medigraphic.com
ISSN 0187-5337 (Print)
Instituto Nacional de Perinatología

2014, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Perinatol Reprod Hum 2014; 28 (2)

Social and legal issues related to in vitro fertilization

Álvarez-Díaz JA

Language: Spanish
References: 94
Page: 79-90
PDF size: 266.40 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The work deals with social and legal aspects of IVF, understood as a general framework to apply the techniques of assisted human reproduction in general. Regarding the social aspects, two fundamental issues are reviewed, kinship and family. Regarding the legal issues, since there is practically no legal regulation, some remarks on a general framework for the current context are made. On the issue of kinship, classical studies are taken up, ethnographies made on infertility and on new technologies in human reproduction. Kinship is linked with the family, where the changes that have emerged in the modern world following the shift in notions about what is kinship are discussed. A general conclusion is that everything is a product of human construction so that the former criteria to build concepts such as kinship or family have changed substantially since the advent of assisted reproductive techniques. This being so, we must find the best way to regulate the application of these techniques, and maybe the best would be a legal framework oriented by principles.


REFERENCES

  1. Gracia D. Prólogo. En: Sánchez González MA. Historia de la medicina y humanidades médicas. Madrid: Elsevier; 2012.

  2. Bachofen JK. El matriarcado: una investigación sobre la ginecocracia en el mundo antiguo según su naturaleza religiosa y jurídica. 2ª ed. Madrid: Akal; 1992.

  3. Maine HS. The patriarchal theory. Q Rev. 1886; 162: 181-209.

  4. Smellie KB. Sir Henry Maine. Economica. 1928; 22: 64-94.

  5. Orenstein H. The ethnological theories of Henry Sumner Maine. Am Anthropol. 1968; 70: 264-76.

  6. Stern BJ. Lewis Henry Morgan: American ethnologist. Social Forces. 1928; 6: 344-57.

  7. Grossman JA. Morgan and Bachofen. Am Anthropol. 1971; 73: 986-90.

  8. Boas F. Cuestiones fundamentales de antropología cultural. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Solar; 1964.

  9. Kuper A. Durkheim’s theory of primitive kinship. Br J Sociol. 1985; 36: 224-37.

  10. Durkheim E. La prohibition de l’inceste. L’Année Sociologique. 1896-1897; 1: 1-70.

  11. Malinowski B. The group and the individual in functional analysis. Am J Sociol. 1939; 44: 938-64.

  12. Richards AI. Bronislaw Kaspar Malinowski. Am Anthropol. 1943; 43: 1-4.

  13. Murdock GP. Bronislaw Malinowski. Am Anthropol. 1943; 45: 441-51.

  14. Buchler I. Estudios de parentesco. Barcelona: Anagrama; 1982.

  15. Fortes M. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, F. B. A. 1881-1955: A memoir. Am Anthropol. 1956; 56: 149-53.

  16. Eggan F, Warner WL. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, 1881-1955. Am Anthropol. 1956; 58: 544-547.

  17. Radcliffe-Brown AR. Estructura y función en la sociedad primitiva. Barcelona: Península; 1972.

  18. Evans-Pritchard EE. The study of kinship in primitive societies. Am Anthropol. 1929; 29: 190-94.

  19. Evans-Pritchard EE. The nature of kinship extensions. Am Anthropol. 1932; 32: 12-5.

  20. Fortes M. The structure of unilineal descent groups. Am Anthropol. 1953; 55: 17-41.

  21. Scheffler HW. The elementary structures of kinship by Claude Lévi-Strauss: a review article. Am Anthropol. 1970; 72: 251-68.

  22. Mehlman J. The “floating signifier”: from Lévi-Strauss to Lacan. Yale Fr Stud. 1972; 48: 10-37.

  23. Rossi I. The unconscious in the anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss. Am Anthropol. 1973; 75: 20-48.

  24. Carroll MP. Lévi-Strauss on the Oedipus Myth: A reconsideration. Am Anthropol. 1978; 80: 805-14.

  25. Lévi-Strauss C. Las estructuras elementales del parentesco. Barcelona: Paidós; 1981.

  26. Lévi-Strauss C. Antropología estructural. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria; 1977.

  27. Barnett S, Fruzzetti L, Ostor A. Hierarchy purified: notes on Dumont and his critics. J Asian Stud. 1976; 35: 627-46.

  28. Leach E. “Kachin” and “Haka Chin”: A rejoinder to Levi-Strauss. Am Anthropol. 1969; 4: 277-85.

  29. Quinn V, Sinfield A. Queer theory. Year’s work in critical and cultural theory. 2006; 14: 143-51.

  30. Needham R. Rethinking kinship and marriage. London: Tavistock; 1971.

  31. Schneider DM. American kinship. A cultural account. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980.

  32. Feinberg R, Ottenheimer M. The cultural analysis of kinship. The legacy of David M. Schneider. Illinois: University of Illinois Press; 2001.

  33. Arias Alonso M. Pater-mater y genitor-genitrix en la diplomática medieval asturleonesa (775-1037). Analecta Malacitana Electrónica. Revista de Filología de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Málaga. 2000; 6 (Número extraordinario actas del congreso internacional “Cristianismo y tradición latina”, mayo, 2000): Disponible en: http://www.anmal.uma.es/numero6/Arias.htm

  34. Castañeda Jiménez E. Nuevas tecnologías reproductivas y práctica médica en México: una mirada desde la antropología médica. En. Adame CMA (Coord.). Antropología sociocultural y nuevas tecnologías en la glocalización. México, D.F.: Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes; 2008. pp. 119-140.

  35. Barragán Solís A. La enfermedad como experiencia: problema de investigación de la antropología física. En: León Parra B, Peña Saint Martín F (Coord.). Antropología física, salud y sociedad. Viejas tradiciones y nuevos retos. México, D.F.: Programa de Mejoramiento del Profesorado, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes; 2008. pp. 97-116.

  36. Salazar Alvarado GM. La infertilidad como enfermedad y como experiencia de vida. Salud Problema. 2006; 11: 27-34.

  37. Riviere P. Unscrambling parenthood: the Warnock Report. Anthropol Today. 1985; 1: 2-7.

  38. Corea G, Klein RD, Hanmer J, Holmes HB, Hoskins BB, Kishwar M. Man-made women: How reproductive technologies affect women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1987.

  39. Stanworth M. Reproductive technologies: Gender, mother and medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987.

  40. Stolke V. Las nuevas tecnologías reproductivas. La vieja paternidad. En: Amorós C, Benería L. Mujeres: Ciencia y práctica política. Madrid: Debate; 1987.

  41. Franklin S. Deconstructing desperateness. The social construction of infertility. En: McNeil M, Varoc I, Yearly S (Eds.). Popular representations of new reproductive technologies. New Cork: St Martin’s Press; 1990.

  42. Castañeda JEL. Bendito sea el fruto de tu vientre. Representaciones y prácticas de mujeres con diagnóstico de esterilidad en la ruta del padecer. Ciudad de México: CIESAS; 1998. Tesis de maestría.

  43. Castañeda Jiménez E, Bustos López HH. La ruta del padecer de mujeres con diagnóstico de infertilidad. Perinatología y Reproducción Humana. 2001; 15: 124-32.

  44. Chávez-Courtois ML. Presencia de esterilidad: actores o sujetos en la actualidad. Cuicuilco. 2004; 11: 1-15.

  45. Castañeda JEL. Hipooligoastenoteratozoospermia. Representaciones y prácticas de médicos y parejas pacientes en torno a la infertilidad masculina. Ciudad de México: CIESAS; 2005. Tesis de doctorado.

  46. Strathern M. Reproducing the future. Anthropology, kinship and the new reproductive. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 1992.

  47. Edwards J, Franklin S, Hirsch E, Price F, Strathern M. Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted conception. London: Routledge; 1993.

  48. Franklin S. Embodied progress: a cultural account of assisted conception. Londres: Routledge; 1997.

  49. Franklin S, Ragone H (Eds.). Reproducing reproduction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1997.

  50. Modell J. Last chance babies: Interpretations of parenthood in an in vitro fertilization program. Med Anthropol Q. 1989; 3: 124-38.

  51. Cannell F. Concepts of parenthood: the Warnock report, the Gillick debate, and modern myths. American Ethnologist. 1990; 17: 667-86.

  52. Shore C, Abrahams RG, Collier JF, Delaney C, Fox R, Frankenberg R. Virgin births and sterile debates: anthropology and the new reproductive technologies. Curr Anthropol. 1992; 33: 295-314.

  53. Peletz MG. Kinship studies in late twentieth-century anthropology. Ann Rev Anthropol. 1995; 24: 343-72.

  54. Hertz R, Ferguson FIT. Kinship strategies and self-sufficiency among single mothers by choice: Post modern family ties. Qual Sociol. 1997; 20: 187-209.

  55. Hayden CP. Gender, genetics, and generation: Reformulating biology in lesbian kinship. Cult Anthropol. 1995; 10: 41-63.

  56. Schneider DM. The power of culture: notes on some aspects of gay and lesbian kinship in America today. Cult Anthropol. 1997; 12: 270-74.B

  57. Dunne GA. Opting into motherhood: lesbians blurring the boundaries and transforming the meaning of parenthood and kinship. Gend Soc. 2000; 14: 11-35.

  58. Hertz R. The father as an idea: a challenge to kinship boundaries by single mothers. Symbolic Interact. 2002; 25: 1-31.

  59. Snowden R. Psychosocial discontinuities introduced by the new reproductive technologies. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 1998; 8: 249-59.

  60. Murphy T. Gametes, law and modern preoccupations. Health Care Anal. 2000; 8: 155-69.

  61. Edwards J. Incorporating incest: gamete, body and relation in assisted conception. J Roy Anthropol Inst. 2004; 10: 755-74.

  62. Mamo L. Biomedicalizing kinship: sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties. Sci Cult (Lond). 2005; 14: 237-64.

  63. Álvarez C. Múltiples maternidades y la insoportable levedad de la paternidad en reproducción asistida. Revista de Antropología Social. 2006; 15: 411-55.

  64. Simpson B. Making “bad” deaths “good”: The kinship consequences of posthumous conception. J Roy Anthropol Inst. 2001; 7: 1-18.

  65. Becker G, Butler A, Nachtigall RD. Resemblance talk: a challenge for parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US. Soc Sci Med. 2005; 61: 1300-9.

  66. Grace VM, Daniels KR, Gillett W. The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: parents’ constructions in the case of donor insemination. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66: 301-14.

  67. Orobitg G, Salazar C. The gift of motherhood: egg donation in a Barcelona infertility clinic. Ethnos. 2005; 70: 31-52.

  68. Hargreaves K. Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociol Health Illness. 2006; 28: 261-83.

  69. Inhorn MC. Global infertility and the globalization of new reproductive technologies: illustrations from Egypt. Soc Sci Med. 2003; 56: 1837-51.

  70. Inhorn MC. Making Muslim babies: IVF and gamete donation in Sunni versus Shi’a Islam. Cult Med Psychiatr. 2006; 30: 427-50.

  71. Clarke M. Islam, kinship and the new reproductive technology. Anthropol Today. 2006; 22: 17-20.

  72. Clarke M. New kinship, Islam, and the liberal tradition: sexual morality and new reproductive technology in Lebanon. J Roy Anthropol Inst. 2008; 14: 153-69.

  73. Arriagada I. Familias latinoamericanas. Diagnóstico y políticas públicas en los inicios del nuevo siglo. CEPAL - SERIE Políticas sociales N° 57. Santiago de Chile: Naciones Unidas; 2001.

  74. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF), Universidad de la República (UDELAR). Nuevas formas de familia. Perspectivas nacionales e internacionales. Montevideo: UNICEF/UDELAR; 2003.

  75. Hartman CG. Biological basis of the family. Living. 1940; 2: 21-3.

  76. Laing JA. Artificial reproduction, blood relatedness, and human identity. Monist. 2006; 89: 548-66.

  77. Grace VM, Daniels KR. The (ir)relevance of genetics: engendering parallel worlds of procreation and reproduction. Sociol Health Illness. 2007; 29: 692-710.

  78. Yu N, Kruskall MS, Yunis JJ, Knoll JH, Uhl L, Alosco S. Disputed maternity leading to identification of tetragametic chimerism. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1545-52.

  79. Martin A. The chimera of liberal individualism: how cells became selves in human clinical genetics. Osiris. 2007; 22: 205-22.

  80. Hird MJ. Chimerism, mosaicism and the cultural construction of kinship. Sexualities. 2004; 7: 217-32.

  81. Zegers-Hochschild F, Masoli D, Schwarze JE, Iaconelli A, Borges E, Pacheco IM. Biologic fundamentals of motherhood in the absence of genetic bonding. Learnings from oocyte donation (OD). Fertil Steril. 2008; 90: S410-S411.

  82. Silver LM. Confused meanings of life, genes and parents. Stud Hist Philos Sci C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2001; 32: 647-61.

  83. Kolers A, Bayne T. “Are you my mommy?” On the genetic basis of parenthood. J Appl Philos. 2001; 18: 273-85.

  84. Bayne T, Kolers A. Toward a pluralistic account of parenthood. Bioethics. 2003; 17: 221-42.

  85. Rohde D. Black parents prevail in embryo mix-up. The New York Times (Print). 1999: B3.

  86. Yardley J. Health officials investigating to determine how woman got the embryo of another. The New York Times (Print). 1999: B3.

  87. Wiegman R. Intimate publics: race, property, and personhood. Am Lit. 2002; 74: 859-85.

  88. Edwards JN. New conceptions: biosocial innovations and the family. J Marriage Fam. 1991; 53: 349-60.

  89. Weismantel M. Making kin: kinship theory and Zumbagua adoptions. Am Ethnologist. 1995; 22: 685-704.

  90. Álvarez-Díaz JA. Bioética, infertilidad y técnicas de reproducción humana asistida: de la medicina clínica a la medicina social. Salud Problema. 2011; 5: 8-22.

  91. Álvarez-Díaz JA. El derecho a la salud y el acceso a las técnicas de reproducción humana asistida (TRHA). En: Saint Martin FP, León PB. La medicina social en México II. Globalización neoliberal. México, DF: ALAMES Región México, AC, ENAH-Cuerpo Académico “Diversidad bio-social contemporánea”; PromeP Ediciones y Gráficos Eón; 2010.

  92. Flores Sánchez I, Gutiérrez Salinas J, Gaviño Ambriz S. La necesidad de la creación de una Norma Oficial Mexicana sobre reproducción asistida. Rev Esp Med Quir. 2007; 12: 8-12.

  93. Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida. Omisión e indiferencia. Derechos reproductivos en México. México: GIRE; 2013.

  94. Medina Arellano MJ. The quest for stem cell science regulation in Mexico: ethical, legal and religious controversies. Manchester: University of Manchester; 2012. Tesis de doctorado.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com