We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
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.
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
