Sociodemographic features of procreative behavior in the routine use of assisted reproductive technologies
Philosophy «Problematization of the human: an ongoing project» (special issue)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-3-361-369Keywords:
procreation, assisted reproductive technologies, in vitro fertilization, demographic transition, sociocultural norms, moral and ethical barriersAbstract
The article describes the first results of an electronic survey of Moscow and Novosibirsk university students and postgraduates in April-May 2021. The analysis of 106 questionnaires showed that 74.7 % of the respondents (among whom 67.9 % are aged from 18 to 20 years, ⅔ are female, ¾ live in cities, 92.9 % are not married) want to have children, and every fifth of them — three ones. 91.8 % of the respondents believe that their individual health will not prevent them from implementing these plans, and they consider assisted reproductive technologies to be «a chance for people who are not able to have a child naturally to become parents». Awareness of specific ART programs varies: 81.2 % know about surrogacy, 75.3 % — about sperm donation, but only 55.3 % — about egg donation, 51.8 % — about cryopreservation of reproductive material, 49.4 % — about ICSI, while only 31.8 % — about long-used artificial insemination and 28.2 % — about the relatively new technology of embryo donation. For the majority of the respondents this is «abstract» knowledge since ¾ of them have not heard of real cases of applying assisted reproduction among their relatives and acquaintances. 56.5 % of the respondents are ready to use in vitro fertilization themselves if natural pregnancy and childbirth turn out to be contraindicated or physically impossible. However, ⅔ of the respondents deny the possibility of using more «morally complex» programs related to reproductive donation and surrogacy. These results allow us to speak of new sociocultural procreative norms due to the fundamental possibility of medicalization of reproductive processes. However, this makes the conception and gestation procedures dependent on organizational resources and the stability of the public health system.References
Бронфман С.А. Новая нормативность и репродуктивный выбор: попытка осмысления // Население и экономика. 2020. Т. 4, №4. С. 74–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e58814
Исупова О.Г. Делегирование родительства и язык репродукции: эксперты и пациенты о рождении ВРТ-детей // Население и экономика. 2020 . Т. 4, №4. С. 43–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e57400
Исупова О.Г., Белянин А.В., Гусарева А.А. Модернизация «устоев и корней»: семья и новые репродуктивные технологии // XV апрельская международная научная конференция по проблемам развития экономики и общества: в 4кн. / отв. ред. Е.Г. Ясин. М.: Изд. дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2015. Кн. 3. С. 19−30.
Исупова О.Г., Русанова Н.Е. Социальный портрет пациентов репродуктивной медицины // Социологические исследования. 2010. № 4. C. 88–98.
Национальные регистры ВРТ за 2007−2018 гг. / Российская Ассоциация Репродукции Человека. URL: http://www.rahr.ru/d_registr_otchet/ (дата обращения: 22.09.2020).
Русанова Н.Е. Вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии в России: медицинские прорывы и общественные проблемы // Население и экономика. 2020. Т. 4, №4. С. 5–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e58271
Русанова Н.Е. Вспомогательная медикаментозная репродукция как фактор изменения рождаемости: новые возможности и новые проблемы // XXVIII Ежегодной Международной конференции РАРЧ «Репродуктивные технологии сегодня и завтра»: сб. тез. 2018. С. 19–20.
Русанова Н.Е., Гордеева В.Л. Вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии как фактор рождаемости: потребность, регулирование, социально-демографический эффект // Народонаселение. 2016. № 3. С. 34–46.
Сидорова Т.А. Философский анализ прокреации в ценностном измерении // Население и экономика. 2020. Т. 4, № 4. С. 57–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e57249
Asplund K. Use of in vitro fertilization — ethical issues // Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020. Vol. 125, no. 2. P. 192–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2019.1684405
Brezina P.R., Zhao Y. The Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues Impacted by Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies // Obstetrics and Gynecology International. 2012. Vol. 2012. URL: https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ogi/2012/686253.pdf (accessed: 22.09.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/686253
Melo-Martín I. de. The Ethics of Anonymous Gamete Donation: Is There a Right to Know One’s Genetic Origins? // The Hastings Center Report. 2014. Vol. 44, iss. 2. P. 28–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.285
Ravitsky V. Knowing Where You Come From: The Rights of Donor-Conceived Individuals and the Meaning of Genetic Relatedness // Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology. 2010. .Vol. 11, iss. 2. P. 665–684.
Sobotka T., Hansen M.A., Kold J.T., Pedersen A.T., Lutz W., Skakkebæk N.E. The contribution of assisted reproduction to completed fertility: an analysis of Danish data // Population Development Revue. 2008. Vol. 34, iss. 1. P. 79–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00206.x
References
Asplund, K. (2020). Use of in vitro fertilization - ethical issues. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences. Vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 192–199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2019.1684405
Brezina, P.R. and Zhao, Y. (2012). The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstetrics and Gynecology International. Vol. 2012. Available at: https://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ogi/2012/686253.pdf (accessed 22.09.2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/686253
Bronfman, S.A. (2020). [New normativity and reproductive choice: an attempt at comprehension]. Naselenie i ekonomika [Population and Economics]. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 74–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e58814
Isupova, O.G. (2020). [Delegation of parenting and language of reproduction: experts and patients on the birth of ART children]. Naselenie i ekonomika [Population and Economics]. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 43–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e57400
Isupova, O.G., Belyanin, A.V. and Gusareva, A.A. (2015). [Modernization of «foundations and roots»: the family and new reproductive technologies]. XV aprel’skaya mezhdnarodnaya nauchnaya konferentsiya po problemam razvitiya ekonomiki i obschestva: v 4 kn. [April 15 International Scientific Conference on the Problems of Economic and Social Development: in 4 books]. Moscow: HSE Publ., book 3, pp. 19−30.
Isupova, O.G. and Rusanova, N.E. (2010). [Social portrait of reproductive medicine patients]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia [Sociological Studies]. No. 4, pp. 88–98.
Melo-Martín, I. (2014). The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: is there a right to know one’s genetic origins? The Hastings Center Report. Vol. 44, iss. 2, pp. 28–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.285
Natsional’nye registry VRT za 2007−2018 gg. [National ART registers for 2007-2018 years]. Russian Association of Human Reproduction. Available at: http://www.rahr.ru/d_registr_otchet/ (assessed 22.09.2020).
Ravitsky, V. (2010). Knowing where you come from: the rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota Journal of Law Science & Technology. Vol. 11, iss. 2, pp. 665–684.
Rusanova, N.E. (2020). [Assisted reproductive technologies in Russia: medical breakthroughs and social problems]. Naselenie i ekonomika [Population and Economics]. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 5–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e58271
Rusanova N.E. (2018). [Assisted drug reproduction as a factor in fertility changes: new opportunities and new problems]. XXVIII Yezhegodnoy Mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii RARCH «Reproduktivnyye tekhnologii segodnya i zavtra» [28th Annual International Conference of RAHR «Reproductive Technologies Today and Tomorrow»]. RAHR, pp. 19–20.
Rusanova, N.E. and Gordeeva, V.L. (2016). [Assisted reproductive technologies: requirement and regulation at a low birth rate]. Narodonaselenie [Population]. No. 3, pp. 34–46.
Sidorova, T.A. (2020). [Philosophical analysis of procreation in the aspect of values]. Naselenie i ekonomika [Population and Economics]. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 57–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e57249
Sobotka, T., Hansen, M.A., Kold, J.T., Pedersen, A.T., Lutz, W. and Skakkebæk, N.E. (2008). The contribution of assisted reproduction to completed fertility: an analysis of Danish data. Population Development Revue. Vol. 34, iss. 1, pp. 79–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2008.00206.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
