ReviewCross-border reproductive care: a review of the literature
Introduction
Seeking assisted reproduction technologies across borders appears to be a growing phenomenon, part of a wider trend of what is often termed ‘medical tourism’ (Gray and Poland, 2008). The globalization of assisted reproduction technology has paralleled the growth of a ‘consumer culture’ in health care more generally (Slater, 1997). Technical advances in treatment have accompanied a growth in the commodification of reproduction, producing a highly lucrative ‘fertility–industrial complex’ (Spar, 2006) operating in a global market that transcends national boundaries. This phenomenon has attracted a steady increase in public, professional and academic discourse. A review of the evidence base and emergent academic debates in the context of these developments was therefore considered timely. This review of the current state of knowledge on cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) in the English-language literature was conducted as part of a research project exploring the experiences of UK residents who are seeking travel abroad for fertility treatment, the results of which will be published separately.
Section snippets
Database search
Given the new and contested nature of the topic and the fragmented nature of the literature on CBRC, a conventional systematic review was not considered appropriate. Instead, this study undertook a systematic search of academic databases, combined with additional searches to produce a critical narrative overview of the current state of knowledge, rather than attempting to ‘rank’ individual research papers (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006). Given the fact that the phenomenon of travelling across
Results
The strategy described above yielded 54 papers to be included in the review. To assist the presentation of the review the papers are grouped according to their focus, publication status and whether or not they are based on empirical research or are commentary or opinion papers (Table 2). In summary, they are organized as follows: (i) published studies based on empirical data with a central focus on CBRC (n = 9); (ii) unpublished or partially published studies based on empirical data with a
Discussion
The majority of papers identified in this review are based on commentary rather than empirical research. This finding is of significance, since it implies that although it is of interest to a range of disciplines, CBRC is under-researched and under-theorized. The growing range of commentaries provides important perspectives on a range of issues and highlights the anxieties that CBRC appears to generate in a number of arenas. However, without empirical data, the hypotheses presented cannot be
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council in funding the study on which this paper is based: ‘Transnational reproduction: an exploratory study of UK residents who travel abroad for fertility treatment’, Grant ref: RES 000–22–3390.
References (68)
Fertility patients’ experiences of cross-border reproductive care
Fertil. Steril.
(2010)- et al.
Reproductive tourism: offspring’s rights
Fertil. Steril.
(2006) Procreative tourism and reproductive freedom
Reprod. Biomed. Online
(2006)- et al.
Cross-border reproductive care: now and into the future
Fertil. Steril.
(2010) Cross-border reproductive care: quality and safety challenges for the regulator
Fertil. Steril.
(2010)- et al.
Cross-border reproductive care: a phenomenon expressing the controversial aspects of reproductive technologies
Reprod. Biomed. Online
(2010) Should fertility specialists refer local patients abroad for shared or commercialized oocyte donation?
Fertil. Steril.
(2007)Is it ethically-justifiable for fertility doctors to refer or recommend local patients to foreign clinics for oocyte donation?
Med. Hypotheses
(2006)- et al.
Cross-border fertility services in North America: a survey of Canadian and American providers
Fertil. Steril.
(2010) - et al.
Rethinking reproductive ‘tourism’ as reproductive ‘exile’
Fertil. Steril.
(2009)
Principles of establishment of the first international forum on cross-border reproductive care
Fertil. Steril.
What do women want? Women’s experiences of infertility treatment
Soc. Sci. Med.
On behalf of the International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART). 2010. Cross-border fertility care—International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies global survey: 2006 data and estimates
Fertil. Steril.
The role of patients’ organizations in cross-border reproductive care
Fertil. Steril.
Cross-border reproductive care: Italy, a case example
Hum. Reprod.
Fertility tourism: circumventive routes that enable access to reproductive technologies and substances
Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc.
‘Fertility Tourism’ requires a social work response European
Social Worker.
Reproductive tourism–a price worth paying for reproductive autonomy?
Crit. Soc. Policy
Free trade in human reproductive cells: a solution to procreative tourism and the unrelated internet
Minnisota J. Int. Law Online
Fertility tourists or global consumers? A sociological agenda for exploring cross-border reproductive travel
Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci.
Reproductive tourism in Europe: infertility and human rights
Global Governance
Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups
BMC Med. Res. Method.
Examining American bioethics: its problems and prospects
Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics
Medical tourism: crossing borders to access healthcare
Kennedy Inst. Ethics J.
Critical bioethics: beyond the social science critique of applied ethics
Bioethics
Taiwan (Republic of China) legitimizes substantial financial remuneration of egg donors: implications for reproductive tourism in East Asia
Expert Rev. Obstet. Gynecol.
Reproductive tourism: should locally registered fertility doctors be held accountable for channelling patients to foreign medical establishments?
Hum. Reprod.
Reproductive Tourism: Equality Concerns in the global market for fertility services
Law Inequality
Globalization and reproductive tourism in the United Arab Emirates
Asia Pac. J. Public Health
Cited by (109)
International gestational surrogacy in the United States, 2014–2020
2024, Fertility and SterilityGlobal fertility care with assisted reproductive technology
2023, Fertility and SterilityCross-border reproductive care: an Ethics Committee opinion
2022, Fertility and SterilityFactors that infertile couples from mainland China may take into consideration for cross-border reproductive care – A cross-sectional questionnaire study
2021, Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyCitation Excerpt :Cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) has grown rapidly over the past decade and has become a global phenomenon [1,2].
Reprint: Where has the quest for conception taken us? Lessons from anthropology and sociology
2020, Reproductive Biomedicine and Society OnlineCross-border reproductive care in the USA: Who comes, why do they come, what do they purchase?
2020, Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Nicky Hudson is a sociologist and researcher at De Montfort University with interests in medicine, reproduction, gender and ethnicity. Lorraine Culley is Professor of Social Science and Health at De Montfort University and has lead several projects exploring social aspects of assisted reproduction treatment. Eric Blyth is Professor of Social Work at Huddersfield University and co-chairs the British Association of Social Workers Project Group on Assisted Reproduction. Wendy Norton is Senior Lecturer in Nursing at De Montfort University, specializing in the management of sexual health, gynaecology and infertility. Frances Rapport is Professor of Qualitative Health Research and leads the Qualitative Research Unit (QUARU) at Swansea University. Allan Pacey is Senior Lecturer in Andrology at the University of Sheffield and Head of Andrology for Sheffield Teaching Hospitals.