Social Acceptance of Ethically Controversed Innovative Techniques Related to or Derived from Assisted Reproductive Technologies – A Review of Literature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/eejmhb/11Keywords:
social acceptance, assisted reproductive technologies, social contagion, social construction of reproductive behavior, communicative action in ART, literature review.Abstract
In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the most widely known assisted reproductive technique (ART). Due to IVF, a number of medical practices have emerged, such as surrogate motherhood or cryopreservation of human embryos, which gives the possibility to have children not only to infertile heterosexual couples at the normal age of procreation, but also to homosexual or lesbian couples or to people who are past the biological age when they could naturally procreate. IVF makes it possible to create embryos outside the human body, and therefore opens the door for the possibility of physical and moral augmentation of the future child prior to implanting the embryo in uterus, as well as for embryonic stem cell research, in order to find the causality of diseases and treat them, but also for experiments that today do not seem so futuristic anymore, such as tcreating human-animal chimeras or hybrids, or cloning. This article aims to analyze the relevant literature on the mechanism of achieving social acceptability for these controversial techniques.
References
Alvare, H. M. (2002). Catholic teaching and the law concerning the new technologies. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(1), 107-134.
Astărăstoae, V., Loue, S., & Ioan, B. (2009). Etica cercetării pe subiecţi umani [Ethics of research on human subjects]. Iași, România: UMF Grigore T. Popa.
Baldwin, T. (2012). Reproduction without sex: Social and ethical implications. EMBO Reports, 13(12), 1049-1053. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.172
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Bharadwaj, A. (2008). Biosociality and biocrossings: Encounters with assisted conception and embrionic stem cells in India. In S. Gibbon & C. Novas (Eds.), Biosocialities, genetics and the social sciences. Making biologies and identities (pp. 78-116). New York, USA: Routledge.
Blackwood, R., & Bindra, R. (2009). Study design for assessing effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability of services including measures of structure, process, service quality, and outcome of health care. Health Knowledge. Retrieved from https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-healthtextbook/research-methods/1c-health-care-evaluation-health-careassessment/study-design-assessing-effectiveness
Blumer, H. (1993). Collective behaviour. New York, USA: Irvington Pub.
Branson, C., Duffy, B., & Perry, C. (2012) Acceptable behaviour? Public opinion on behaviour change policy. Report, Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ipsosmori.com/DownloadPublication/1454_sri-ipsos-mori-acceptablebehaviour-january-2012.pdf
Brezina, P. R., & Zhao, Y. (2012). The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2012, 1-7. doi:10.1155/2012/686253
Brock, D. M., Sarason, I. G., Sanghvi, H., & Gurung R. A. R. (1998). The perceived acceptance scale: Development and validation. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, 15(1), 5-21. doi:10.1177/0265407598151001
Cohen, C. B. (2002). Protestant perspectives on the uses of the new reproductive technologies. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30(1), 135-145.
Cohn, S. (2015). Reconceptualising public acceptability: A study of the ways people respond to policies aimed to reduce alcohol consumption. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 20(3), 203-219. doi:10.1177/1363459315574117
Colpin, H. (2002). Parenting and psychosocial development of IVF children: Review of the research literature. Developmental Review, 22(4), 644-673. doi:10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00501-4
Cook, M. (2008). The ultimate incest. Retrieved from https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/bioethics_article/the_ultimate_incest
Curaș, D., & Smajdor, A. (2016). “I am your mother and your father!” In vitro derived gametes and the ethics of solo reproduction. Health Care Analysis, 25(4), 354-369. doi:10.1007/s10728-016-0321-7
Cutaș, D. (2014). The ethics of solo reproduction. Panel presented during the Conferinţei ECPR General Conference. Glasgow, USA: University of Glasgow.
Diaz, E. (2015). Adoption, gender, and same-sex couples: A study of attitudes. Masters thesis. Humboldt State University. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/143191/Diaz _Esmeralda_Sp2015.pdf?sequence=1
Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2010). Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(11), 687-693. doi:10.1136/jme.2010.038232
Edwards, R. G. (1993), Pregnancies in post-menopausal women: Pregnancies are acceptable in post-menopausal women. Human Reproduction, 8(10), 1542- 1544. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137887
Fadel, Hossam E. (2002). The Islamic viewpoint on new assisted reproductive technologies. Frodham Urban Law Journal, 30(1), 147-157.
Falasco, J. R. (2005). Frozen embryos and gamete providers’ rights: A suggested model for embryo disposition. Jurimetrics Journal, 45(3), 273-300.
Fasouliotis, S. J., & Schenker, J. G. (1999). Social aspects in assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Update, 5(1), 26-39. doi:10.1093/humupd/5.1.26
Fenton, E. (2010). The perils of failing to enhance: A response to Persson and Savulescu. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(3), 148-151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.033597
Franklin, M., & Chapman, S. (2000). Human Inheritable Genetic Modifications. Assesing Scientific, Ethical, Religious and Policy Issues. Washington, D.C., SUA: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Frunză, M., Demeny, E., Sandor, J., & Ioan, B. (2013). To share or not to share your donor status on Facebook: public benefits, private risks. In G. Randhaw & S. Schicktanz (Eds.), Public engagement in organ donation and transplantation - from the ELPAT Public Issues Working Group (pp. 27-35).
Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. Fukuyama, F. (2004). Viitorul nostru postum [Our posthumous future]. Bucharest, Romania: Humanitas.
Fuscaldo, G., Russell, S., & Gillam, L. (2007). How to facilitate decisions about surplus embryos: patients’ views. Human Reproduction, 22(12), 3129-3138. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem325
Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. (1995). Families created by the new reproductive technologies: quality of parenting and social and emotional development of the children. Child Development, 66(2), 285-298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00871.x
Golombok, S., Murray, C., Brinsden, P., & Abdalla, H. (1999). Social versus biological parenting: Family functioning and the socioemotional development of children conceived by egg or sperm donation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(4), 519-527. doi:10.1017/s0021963099003959
Grady, D. (2008). Parents torn over fate of frozen embryos. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/04embryo.html
Gramma, R., Pârvu, A., Enache, A., Roman, G., Dumitraș, S., & Ioan, B. (2013). Factors with an impact on the perception of the value of health and disease in the Romanian cultural and socioeconomic context. Postmodern Openings, 4(1), 117-140. doi:10.18662/po/2013.0401.09
Guo, Y. X., Yin, Y. J., & Tian, L. (2016). Freeze-all embryo transfer awareness and acceptance of IVF-ET patients in China. Medicine, 95(47), e5171. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000005171
Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action (vol. 1) Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, USA: Beacon Press.
Heitman, E. (1999). Social and ethical aspects of in vitro fertilization. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, 15(1), 22-35. doi:10.1017/s0266462399015184
Hewson, B. (2001). Reproductive autonomy and the ethics of abortion. Journal of Medical Ethics, 27(S2), 10-14. doi:10.1136/jme.27.suppl_2.ii10
Hope, N., & Rombauts, L. (2010). Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? A randomized controlled study. Fertility and Sterility, 94(2), 489–495. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.080
Iftime, L. (2011). Argumente creștine și medicale împotriva legii reproducerii asistate medical [Christian and medical arguments against medical assisted reproduction law]. Cuvântul Ortodox. Retrieved from http://www.cuvantulortodox.ro/recomandari/argumente-crestine-si-medicale-impotriva-legiireproducerii-asistate-medical-parintii-nicolae-tanase-si-mihail-milea-despreavort-si-familie-un-scurt-istoric-al-controlului-populatiei-mutilarea-cop/
Koepsell, D. (2007). The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy. New York, USA: Center for Inquiry Inc.
LeBon, G. (2009). Psichology of the crowds. Southampton, UK: Sparkling Books Ltd.
Liu, P., & Rose, G. A. (1995). Ethics and society: Social aspects of over 800 couples coming forward for gender selection of their children. Human Reproduction, 10(4), 968-969. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136072
McCutcheon, J., & Morrison, M. A. (2014). The effect of parental gender roles on students' attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive couples. Adoption Quarterly, 18(2), 138-167. doi:10.1080/10926755.2014.945702
McNeil, M. (1990). Reproductive technologies: A new terrain for the sociology of technology. In M. McNeil, I. Varcoe & S. Yearley (Eds.), New reproductive technologies. Explorations in sociology (pp. 1-26). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mohr, S., & Koch, L. (2016). Transforming social contracts: The social and cultural history of IVF in Denmark. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 88- 96. doi:10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.001
Moroianu Zlătescu, I. (2006). Protecţia demnităţii persoanei şi a demnităţii speciei umane în domeniul bioeticii, în lumina Convenţiei de la Oviedo [Protection of human dignity and dignity in the field of bioethics in the light of the Oviedo Convention]. In Comisia Naţională a României pentru UNESCO, Educaţia în bioetică şi drepturile omului în România, volume edited within Participation Programme No. 27243203. Bucharest, România.
Pachman, T. S. (2003). Disputes over frozen preembyos and the „right not to be a parent”. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 12(1), 128-153.
Parry, R., Pino, M., Faull, C., & Feathers, L. (2016). Acceptability and design of video-based research on healthcare communication: Evidence and recommendations. Patiend Education and Counseling, 99(8), 1271-1284. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.013
Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2008). The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applyed Philosophy, 25(3), 162-177. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00410.x
Pivniceru, M. M., & Dăscălescu, F. D. (2007). Limita inferioară a dreptului la viaţă: între protecţia fetusului uman, dreptul la avort şi progresul ştiinţelor medicale [The lower limit of the right to life: Between the protection of the human fetus, the right to abortion and the advancement of medical sciences]. Revista Română de Bioetică, 1(4). Retrieved from http://www.culturavietii.ro/2014/09/22/limita-inferioara-dreptul-la-viataintre-protectia-fetusului-uman-dreptul-la-avort-si-progresul-stiintelorbiomedicale/
Religion and social factors top IVF concerns. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-06-religion-and-social-factors-top-ivfconcerns
Rifkin, J. (1991). Biosphere Politics: A New Consciousness for a New Century. New York, USA: Crown Publishers.
Roberts, E. (2008). Bioogy, sociality and reproductive modernity in Ecuadorian in vitro fertilization: The particulars of place. In S. Gibbon & C. Novas (Eds.), Biosocialities, genetics and the social sciences. Making biologies and identities (pp. 79-97). New York, USA: Routledge.
Robertson, J. (1983). Procreative liberty and the control of conception, pregnancy and childbirth. Virginia Law Review, 69(3), 405-464. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1072766
Robertson, J. A. (1996). Children of choice. Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.
Rolston, H. (2002). What do we mean by the intrinsic value and integrity of plants and animals? In D. Heaf & J. Wirtz (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the Intrinsic Value and Integrity of Animals and Plants (pp. 5-10). Pwlheli, UK: Hafan.
Roxburgh, N. (2016). Whose rights are the most right? the dilemma of autonomy in a society: On abortion, women, and human life. Retrieved from http://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/news-item/whose-rights-are-themost-right-the-dilemma-of-autonomy-in-a-society-on-abortion-womenand-human-life/
Saulter, S. (2014). Trusting the future? Ethics of human genetic modification. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/45392-ethics-of-alteringhuman-genetics.html
Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5-6), 413-426. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00251
Schumm, W. R. (2010). Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data. Journal of Biosocial Science, 42(6), 721-742. doi:10.1017/s0021932010000325
Scripcaru, G., Ciucă, A., Astărăstoaie, V., & Scripcaru, C. (2003). Introducere în biodrept. De la bioetică la biodrept [Introduction to Biolaw. From Bioethics to Biolaw]. Bucharest, România: Lumina Lex.
Scripcaru, G., Ciucă, A., Scripcaru, C, & Isac, L. (2005). Manipulările genetice şi implicaţiile lor juridice [Genetic manipulations and their legal implications]. Revista română de bioetică, 3(2).
Sharp, R. R., McGovan, M. L., Vrma, J. A., Landry, D. C., McAdoo, S., Carson, S. A., Leigh Simpson, J., & McCollough, L. B. (2010). Moral attitudes and beliefs among couples pursuing PGD for sex selection. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 21(7), 838-847. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.09.009
Sieck, W. A. (1998). In vitro fertilization and the right to procreate: The right to no. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147(2), 435-485. doi:10.2307/3312836
Smajor, A. (2007). Deciding the fate of disputed embryos: Ethical issues in the case of Natallie Evans. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Assisted Reproduction, 4(1). doi:10.1186/1743-1050-4-2
Social Science Bites. (2013, March 01). Sarah Franklin on the sociology of reproductive technology. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/03/sarah-franklin-on-thesociology-of-reproductive-technology/
Stack, S., & Kpsowa, A. J. (2016). Culture and suicide acceptability: A crossnational, multilevel analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(2), 282-303. doi:10.1111/tsq.12109
Turner, R. (1987). Collective behaviour. London, UK: Pearson College Div.
University of Cambridge. (n.d.). Reproductive Sociology Research Group. Retrieved from https://www.reprosoc.sociology.cam.ac.uk/
Verhaak, C. M., Smeenk, J. M. J., Evers, A. W. M., Kremer, J. A: M., Kraaimaat, F. W., & Braat, D. D. M. (2007). Women’s emotional adjustment to IVF: A systematic review of 25 years of research. Human Reproduction Update, 13(1), 27-36. doi:10.1093/humupd/dml040
Wymelenberg, S. (1990). New technologies: The ethical and social issues. In S. Wymelenberg, Science and Babies: Private Decisions, Public Dilemmas. Washington, D. C., USA: National Academies Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
EEJMHB Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
