Conference Paper: Fertility and Inequality Across Borders: Assisted Reproductive Technology and Globalization

Lauren Jade Martin 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Wordpress

Eileen and Jyotsna,

Here is the link to the Hochschild article: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=childbirth_at_the_global_crossroads

And I look forward to the day when I’ll be able to share my dissertation with the both of you!

Lauren

Reply

Eileen Smith-Cavros 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Wordpress

Hi Lauren,

I haven’t seen the article yet, but I look forward to reading it.

I also saw your dissertation topic online in the conference bio section…am also looking forward to reading that dissertation at some point when it’s available!

Eileen

Reply

Eileen Smith-Cavros 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Wordpress

Dear Jyotsna,

Your comments were indeed very constructive. And I agree with your interpretation of “informed consent” as troublesome and malleable. It is a challenge in my mind in all donor ART procedures, not just Travel ART. Since to my knowledge there have been few studies (and even fewer long term studies given the relative newness of the technology) of egg donors and potential effects of egg donation (particularly repeated donation or donation with high medication/stimulation measures) on reproductive health and/or general well-being, the concept of “informed” is a bit nebulous in itself.

I, too, hope that we can keep this conversation going after the conference is over.

Eileen ... See all content Hide content

Reply

Eileen Smith-Cavros 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Wordpress

Comments to Reviewer Jyotsna Gupta

Thank you for an insightful and detailed commentary on my abstract.

I especially appreciate the commentary in relation to “push and pull” factors, a term that succintly and very accurately highlights important aspects of Travel ART.

I also agree that updating the adoption source would be very helpful. International adoption has changed so much with the Hague convention and with age and availability of children in the U.S. that a more current source/sources is needed. In addition, the current recession has undoubtedly also had an impact on foreign adoption (from the U.S. side and the international side) that could change the dynamics of both adoption and ART at least temporarily.

Unfortunately, data on the number of those who are “involuntarily childless” is problematic at best. So many infertile women write their own scripts post-diagnosis. For example, a women and/or man biologically unable to have a child “decide” not to use ART or to have children…is it choice, is it financial, is it “settling,” is it satisfaction…? The definition and admission of “involuntary” seems inherently problematic. The way people perceive “involuntary childlessness” has great potential to change after the “decision” of childlessness is made (or is accepted). A couple (for their own well-being) who can’t have children may decide they didn’t really “want” them or “need” them anyway, thereby not defining themselves as “involuntarily childless.” Actually, this is a great opportunity for research in itself!

The additional sources that you suggested as part of the ongoing theoretical debate are all important pieces of research and theory relevant to this abstract topic. Their mention certainly highlights the active theoretical debates going on in reference to Travel ART. I agree that these debates are critical and an important part of the literature. I think the inclusion of these articles is eminently necessary because of their strong perspectives.

I hope that the abstract is not just “safe” but demonstrates that I see both the potential (and the reality) for the exploitation of women in Travel ART as well as the potential for a bridge between women. I truly don’t think it is inherently either one of these and that each Travel ART situation is actually quite unique to its participants, place, and situation. What I hoped to accomplish in this particular abstract is to pinpoint gaps in the published Travel ART data (both quantitative and qualitative) which I believe could further support some of these impassioned and important theoretical articles you bring to the forefront. There are several articles you mention that I have read as well as several that I have not read yet, and I quite look forward to reading those.

I completely agree with your comment that ethical concerns do deserve more mention in this debate (which I began to do with a brief comment on “informed consent”) but could certainly expand as well as an expansion of legislative issues.

I also understand your perspective that from a medical standpoint, IVF is not a direct “treament” of infertility or infertility-related issues. Technically, IVF is just what you described, a “bypass.” Many patients, of course, perceive IVF, and all forms of ART, as fertility “treatment” because (if it works) it does treat (fix) the social concept and stigma of infertility, if not the biological reality. Socially, someone who was once “infertile” now considers themselves “fertile” and “treated” successfully, in a practical sense if not clinical, but this distinction is not addressed in the abstract. Your point about the use of the term “treatment” in terms of medical terminology remains very well-taken!

I so appreciated your emphasis and comments on the important of psychological issues and support also being addressed in Travel ART for all parties concerned. It is a major issue that is rarely addressed.

I really appreciate the time that you took and the detail you provided in this critique. From the additional sources you discussed to your thought-provoking comments, my research in this field will be the better for your commentary. ... See all content Hide content

Reply

SociologyLens 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Twitter

"...families from other upper income nations... do sometimes travel to the US and Spain for ART procedures..." http://ow.ly/w9Z8

Reply