Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, Kerpener St. 34, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Mahmoud Salama, Vladimir Isachenko, Evgenia Isachenko, Gohar Rahimi & Peter Mallmann

  2. Department of Reproductive Medicine, National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt

    Mahmoud Salama

  3. Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Lynn M. Westphal

  4. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Marcia C. Inhorn

  5. Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Pasquale Patrizio

Authors
  1. Mahmoud Salama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vladimir Isachenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evgenia Isachenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gohar Rahimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Mallmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lynn M. Westphal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marcia C. Inhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pasquale Patrizio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahmoud Salama.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salama, M., Isachenko, V., Isachenko, E. et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1277–1288 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1181-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation