Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 35, Issue 7, pp 1277–1288 | Cite as

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

  • Mahmoud SalamaEmail author
  • Vladimir Isachenko
  • Evgenia Isachenko
  • Gohar Rahimi
  • Peter Mallmann
  • Lynn M. Westphal
  • Marcia C. Inhorn
  • Pasquale Patrizio
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

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.

Keywords

Cross border reproductive care Fertility tourism Sperm donation Oocyte donation Embryo donation Surrogacy Fertility preservation 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gürtin ZB, Inhorn MC. Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):535–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Rethinking reproductive “tourism” as reproductive “exile”. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):904–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Matorras R. Reproductive exile versus reproductive tourism. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salama M. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a global perspective. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2014;1(2):00008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Couture V, Drouin R, Tan SL, Moutquin JM, Bouffard C. Cross-border reprogenetic services. Clin Genet. 2015;87(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Cross-border reproductive care: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):645–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Storrow RF. Assisted reproduction on treacherous terrain: the legal hazards of cross-border reproductive travel. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):538–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crockin SL. Legal perspectives on cross-border reproductive care. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):811–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2689–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jackson E, Millbank J, Karpin I, Stuhmcke A. Learning from cross-border reproduction. Med Law Rev. 2017;25(1):23–46.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Millbank J. Responsive regulation of cross-border assisted reproduction. J Law Med. 2015;23(2):346–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flatscher-Thöni M, Voithofer C. Should reproductive medicine be harmonized within Europe? Eur J Health Law. 2015;22(1):61–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    International Federation of Fertility Societies. IFFS Surveillance 2016. Glob Reprod Health. 2016;1:1–143.Google Scholar
  24. 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. 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. 26.
    Forman R. Cross-border reproductive care: a clinician’s perspective. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):808–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spar D. Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):531–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blyth E. Fertility patients’ experiences of cross-border reproductive care. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):e11–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whittaker A, Speier A. “Cycling overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol. 2010;29(4):363–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hudson N, Culley L. Assisted reproductive travel: UK patient trajectories. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):573–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hunt J. Cross border treatment for infertility: the counselling perspective in the UK. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013;16(1):64–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hamilton M. Sperm donation in the United Kingdom in 2010. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(4):257–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Flower D. Assisted reproduction: should egg and sperm donors be paid? J Fam Health Care. 2010;20(2):69–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Defining embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):56–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sreenivas K, Campo-Engelstein L. Domestic and international surrogacy laws: implications for cancer survivors. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:135–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pande A. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters? Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):618–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Saxena P, Mishra A, Malik S. Surrogacy: ethical and legal issues. Indian J Community Med. 2012;37(4):211–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Svitnev K. Legal regulation of assisted reproduction treatment in Russia. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(7):892–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Woodruff TK. Oncofertility: a grand collaboration between reproductive medicine and oncology. Reproduction. 2015;150(3):S1–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petropanagos A, Cattapan A, Baylis F, Leader A. Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations. CMAJ. 2015;187(9):666–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rebar RW. Social and ethical implications of fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1449–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bower B, Quinn GP. Fertility preservation in cancer patients: ethical considerations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;732:187–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(3):265–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Austin CR. Legal, ethical and historical aspects of assisted human reproduction. Int J Dev Biol. 1997;41(2):263–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shanner L, Nisker J. Bioethics for clinicians: 26. Assisted reproductive technologies. CMAJ. 2001;164(11):1589–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Brezina PR, Zhao Y. The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:686253.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Frydman PR. Human reproduction: possibilities and ethical borders. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009;47(5):S5–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Baši M, Milojevi M, Miti D, Cvetkovi J. Ethical aspects in the area of assisted reproduction 2010; 27(3):171–178.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Inhorn MC. Cosmopolitan conceptions: IVF sojourns in Global Dubai. Durham: Duke University Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Deonandan R, Green S, van Beinum A. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(12):742–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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 2016PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Miura LN, Boxer RS. Women in medicine and the ticking clock. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(4):381–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ahuja KK. Patient pressure: is the tide of cross-border reproductive care beginning to turn? Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(5):447–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Speier AR. Brokers, consumers and the internet: how North American consumers navigate their infertility journeys. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):592–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ikemoto LC. Reproductive tourism: equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law Ineq. 2009;27:277–309.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Swink DR, Reich B. Outsourcing reproduction : embryos and surrogacy services in the cyberprocreation era. J Health Care Law Policy. 2011;14:241–97.Google Scholar
  98. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Donchin A. Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice. Bioethics. 2010;24(7):323–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Schäfer D, Baumann R, Kettner M. Ethics and reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2(5):447–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Armour KL. An overview of surrogacy around the world: trends, questions and ethical issues. Nurs Womens Health. 2012;16:231–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Loike JD, Fischbach RL. New ethical horizons in gestational surrogacy. J IVF Reprod Med Genet. 2013;1:109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:483–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Qadeer I. Social and ethical basis of legislation on surrogacy: need for debate. Indian J Med Ethics. 2009;6(1):28–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Ergas Y. Babies without borders: human rights, human dignity and the regulation of international commercial surrogacy. Emory Int Law Rev. 2013:1–69.Google Scholar
  111. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Patrizio P, Caplan AL. Ethical issues surrounding fertility preservation in cancer patients. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(4):717–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Cohen CB. Ethical issues regarding fertility preservation in adolescents and children. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53(2):249–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Schenker JG. Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;10(3):310–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Nikiforova B. Theological discourse in bioethics: general and confessional differences. Santalka Filosofija. 2006;14(1):62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Sureau C. From transgression to pragmatism in reproductive medicine. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2005;45(3):307–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG. Social aspects in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(1):26–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Schenker JG. Gender selection: cultural and religious perspectives. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(9):400–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Lanzone A. Ethical issues in human reproduction: catholic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):953–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Serour GI, Dickens BM. Assisted reproduction developments in the Islamic world. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;74(2):187–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Serour GI. Ethical issues in human reproduction: Islamic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):949–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Schenker JG. Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):945–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Markwell HJ, Brown BF. Bioethics for clinicians: 27. Catholic bioethics CMAJ. 2001;165(2):189–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Schenker JG. Assisted reproductive technology: perspectives in Halakha (Jewish religious law). Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(Suppl 3):17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Inhorn MC. The new Arab man: emergent masculinities, technologies, and Islam in the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Inhorn MC. Local babies, global science: gender, religion, and in vitro fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge; 2003.Google Scholar
  130. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical FacultyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of Reproductive MedicineNational Research CenterCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations