nach oben

28.05.2018 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies | Ausgabe 7/2018

Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review)

Zeitschrift:: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics > Ausgabe 7/2018

Autoren:: Mahmoud Salama, Vladimir Isachenko, Evgenia Isachenko, Gohar Rahimi, Peter Mallmann, Lynn M. Westphal, Marcia C. Inhorn, Pasquale Patrizio

Abstract

Purpose

Many people travel abroad to access fertility treatments. This growing phenomenon is known as cross border reproductive care (CBRC) or fertility tourism. Due to its complex nature and implications worldwide, CBRC has become an emerging dilemma deserving more attention on the global healthcare agenda.

Methods

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed for all relevant full-text articles published in PubMed in English during the past 18 years to explore CBRC phenomenon in the new millennium.

Results

Little is known about the accurate magnitude and scope of CBRC around the globe. In this systematic and critical review, we identify three major dimensions of CBRC: legal, economic, and ethical. We analyze each of these dimensions from clinical and practical perspectives.

Conclusion

CBRC is a growing reality worldwide with potential benefits and risks. Therefore, it is very crucial to regulate the global market of CBRC on legal, economic, and ethical bases in order to increase harmonization and reduce any forms of exploitation. Establishment of accurate international statistics and a global registry will help diminish the current information gap surrounding the CBRC phenomenon.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Jetzt einloggen Kostenlos registrieren

★ PREMIUM-INHALT

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de. Zusätzlich können Sie eine Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl in gedruckter Form beziehen – ohne Aufpreis.

Nicht verpassen: e.Med bis 13. März 2019 100€ günstiger im ersten Jahr!

Jetzt gratis testen * Jetzt kaufen

Sie können e.Med Interdisziplinär 15 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der beiden Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten gynäkologischen oder urologischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Nicht verpassen: e.Med bis 13. März 2019 100€ günstiger im ersten Jahr!

Jetzt testen ¹

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Cross-border reproductive care: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(7):1627–33. CrossRef

Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(10):2182–4. PubMedCrossRef

Shenfield F, Pennings G, De Mouzon J, Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, ESHRE Task Force ‘Cross Border Reproductive Care’ (CBRC). ESHRE’s good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centers and practitioners. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1625–7. PubMedCrossRef

Gürtin ZB, Inhorn MC. Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):535–7. PubMedCrossRef

Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Rethinking reproductive “tourism” as reproductive “exile”. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):904–6. PubMedCrossRef

Matorras R. Reproductive exile versus reproductive tourism. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3571. PubMedCrossRef

Salama M. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a global perspective. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2014;1(2):00008. CrossRef

Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–26. PubMedCrossRef

Couture V, Drouin R, Tan SL, Moutquin JM, Bouffard C. Cross-border reprogenetic services. Clin Genet. 2015;87(1):1–10. PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Cross-border reproductive care: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):645–50. CrossRef

11.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34. PubMedCrossRef

12.

Storrow RF. Assisted reproduction on treacherous terrain: the legal hazards of cross-border reproductive travel. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):538–45. PubMedCrossRef

13.

Van Hoof W, Pennings G. Extraterritorial laws for cross-border reproductive care: the issue of legal diversity. Eur J Health Law. 2012;19(2):187–200. PubMedCrossRef

14.

Crockin SL. Legal perspectives on cross-border reproductive care. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):811–3. PubMedCrossRef

15.

Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2689–94. PubMedCrossRef

16.

Jackson E, Millbank J, Karpin I, Stuhmcke A. Learning from cross-border reproduction. Med Law Rev. 2017;25(1):23–46. PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Millbank J. Responsive regulation of cross-border assisted reproduction. J Law Med. 2015;23(2):346–64. PubMed

18.

Flatscher-Thöni M, Voithofer C. Should reproductive medicine be harmonized within Europe? Eur J Health Law. 2015;22(1):61–74. PubMedCrossRef

19.

Van Hoof W, Pennings G, De Sutter P. Cross-border reproductive care for law evasion: should physicians be allowed to help infertility patients evade the law of their own country? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;202:101–5. PubMedCrossRef

20.

Harper J, Geraedts J, Borry P, Cornel MC, Dondorp WJ, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHG, ESHRE and EuroGentest2. Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1603–9. PubMedCrossRef

21.

Harper JC, Geraedts J, Borry P, Cornel MC, Dondorp W, Gianaroli L, et al. Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(Suppl 2):S1–21. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Crockin SL. Growing families in a shrinking world: legal and ethical challenges in cross-border surrogacy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27(6):733–41. PubMedCrossRef

23.

International Federation of Fertility Societies. IFFS Surveillance 2016. Glob Reprod Health. 2016;1:1–143.

24.

Rashedi AS, SFD R, Ataman LM, Edmonds ME. et al., Survey of fertility preservation options available to patients with cancer around the globe. J Glob Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.2016.008144.

25.

Rashedi AS, SFD R, Ataman LM, Edmonds ME, et al. Survey of third-party parenting options associated with fertility preservation available to patients with cancer around the globe. J Glob Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.2017.009944.

26.

Forman R. Cross-border reproductive care: a clinician’s perspective. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):808–10. PubMedCrossRef

27.

Spar D. Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):531–3. PubMedCrossRef

28.

Blyth E. Fertility patients’ experiences of cross-border reproductive care. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):e11–5. PubMedCrossRef

29.

Whittaker A, Speier A. “Cycling overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol. 2010;29(4):363–83. PubMedCrossRef

30.

Messinis IE, Messini CI, Daponte A, Garas A, Mahmood T. The current situation of infertility services provision in Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016.

31.

Hertz R, Nelson MK, Suñol J. Attitudes toward regulations of reproductive care in the European Union: a comparison between travellers for cross-border reproductive care and citizens of the local country. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2016;8(3):147–60. PubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Hughes EG, Sawyer A, DeJean D, Adamson GD. Cross-border reproductive care in North America: a pilot study testing a prospective data collection program for in vitro fertilization clinics in Canada and the United States. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(3):786–90. PubMedCrossRef

33.

Levine AD, Boulet SL, Berry RM, Jamieson DJ, Alberta-Sherer HB, Kissin DM. Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-United States residents. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(5):815–21. PubMedCrossRef

34.

Rodino IS, Goedeke S, Nowoweiski S. Motivations and experiences of patients seeking cross-border reproductive care: the Australian and New Zealand context. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1422–31. PubMedCrossRef

35.

Hibino Y, Shimazono Y, Kambayashi Y, Hitomi Y, Nakamura H. Attitudes towards cross-border reproductive care among infertile Japanese patients. Environ Health Prev Med. 2013;18(6):477–84. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Inhorn MC, Shrivastav P, Patrizio P. Assisted reproductive technologies and fertility “tourism”: examples from global Dubai and the Ivy League. Med Anthropol. 2012;31(3):249–65. PubMedCrossRef

37.

Shenfield F, de Mouzon J, Pennings G, et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1361–8. PubMedCrossRef

38.

European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, Erb K, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):1957–73. CrossRef

39.

Hudson N, Culley L, Blyth E, Norton W, Pacey A, Rapport F. Cross-border-assisted reproduction: a qualitative account of UK travellers’ experiences. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2016;19(2):102–10. CrossRef

40.

Hudson N, Culley L. Assisted reproductive travel: UK patient trajectories. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):573–81. PubMedCrossRef

41.

Van Hoof W, De Sutter P, Pennings G. “Now we feel like we did everything we could”: a qualitative study into the experiences of Dutch patients who travelled to Belgium for infertility treatment. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(4):185–93. PubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Van Hoof W, Pennings G, De Sutter P. Cross-border reproductive care for law evasion: a qualitative study into the experiences and moral perspectives of French women who go to Belgium for treatment with donor sperm. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:391–7. PubMedCrossRef

43.

Bassan S, Michaelsen MA. Honeymoon, medical treatment or big business? An analysis of the meanings of the term “reproductive tourism” in German and Israeli public media discourses. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2013;8:9. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

44.

Hunt J. Cross border treatment for infertility: the counselling perspective in the UK. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013;16(1):64–7. CrossRef

45.

Hamilton M. Sperm donation in the United Kingdom in 2010. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(4):257–62. CrossRef

46.

Flower D. Assisted reproduction: should egg and sperm donors be paid? J Fam Health Care. 2010;20(2):69–71. PubMed

47.

Bay B, Larsen PB, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):252–257.e1. PubMedCrossRef

48.

Bergmann S. Reproductive agency and projects: Germans searching for egg donation in Spain and the Czech Republic. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):600–8. PubMedCrossRef

49.

Madero S, Gameiro S, García D, Cirera D, Vassena R, Rodríguez A. Quality of life, anxiety and depression of German, Italian and French couples undergoing cross-border oocyte donation in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(9):1862–70. PubMedCrossRef

50.

Pennings G, de Mouzon J, Shenfield F, Ferraretti AP, Mardesic T, Ruiz A, et al. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):1076–89. PubMedCrossRef

51.

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Defining embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):56–8. CrossRef

52.

Sreenivas K, Campo-Engelstein L. Domestic and international surrogacy laws: implications for cancer survivors. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:135–52. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

53.

Pande A. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters? Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):618–25. PubMedCrossRef

54.

Saxena P, Mishra A, Malik S. Surrogacy: ethical and legal issues. Indian J Community Med. 2012;37(4):211–3. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

55.

Covington SN, Patrizio P. Gestational carriers and surrogacy. In: Sauer M, editor. Principles of oocyte and embryo donation. 2nd ed. London: Springer Verlag; 2013. p. 277–88. CrossRef

56.

Svitnev K. Legal regulation of assisted reproduction treatment in Russia. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(7):892–4. PubMedCrossRef

57.

Capelouto SM, Archer SR, Morris JR, Kawwass JF, Hipp HS. Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1076-2.

58.

Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1214–23. CrossRef

59.

Woodruff TK. Oncofertility: a grand collaboration between reproductive medicine and oncology. Reproduction. 2015;150(3):S1–10. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

60.

Salama M, Winkler K, Murach KF, Seeber B, Ziehr SC, Wildt L. Female fertility loss and preservation: threats and opportunities. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(3):598–608. PubMedCrossRef

61.

Petropanagos A, Cattapan A, Baylis F, Leader A. Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations. CMAJ. 2015;187(9):666–9. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

62.

ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law, Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1231–7. CrossRef

63.

Rebar RW. Social and ethical implications of fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1449–51. PubMedCrossRef

64.

Bower B, Quinn GP. Fertility preservation in cancer patients: ethical considerations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;732:187–96. PubMedCrossRef

65.

Garceau L, Henderson J, Davis LJ, Petrou S, Henderson LR, McVeigh E, et al. Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3090–109. PubMedCrossRef

66.

Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(3):265–77. PubMedCrossRef

67.

Connolly MP, Ledger W, Postma MJ. Economics of assisted reproduction: access to fertility treatments and valuing live births in economic terms. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(1):13–8. CrossRef

68.

Chambers GM, Sullivan E. a, Ishihara O et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2281–94. PubMedCrossRef

69.

Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):603–13. PubMedCrossRef

70.

Connolly M. Cross-border reproductive care: market forces in action or market failure? An economic perspective. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):817–9. PubMedCrossRef

71.

McKelvey A, David AL, Shenfield F, Jauniaux ER. The impact of cross-border reproductive care or ‘fertility tourism’ on NHS maternity services. BJOG. 2009;116(11):1520–3. PubMedCrossRef

72.

Austin CR. Legal, ethical and historical aspects of assisted human reproduction. Int J Dev Biol. 1997;41(2):263–5. PubMed

73.

Shanner L, Nisker J. Bioethics for clinicians: 26. Assisted reproductive technologies. CMAJ. 2001;164(11):1589–94. PubMedPubMedCentral

74.

Brezina PR, Zhao Y. The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:686253. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

75.

Frydman PR. Human reproduction: possibilities and ethical borders. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009;47(5):S5–7. PubMed

76.

Baši M, Milojevi M, Miti D, Cvetkovi J. Ethical aspects in the area of assisted reproduction 2010; 27(3):171–178.

77.

Inhorn MC. Cosmopolitan conceptions: IVF sojourns in Global Dubai. Durham: Duke University Press; 2015. CrossRef

78.

Ferraretti AP, Pennings G, Gianaroli L, Natali F, Magli MC. Cross-border reproductive care: a phenomenon expressing the controversial aspects of reproductive technologies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(2):261–6. PubMedCrossRef

79.

Crozier GKD, Martin D. How to address the ethics of reproductive travel to developing countries: a comparison of national self-sufficiency and regulated market approaches. Dev World Bioeth. 2012;12(1):45–54. PubMedCrossRef

80.

Deonandan R, Green S, van Beinum A. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(12):742–5. PubMedCrossRef

81.

Blyth E, Thorn P, Wischmann T. CBRC and psychosocial counselling: assessing needs and developing an ethical framework for practice. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):642–51. PubMedCrossRef

82.

Shalev C, Moreno A, Eyal H, Leibel M, Schuz R, Eldar-Geva T. Ethics and regulation of inter-country medically assisted reproduction: a call for action. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2016;5:59. eCollection 2016 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

83.

Deonandan R. Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Manag Health Policy. 2015;8:111–9. CrossRef

84.

Hammarberg K, Stafford-Bell M, Everingham S. Intended parents’ motivations and information and support needs when seeking extraterritorial compensated surrogacy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(5):689–96. PubMedCrossRef

85.

Gossett DR, Nayak S, Bhatt S, Bailey SC. What do healthy women know about the consequences of delayed childbearing? J Health Commun. 2013;18(Suppl 1):118–28. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

86.

Miura LN, Boxer RS. Women in medicine and the ticking clock. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(4):381–2. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

87.

Mac Dougall K, Beyene Y, Nachtigall RD. Age shock: misperceptions of the impact of age on fertility before and after IVF in women who conceived after age 40. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):350–6. PubMedCrossRef

88.

Wiebe E, Chalmers A, Yager H. Delayed motherhood: understanding the experiences of women older than age 33 who are having abortions but plan to become mothers later. Can Fam Physician. 2012;58(10):e588–95. PubMedPubMedCentral

89.

Corbett SL, Frecker HM, Shapiro HM, Yudin MH. Access to fertility services for lesbian women in Canada. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):1077–80. PubMedCrossRef

90.

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1190–3. CrossRef

91.

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Oocyte or embryo donation to women of advanced age: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):337–40. CrossRef

92.

Vincent-Rohfritsch A, Marszalek A, Santulli P, Gayet V, Chapron C, Goffinet F, et al. Risk of perinatal complication and egg donation: role of resorting to cross-border care? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016;45(8):866–75. CrossRef

93.

Ahuja KK. Patient pressure: is the tide of cross-border reproductive care beginning to turn? Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(5):447–50. PubMedCrossRef

94.

Casey V, Crooks V. a, Snyder J, Turner L. Knowledge brokers, companions, and navigators: a qualitative examination of informal caregivers’ roles in medical tourism. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:94. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

95.

Speier AR. Brokers, consumers and the internet: how North American consumers navigate their infertility journeys. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):592–9. PubMedCrossRef

96.

Ikemoto LC. Reproductive tourism: equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law Ineq. 2009;27:277–309.

97.

Swink DR, Reich B. Outsourcing reproduction : embryos and surrogacy services in the cyberprocreation era. J Health Care Law Policy. 2011;14:241–97.

98.

Penney K, Snyder J, Crooks VA, Johnston R. Risk communication and informed consent in the medical tourism industry: a thematic content analysis of Canadian broker websites. BMC Med Ethics. 2011;12:17. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

99.

Burry KA. Reproductive medicine: where we have been, where we are, where are we going? An ethical perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:578–80. PubMedCrossRef

100.

Donchin A. Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice. Bioethics. 2010;24(7):323–32. PubMedCrossRef

101.

Schäfer D, Baumann R, Kettner M. Ethics and reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2(5):447–56. PubMedCrossRef

102.

Armour KL. An overview of surrogacy around the world: trends, questions and ethical issues. Nurs Womens Health. 2012;16:231–6. PubMedCrossRef

103.

Neri M, Turillazzi E, Pascale N, Riezzo I, Pomara C. Egg production and donation: a new frontier in the global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: ethical concerns. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2016;17(4):316–20. PubMedCrossRef

104.

Norton W, Crawshaw M, Hudson N, Culley L, Law C. A survey of UK fertility clinics’ approach to surrogacy arrangements. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(3):327–38. PubMedCrossRef

105.

Janssens PM, Thorn P, Castilla JA, Frith L, Crawshaw M, Mochtar M, et al. Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(6):568–80. PubMedCrossRef

106.

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Consideration of the gestational carrier: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1838–41. CrossRef

107.

Loike JD, Fischbach RL. New ethical horizons in gestational surrogacy. J IVF Reprod Med Genet. 2013;1:109. CrossRef

108.

Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:483–91. PubMedCrossRef

109.

Qadeer I. Social and ethical basis of legislation on surrogacy: need for debate. Indian J Med Ethics. 2009;6(1):28–31. PubMed

110.

Ergas Y. Babies without borders: human rights, human dignity and the regulation of international commercial surrogacy. Emory Int Law Rev. 2013:1–69.

111.

Melo-Martín ID. The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: is there a right to know one’s genetic origins? Hast Cent Rep. 2014;44(2):28–35. CrossRef

112.

Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1418–22. CrossRef

113.

Patrizio P, Caplan AL. Ethical issues surrounding fertility preservation in cancer patients. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(4):717–26. PubMedCrossRef

114.

Cohen CB. Ethical issues regarding fertility preservation in adolescents and children. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53(2):249–53. PubMedCrossRef

115.

The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1224–31. CrossRef

116.

Schenker JG. Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;10(3):310–9. PubMedCrossRef

117.

Nikiforova B. Theological discourse in bioethics: general and confessional differences. Santalka Filosofija. 2006;14(1):62–76. CrossRef

118.

Sureau C. From transgression to pragmatism in reproductive medicine. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2005;45(3):307–19. PubMedCrossRef

119.

Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG. Social aspects in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(1):26–39. PubMedCrossRef

120.

Schenker JG. Gender selection: cultural and religious perspectives. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(9):400–10. PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

121.

Lanzone A. Ethical issues in human reproduction: catholic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):953–4. PubMedCrossRef

122.

Serour GI, Dickens BM. Assisted reproduction developments in the Islamic world. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;74(2):187–93. PubMedCrossRef

123.

Serour GI. Ethical issues in human reproduction: Islamic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):949–52. PubMedCrossRef

124.

Schenker JG. Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):945–8. PubMedCrossRef

125.

Markwell HJ, Brown BF. Bioethics for clinicians: 27. Catholic bioethics CMAJ. 2001;165(2):189–92. PubMed

126.

Serour GI, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT. Bioethics in medically assisted conception in the Muslim world. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12(9):559–65. PubMedCrossRef

127.

Schenker JG. Assisted reproductive technology: perspectives in Halakha (Jewish religious law). Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(Suppl 3):17–24. PubMedCrossRef

128.

Inhorn MC. The new Arab man: emergent masculinities, technologies, and Islam in the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2012.

129.

Inhorn MC. Local babies, global science: gender, religion, and in vitro fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge; 2003.

130.

Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: twenty key findings for the new millennium. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24(3):158–63. PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review)
Autoren:: Mahmoud Salama
Vladimir Isachenko
Evgenia Isachenko
Gohar Rahimi
Peter Mallmann
Lynn M. Westphal
Marcia C. Inhorn
Pasquale Patrizio
Publikationsdatum: 28.05.2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x
Verlag: Springer US
Zeitschrift: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics An Official Journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine
Ausgabe 7/2018
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330

Sie können e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

20.02.2019 | IGeL | Nachrichten | Onlineartikel

Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie

So rechnen Ärzte IGeL korrekt ab

Klinikhygiene: Gesetzesvorgaben fernab der Realität?

Patienten verschweigen, wie sie ihre Therapie ergänzen

Ein Arzt für Hunderttausende Menschen

Perikonzeptionelle Frauenheilkunde

Praxisbuch Gynäkologische Onkologie

Newsletter

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2018

Clinical outcomes following ICSI cycles using surgically recovered sperm and the impact of maternal age: 2004–2015 SART CORS registry

Lack of reproducibility in oocyte vitrification calls for a simpler (whether semi-manual or automatic) and standardized methodology

Synergy at work: two heads are better than one

One-year impact of bariatric surgery on serum anti-Mullerian-hormone levels in severely obese women

High post-thaw survival of ram sperm after partial freeze-drying

Inter-cycle consistency versus test compliance in endometrial receptivity analysis test

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

So rechnen Ärzte IGeL korrekt ab

Klinikhygiene: Gesetzesvorgaben fernab der Realität?

Patienten verschweigen, wie sie ihre Therapie ergänzen

Ein Arzt für Hunderttausende Menschen

Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet

Perikonzeptionelle Frauenheilkunde

Praxisbuch Gynäkologische Onkologie

Newsletter