cancer or struck by a premature menopause than for the very few over-60s who make the headlines.

Jenkins continues to criticise his then female fellow regulators (like myself): "Most colleagues on the authority at the time, notably the women, refused to make any decision with the taint of filthy lucre." But as a woman, and surely also like many men, I am concerned by what message we transmit to future generations. Can everything, including their "origins", be bought? My personal (female) answer is no.

Ultimately, the UK's "exclusive and expensive" IVF market bemoaned by Jenkins is the result of a lack of NHS access, and has little to do with over-regulation. In this field many people – both patients and generous donors – are at risk of abuse, especially if inflated prices effectively mean they cannot give appropriate consent to a decision which involves future children. At ESHRE, we hope we can maintain international standards with a code of practice, which is preferable to hard regulations. Our patients need just and fair access; and the generous donors need fair compensation, but not disproportionate fees.