Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:43:56.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches Responsive to Reproductive Technologies: A Need for Critical Assessment and Directions for Further Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Diane M. Kondratowicz
Diane M. Kondratowicz
Affiliation:
Research associate in the Medical Humanities Program at Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since its inception decades ago, technological intervention in human reproduction has been the subject of considerable attention and controversy. After identifying two focal points of debate, I focus in this paper upon an emerging body of literature responsive to a host of problematic issues that, scholars claim, reproductive technologies pose. Maintaining that critical assessment of this literature is necessary, I identify two areas of inquiry which deserve attention and, correspondingly, sketch directions which might guide further study.

Type
Special Section: Alpha and Omega: Ethics at the Edges of Life
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 148 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. ‘Reproductive technologies’ is a term that refers to a wide range of interventions which: (1) assist persons who are infertile, who have a same-sex partner, or who are without a partner, to conceive; (2) enable persons to choose the sex of their offspring; (3) promote, through prenatal diagnosis, embryo therapy, and fetal interventions (e.g., surgery), the health of children conceived; and (4) encompass research activities that advance our understanding of infertility and reproduction.

Approaches that I delineate in this paper refer to all of the above, with particular emphasis upon interventions that assist persons to conceive. Already, the interventions that facilitate conception are numerous and include, but are not limited to the following: artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete infra-fallopian transfer (GIFT), zygote intra-fallopian transfer (ZIFT), natural cycle ovum retrieval, ovum donation, and surrogacy services.

2. Professional associations have begun to formulate voluntary guidelines regarding the practice of assisted reproduction. Among the most active associations in the United States is the Ameri can Fertility Society. Refer to the following:

3. Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society. Ethical considerations of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertility and Sterility. 1994;62(Supp. 1).Google Scholar

4. American Fertility Society. Guidelines for in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and related procedures. Fertility and Sterility 1991;56(2):194–7.Google ScholarPubMed

5. Corea, G. Junk liberty. In: Corea, G. Reconstructing Babylon. Essays on Women and Technology. Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1991:142–60.Google Scholar

6. Corea, G, ed. Man-Made Women. How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

7. Hynes, HP, ed. Reconstructing Babylon. Essays on Women and Technology. Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1991Google Scholar.

8. Klein, RD, ed. Infertility. Women Speak Out About Their Experiences of Reproductive Medicine. London: Pandora Press, 1989.Google Scholar

9. Raymond, JG. Women as Wombs. Reproductive Technologies and the Battle Over Women's Freedom. New York: Harper, 1993.Google Scholar

10. Rowland, R. Living Laboratories. Women and Reproductive Technologies. Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

11. Blank, RH. Regulating Reproduction. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990:56–112.Google Scholar

12. Robertson, JA. Children of Choice. Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton: Prince ton University Press, 1994:11–5.Google Scholar

13. Bonnickson, AL. In Vitro Fertilization. Building Policy From Laboratories to Legislatures. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989:7.Google Scholar

14. See note 13. Bonnickson, 1989:7,9.Google Scholar

15. See note 13. Bonnickson, 1989:46–7, 50.Google Scholar

16. See note 13. Bonnickson, 1989:72–3.Google Scholar

17. See note 13. Bonnickson, 1989:113.Google Scholar

18. See note 11. Blank, 1990:113–4.Google Scholar

19. See note 11. Blank, 1990:207.Google Scholar

20. See note 11. Blank, 1990:211–3.Google Scholar

21. See note 11. Blank, 1990:225, 233.Google Scholar

22. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:30.Google Scholar

23. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:23, 29.Google Scholar

24. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:32, 39.Google Scholar

25. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:23.Google Scholar

26. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:34–5, 11–5, 42.Google Scholar

27. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:16.Google Scholar

28. Robertson, JA. Liberty and assisted reproduction. Trial 1994;30:48–53.Google ScholarPubMed

29. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:114–5.Google Scholar

30. See note 12. Robertson, 1994:145.Google Scholar

31. Birke, L, Himmelweit, S, Vines, G. Tomorrow's Child. Reproductive Technologies in the ‘90’s. London: Virago Press, 1990:5, 7–8.Google Scholar

32. See note 31. Birke, et al. 1990:290–306.Google Scholar

33. See note 31. Birke, et al. 1990:306–16.Google Scholar

34. Hynes, HP. A paradigm for regulation of the biomedical industry: environmental protection in the United States. In Spallone, P, Steinberg, DL, eds. Made to Order. The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. New York: Pergamon Press, 1987:192–7.Google Scholar

35. See note 34. Hynes, 1987:203.Google Scholar

36. See note 34. Hynes, 1987:191.Google Scholar

37. See note 34. Hynes, 1987:193–4.Google Scholar

38. See note 34. Hynes, 1987:203–4.Google Scholar

39. Scholars have suggested, for example, that reproductive technologies ought to be regulated by the federal and state governments, and that fertility specialists themselves ought to be closely monitored. See, e.g., McCuen, GE, ed. Hi-Tech Babies. Alternative Reproductive Technologies. Hudson, Wisc.: Gary E. McCuen Publications, Inc., 1990:116–44.Google Scholar

40. Abbey, A, Andrews, FM, Halman, LJ. Infertility and parenthood: does becoming a parent increase well-being? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994;62:398–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

41. Andrews, FM, Abbey, A, Halman, LJ. Is fertility-problem stress different? The dynamic of stress in fertile and infertile couples. Fertility and Sterility 1992;57:247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Benazon, N, Wright, J, Sabourin, S. Stress, sexual satisfaction, and marital adjustment in infertile couples. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 1992;18:273–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

43. Berg, BJ, Wilson, JF. Patterns of psychological distress in infertile couples. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995;16:65–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

44. Daniluk, JC. Infertility: intrapersonal and interpersonal impact. Fertility and Sterility 1988;49:982–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

45. Halman, LJAbbey, A, Andrews, FM. Attitudes about infertility interventions among fertile and infertile. American Journal of Public Health 1992;82:191–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

46. Mahlstedt, P. The psychological component of infertility. Fertility and Sterility 1985;43:335–46.Google ScholarPubMed

47. Stoleru, S, Teglas, JP, Fermanian, J, Spira, A. Psychological factors in aetiology of infertility: a prospec tive cohort study. Human Reproduction 1993;8:1039–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Van-Balen, F, Trimbos-Kemper, TC. Factors influencing well-being of long-term effects of infertile couples. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1994;15:157–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

49. See note 8. Klein, 1989Google Scholar