Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Demographic implications of reproductive technologies

  • Published:
Population Research and Policy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medical advances in the infertility field are coming at a rapid pace. This paper examines four areas of demography that are being affected by the delivery of infertility services in the United States, or have the potential to be affected. The greatest effects are currently seen in the rapid increase in the rate of multiple deliveries, with smaller effects evident in delayed childbearing. To date the sex ratio at birth in the United States has not been affected by reproductive technologies. The experience from Asian countries such as Korea and China indicates that massive societal change coupled with reproductive technologies could bring about changes in the sex ratio at birth in the United States. The last area examined is the intergenerational transmission of infertility which to date has not been largely affected by reproductive technologies, but has the potential to affect a larger proportion of the population.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abma, J. C., Chandra, A., Mosher, W. D., Peterson, L. S. & Piccinino, L. J. (1997). Fertility, family planning, and women's health: new data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital and Health Statistics 23(19).

  • Ackerman, E. (1997). Newfangled babies, newfangled risks, U.S. News and World Report 123(24): 63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (1999). ACOG releases ethical guidelines for multiple embryo pregnancies. www.acog.org/fromhome/publications/pressreleases/0499mult.htm

  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1997). Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. www.asrm.org/current/practice/embryos.html

  • Belkin, L. (1999). Getting the girl, New York Times Magazine, 25 July 1999.

  • Bongaarts, J. & Potter, R.G. (1983). Feritlity, Biology, and Behavior: An Analysis of the Proximate Determinants. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, T. L., Hall, J. E., Ettner, S. L., Christiansen, C. L., Greene, M. F. & Crowley, W. F. (1994). The economic impact of multiple-gestation pregnancies and the contribution of assisted-reproduction techniques to their incidence, New England Journal of Medicine 331: 244–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and RESOLVE. (1998). 1996 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999). 1997 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandra, A. & Stephen, E. H. (1998). Impaired fecundity in the United States: 1982–95, Family Planning Perspectives 30(1): 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. (2000). Son preference and sex composition of children: evidence from India, Demography 37(1): 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1997). Controversies in science: ICSI may foster birth defects, The Journal of NIH Research 9 (February): 34, 36, 38, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1996). The agonizing price of infertility, Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine 50(5): 50–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women, New York: Crown Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falbo, T. (1981). Relationship between birth category, achievement, and interpersonal orientation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41: 121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fugger, E. F., Black, S. H., Keyvanfar, K. & Schulman, J. D. (1998). Births of normal daughters after MicroSort sperm separation and intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, Human Reproduction 13(9): 2367–2370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, T. H. (1990). Recent trends in sex ratios at birth in China, Population and Development Review 16(1): 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent-First, M. G., Kol, S., Muallen, A., Ofir, R., Manor, D., Blazer, S., First, N. & Itskovitz-Eldor, J. (1996). The incidence and possible relevance of Y-linked microdeletions in babies born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and their infertile fathers, Molecular Human Reproduction 2(12): 943–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. A., MacDorman, M. F. & Mathews, T. J. (1997). Triplet births: Trends and outcomes, 1971–1994. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital and Health Statistics 21(55).

  • Martin, J. A. & Park, M. M. (1999). Trends in twin and triplet births: 1980:97, National Vital Statistics Reports 47(4), 14 September 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medical Research International and the American Fertility Society Special Interest Group (1988). In vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in the United States: 1985 and 1986 results from the National IVF/ET Registry, Fertility and Sterility 49(2): 212–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCHS, National Center for Health Statistics (1996). Vital Statistics of the United States: 1992, Volume I: Natality. Washington, DC: Public Health Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palermo, G. D., Colombero, L. T., Schattman, G. L. Davis, O. K. & Rosenwaks, Z (1996). Evolution of pregnancies and initial follow-up of newborns delivered after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, Journal of the American Medical Association 276: 1893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. B. & Cho, N.-H. (1995). Consequences of son preference in a low-fertility society: Imbalance of the sex ratio at birth in Korea, Population and Development Review 21(1): 59–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pebley, A. & Westoff, Ch. (1982).Women's sex preferences in the United States, Demography 19: 177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. L., Kent-First, M., Muallem, A., Van Bergen, A. H., Nolten, W. E. Meisner, L. & Roberts, K.P. (1997). Microdeletions in the Y-chromosome of infertile men, New England Journal of Medicine 336(8): 534–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retherford, R. D. & Sewell, W. H. (1988). Intelligence and family size reconsidered, Social Biology 35: 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reubinoff, B. E. & Schenker, J. G. (1996). New advances in sex preselection, Fertility and Sterility 66(3): 343–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. M., Zwerbroke, W. M., Huisjes, A. J. M., Kanhai, H. K., Bruinse, H. W. & Merkus, W. M. (1998). Multiple birth prevalence in the Netherlands: impact of maternal age and assisted reproductive techniques, Journal of Reproductive Medicine 43(3):173–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, E. H. & Chandra, A. (1998). Updated projections of infertility in the United States: 1995–2025, Fertility and Sterility 70(1): 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, E. H. & Chandra, A. (2000). Use of infertility services in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives (May/June 2000).

  • Teachman, J. D. & Schollaert, P. T. (1989). Gender of children and birth timing, Demography 26(3): 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2000). International Data Base. Table 028: Age-specific fertility rates and selected derived measures. http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsprd. Downloaded 4–05–2000.

  • Ventura, S. J., Martin, J. A., Curtin, S. C. & Mathews, T. J. (1997). Report of final natality statistics, 1995, Monthly Vital Statistics Report 45 (11, supplement), 10 June 1997.

  • Ventura, S. J., Martin, J. A., Curtin, S. C. & Mathews, T. J. (1999). Births: final data for 1997, National Vital Statistics Report 47 (18), 29 April 1999.

  • Ventura, S. J., Martin, J. A., Curtin, S. C., Mathews, T. J. & Park, M. M. (2000). Births: final data for 1998, National Vital Statistics Report 48(3), 28 March 2000.

  • Washington Post (1998). Eight at a time. Issue 25 December 1998, p. A30.

  • Weiss, R. (1997a). 63-year-old woman gives birth; controversy attends clinical trend, Washington Post, 24 April 1997, p. A1

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R. (1997b). Woman bears twins from frozen eggs, Washington Post, 17 October 1997, p. A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R. (1997c). Fertilization method is linked to gene defect, Washington Post, 20 February 1997, p. A20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, R. (1998). Fertility experiments mix genes of 2 women, Washington Post, 9 October 1998, p. A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoff, Ch. F. & Rindfuss, R. R. (1974). Sex preselection in the United States: Some implications, Science 184: 633–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, L. S., Kiely, J. L., Melvin, C. L. & Martin, M. C. (1996). Assisted reproductive technologies: estimates of their contribution to multiple births and newborn hospital days in the United States, Fertility and Sterility 65(2): 361–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, K. & Ferguson, L. R. (1995). The stopping and spacing of childbirths and their birth-history predictors: rational-choice theory and event-history analysis, American Sociological Review 60 (April): 272–298.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Elizabeth Hervey Stephen

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Hervey Stephen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stephen, E.H. Demographic implications of reproductive technologies. Population Research and Policy Review 19, 301–315 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026568113158

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026568113158

Search

Navigation