The Right(s) to Procreate and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in the United States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Glenn Cohen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Reproductive Technology ◽  
Professional Self ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

This chapter focuses on the right (or rights) to procreate in the United States, with a focus on reproductive technology use. The United States has been too often described as the “wild west” of reproductive technology use. When measured against many of its comparators—Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, etc.—it is undoubtedly true that more forms of reproductive technology use are permitted in the United States than elsewhere. It is for this reason that the United States has been a frequent destination for “circumvention tourism” or “fertility tourism.” At the same time, it would be wrong to think that reproductive medicine is unregulated in the United States. The chapter argues that it is just that the regulation is more fragmented, both in terms of the locus of control (federal vs. state authority, governmental vs. professional self-regulation, etc.) and also of the legal sources involved (more of a focus on tort law and family law than direct regulation at the statutory or constitutional level).

The Right to Procreate and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Europe

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
State Funding ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Fertility Treatment ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Professional Self ◽  
The Right

This chapter explores some of the themes identified in the previous chapter through a European and perhaps a particularly UK-orientated lens. It begins by considering some of the reasons for the different approaches to the regulation of reproduction within Europe. Second, the chapter looks at the role of rights and rights-based legal claims in relation to assisted reproductive technologies, concluding that they have played a relatively minor role. Third, compared with the United States, professional self-regulation and tort law are background considerations in many European countries, with detailed regulations more commonly found in statute and in the ‘soft law’ guidance and codes issued by regulators. Fourth, increasing numbers of people are engaging in cross-border reproductive care, not only within Europe but much further afield as well. Finally, although there is state funding for assisted conception services in many European countries, access tends to be limited, and hence there is a market in fertility treatment to a much greater extent than there is for most other medical procedures.

scholarly journals Is Information Power? Comparing Anonymous and Open Egg Donation

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Speier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Czech Republic ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Fertility Treatment ◽  
Egg Donation ◽  
Gamete Donation ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Egg Donor

Both the Czech Republic and the United States are destinations for cross-border reproductive travellers. For North Americans, including Canadians, who opt to travel to the Czech Republic for IVF using an egg donor, they are entering a fertility industry that is anonymous. This makes the Czech Republic different from other European countries that necessitate open gamete donation, as in Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom. For reproductive travellers coming to the United States for fertility treatment, there is a wider menu of choices regarding egg donation given the vastly unregulated nature of the industry. More recently, professionals in the industry are pushing for ‘open’ egg donation. For intended parents traveling to either location seeking in vitro fertilization using an egg donor, they must choose whether or not to pursue open or closed donation. As pre-conception parents, they navigate competing discourses of healthy parenting of donor-conceived offspring. They must be reflexive about their choices, and protective when weighing their options, always keeping their future child's mental, physical and genetic health in mind. Drawing from ethnographic data collected over the course of six years in the United States and the Czech Republic, this paper will explore both programs, paying special attention to the question of how gamete donation and global assisted reproductive technologies intersect with different notions about healthy pre-conception parenting.

The Affordable Care Act and assisted reproductive technology use

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Stapleton ◽  
Daniel Skinner
Keyword(s):  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Gender And Sexuality ◽  
Insurance Markets ◽  
The Affordable Care Act ◽  
American Society

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has prompted numerous gender and sexuality controversies. We describe and analyze those involving assisted reproductive technologies (ART). ART in the United States has been regulated in piecemeal fashion, with oversight primarily by individual states. While leaving state authority largely intact, the ACA federalized key practices by establishing essential health benefits (EHBs) that regulate insurance markets and prohibit insurance-coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions. Whatever their intentions, the ACA’s drafters thus put infertility in a subtly provocative new light clinically, financially, normatively, politically, and culturally. With particular attention to normative and political dynamics embedded in plausible regulatory trajectories, we review—and attempt topreview—the ACA’s effects on infertility-related delivery of health services, on ART utilization, and on reproductive medicine as a factor in American society.

scholarly journals All the right moves: why in utero transfer is both important for the baby and difficult to achieve and new strategies for change

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 979
Author(s):  
Helena Watson ◽  
James McLaren ◽  
Naomi Carlisle ◽  
Nandiran Ratnavel ◽  
Tim Watts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Transfer Process ◽  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Multiple Pregnancy ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
In Utero ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The best way to ensure that preterm infants benefit from relevant neonatal expertise as soon as they are born is to transfer the mother and baby to an appropriately specialised neonatal facility before birth (“in utero”). This review explores the evidence surrounding the importance of being born in the right unit, the advantages of in utero transfers compared to ex utero transfers, and how to accurately assess which women are at most risk of delivering early and the challenges of in utero transfers. Accurate identification of the women most at risk of preterm birth is key to prioritising who to transfer antenatally, but the administrative burden and pathway variation of in utero transfer in the UK are likely to compromise optimal clinical care. Women reported the impact that in utero transfers have on them, including the emotional and financial burdens of being transferred and the anxiety surrounding domestic and logistical concerns related to being away from home. The final section of the review explores new approaches to reforming the in utero transfer process, including learning from outside the UK and changing policy and guidelines. Examples of collaborative regional guidance include the recent Pan-London guidance on in utero transfers. Reforming the transfer process can also be aided through technology, such as utilising the CotFinder app. In utero transfer is an unavoidable aspect of maternity and neonatal care, and the burden will increase if preterm birth rates continue to rise in association with increased rates of multiple pregnancy, advancing maternal age, assisted reproductive technologies, and obstetric interventions. As funding and capacity pressures on health services increase because of the COVID-19 pandemic, better prioritisation and sustained multi-disciplinary commitment are essential to maximise better outcomes for babies born too soon.

Introduction to the Right to Procreate and Assisted Reproductive Technologies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Glenn Cohen ◽  
Emily Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproductive Technologies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Gamete Donation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Embryo Disposition ◽  
Posthumous Reproduction

This chapter briefly discusses the right to procreate and related technological assistance. The right to procreate is one of the most important personal rights, and it has received widespread recognition under the law. Yet its protections can be tenuous for many people, particularly those who are poor and those who need assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) to have children. This chapter highlights the complications arising from the right to procreate with technological assistance. Of all the areas of health law and bioethics, this may be the one with the largest disagreements across countries. On whether (and under what conditions) to permit surrogacy, anonymous gamete donation, pre-embryo disposition agreements, and posthumous reproduction, to name but a few examples, there are sharp divergences among, and even within, countries (in the United States, much of this is committed to state not federal law).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document