Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review) (original) (raw)

• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Cross-border reproductive care: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(7):1627–33.
  Article Google Scholar
• Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE task force on ethics and law 15: cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(10):2182–4.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Shenfield F, Pennings G, De Mouzon J, Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, ESHRE Task Force ‘Cross Border Reproductive Care’ (CBRC). ESHRE’s good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centers and practitioners. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1625–7.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Gürtin ZB, Inhorn MC. Introduction: travelling for conception and the global assisted reproduction market. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):535–7.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Rethinking reproductive “tourism” as reproductive “exile”. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(3):904–6.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Matorras R. Reproductive exile versus reproductive tourism. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(12):3571.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Salama M. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a global perspective. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2014;1(2):00008.
  Article Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–26.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Couture V, Drouin R, Tan SL, Moutquin JM, Bouffard C. Cross-border reprogenetic services. Clin Genet. 2015;87(1):1–10.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Cross-border reproductive care: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):645–50.
  Article Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Storrow RF. Assisted reproduction on treacherous terrain: the legal hazards of cross-border reproductive travel. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):538–45.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Van Hoof W, Pennings G. Extraterritorial laws for cross-border reproductive care: the issue of legal diversity. Eur J Health Law. 2012;19(2):187–200.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Crockin SL. Legal perspectives on cross-border reproductive care. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):811–3.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Pennings G. Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2689–94.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Jackson E, Millbank J, Karpin I, Stuhmcke A. Learning from cross-border reproduction. Med Law Rev. 2017;25(1):23–46.
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Millbank J. Responsive regulation of cross-border assisted reproduction. J Law Med. 2015;23(2):346–64.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Flatscher-Thöni M, Voithofer C. Should reproductive medicine be harmonized within Europe? Eur J Health Law. 2015;22(1):61–74.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Van Hoof W, Pennings G, De Sutter P. Cross-border reproductive care for law evasion: should physicians be allowed to help infertility patients evade the law of their own country? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;202:101–5.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Harper J, Geraedts J, Borry P, Cornel MC, Dondorp WJ, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHG, ESHRE and EuroGentest2. Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(8):1603–9.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Harper JC, Geraedts J, Borry P, Cornel MC, Dondorp W, Gianaroli L, et al. Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(Suppl 2):S1–21.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Crockin SL. Growing families in a shrinking world: legal and ethical challenges in cross-border surrogacy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27(6):733–41.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• International Federation of Fertility Societies. IFFS Surveillance 2016. Glob Reprod Health. 2016;1:1–143.
  Google Scholar
• Rashedi AS, SFD R, Ataman LM, Edmonds ME. et al., Survey of fertility preservation options available to patients with cancer around the globe. J Glob Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.2016.008144.
• Rashedi AS, SFD R, Ataman LM, Edmonds ME, et al. Survey of third-party parenting options associated with fertility preservation available to patients with cancer around the globe. J Glob Oncol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1200/JGO.2017.009944.
• Forman R. Cross-border reproductive care: a clinician’s perspective. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):808–10.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Spar D. Reproductive tourism and the regulatory map. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(6):531–3.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Blyth E. Fertility patients’ experiences of cross-border reproductive care. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):e11–5.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Whittaker A, Speier A. “Cycling overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol. 2010;29(4):363–83.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Messinis IE, Messini CI, Daponte A, Garas A, Mahmood T. The current situation of infertility services provision in Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016.
• Hertz R, Nelson MK, Suñol J. Attitudes toward regulations of reproductive care in the European Union: a comparison between travellers for cross-border reproductive care and citizens of the local country. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2016;8(3):147–60.
  PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
• Hughes EG, Sawyer A, DeJean D, Adamson GD. Cross-border reproductive care in North America: a pilot study testing a prospective data collection program for in vitro fertilization clinics in Canada and the United States. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(3):786–90.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Levine AD, Boulet SL, Berry RM, Jamieson DJ, Alberta-Sherer HB, Kissin DM. Assessing the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States by non-United States residents. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(5):815–21.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Rodino IS, Goedeke S, Nowoweiski S. Motivations and experiences of patients seeking cross-border reproductive care: the Australian and New Zealand context. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(5):1422–31.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Hibino Y, Shimazono Y, Kambayashi Y, Hitomi Y, Nakamura H. Attitudes towards cross-border reproductive care among infertile Japanese patients. Environ Health Prev Med. 2013;18(6):477–84.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC, Shrivastav P, Patrizio P. Assisted reproductive technologies and fertility “tourism”: examples from global Dubai and the Ivy League. Med Anthropol. 2012;31(3):249–65.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Shenfield F, de Mouzon J, Pennings G, et al. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(6):1361–8.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter C, Kupka MS, de Mouzon J, Erb K, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):1957–73.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hudson N, Culley L, Blyth E, Norton W, Pacey A, Rapport F. Cross-border-assisted reproduction: a qualitative account of UK travellers’ experiences. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2016;19(2):102–10.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hudson N, Culley L. Assisted reproductive travel: UK patient trajectories. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):573–81.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Van Hoof W, De Sutter P, Pennings G. “Now we feel like we did everything we could”: a qualitative study into the experiences of Dutch patients who travelled to Belgium for infertility treatment. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(4):185–93.
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Van Hoof W, Pennings G, De Sutter P. Cross-border reproductive care for law evasion: a qualitative study into the experiences and moral perspectives of French women who go to Belgium for treatment with donor sperm. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:391–7.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Bassan S, Michaelsen MA. Honeymoon, medical treatment or big business? An analysis of the meanings of the term “reproductive tourism” in German and Israeli public media discourses. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2013;8:9.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Hunt J. Cross border treatment for infertility: the counselling perspective in the UK. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013;16(1):64–7.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hamilton M. Sperm donation in the United Kingdom in 2010. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(4):257–62.
  Article Google Scholar
• Flower D. Assisted reproduction: should egg and sperm donors be paid? J Fam Health Care. 2010;20(2):69–71.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Bay B, Larsen PB, Kesmodel US, Ingerslev HJ. Danish sperm donors across three decades: motivations and attitudes. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):252–257.e1.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Bergmann S. Reproductive agency and projects: Germans searching for egg donation in Spain and the Czech Republic. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):600–8.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Madero S, Gameiro S, García D, Cirera D, Vassena R, Rodríguez A. Quality of life, anxiety and depression of German, Italian and French couples undergoing cross-border oocyte donation in Spain. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(9):1862–70.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Pennings G, de Mouzon J, Shenfield F, Ferraretti AP, Mardesic T, Ruiz A, et al. Socio-demographic and fertility-related characteristics and motivations of oocyte donors in eleven European countries. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(5):1076–89.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Defining embryo donation: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(1):56–8.
  Article Google Scholar
• Sreenivas K, Campo-Engelstein L. Domestic and international surrogacy laws: implications for cancer survivors. Cancer Treat Res. 2010;156:135–52.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Pande A. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters? Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):618–25.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Saxena P, Mishra A, Malik S. Surrogacy: ethical and legal issues. Indian J Community Med. 2012;37(4):211–3.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Covington SN, Patrizio P. Gestational carriers and surrogacy. In: Sauer M, editor. Principles of oocyte and embryo donation. 2nd ed. London: Springer Verlag; 2013. p. 277–88.
  Chapter Google Scholar
• Svitnev K. Legal regulation of assisted reproduction treatment in Russia. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(7):892–4.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Capelouto SM, Archer SR, Morris JR, Kawwass JF, Hipp HS. Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1076-2.
• Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or gonadectomy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1214–23.
  Article Google Scholar
• Woodruff TK. Oncofertility: a grand collaboration between reproductive medicine and oncology. Reproduction. 2015;150(3):S1–10.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
• Salama M, Winkler K, Murach KF, Seeber B, Ziehr SC, Wildt L. Female fertility loss and preservation: threats and opportunities. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(3):598–608.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Petropanagos A, Cattapan A, Baylis F, Leader A. Social egg freezing: risk, benefits and other considerations. CMAJ. 2015;187(9):666–9.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law, Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, et al. Oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility loss. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(5):1231–7.
  Article Google Scholar
• Rebar RW. Social and ethical implications of fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1449–51.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Bower B, Quinn GP. Fertility preservation in cancer patients: ethical considerations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;732:187–96.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Garceau L, Henderson J, Davis LJ, Petrou S, Henderson LR, McVeigh E, et al. Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3090–109.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(3):265–77.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Connolly MP, Ledger W, Postma MJ. Economics of assisted reproduction: access to fertility treatments and valuing live births in economic terms. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(1):13–8.
  Article Google Scholar
• Chambers GM, Sullivan E. a, Ishihara O et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2281–94.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):603–13.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Connolly M. Cross-border reproductive care: market forces in action or market failure? An economic perspective. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(7):817–9.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• McKelvey A, David AL, Shenfield F, Jauniaux ER. The impact of cross-border reproductive care or ‘fertility tourism’ on NHS maternity services. BJOG. 2009;116(11):1520–3.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Austin CR. Legal, ethical and historical aspects of assisted human reproduction. Int J Dev Biol. 1997;41(2):263–5.
  PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Shanner L, Nisker J. Bioethics for clinicians: 26. Assisted reproductive technologies. CMAJ. 2001;164(11):1589–94.
  PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
• Brezina PR, Zhao Y. The ethical, legal, and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:686253.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Frydman PR. Human reproduction: possibilities and ethical borders. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009;47(5):S5–7.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Baši M, Milojevi M, Miti D, Cvetkovi J. Ethical aspects in the area of assisted reproduction 2010; 27(3):171–178.
• Inhorn MC. Cosmopolitan conceptions: IVF sojourns in Global Dubai. Durham: Duke University Press; 2015.
  Book Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, Pennings G, Gianaroli L, Natali F, Magli MC. Cross-border reproductive care: a phenomenon expressing the controversial aspects of reproductive technologies. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20(2):261–6.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Crozier GKD, Martin D. How to address the ethics of reproductive travel to developing countries: a comparison of national self-sufficiency and regulated market approaches. Dev World Bioeth. 2012;12(1):45–54.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Deonandan R, Green S, van Beinum A. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(12):742–5.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Blyth E, Thorn P, Wischmann T. CBRC and psychosocial counselling: assessing needs and developing an ethical framework for practice. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):642–51.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Shalev C, Moreno A, Eyal H, Leibel M, Schuz R, Eldar-Geva T. Ethics and regulation of inter-country medically assisted reproduction: a call for action. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2016;5:59. eCollection 2016
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Deonandan R. Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Manag Health Policy. 2015;8:111–9.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hammarberg K, Stafford-Bell M, Everingham S. Intended parents’ motivations and information and support needs when seeking extraterritorial compensated surrogacy. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(5):689–96.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Gossett DR, Nayak S, Bhatt S, Bailey SC. What do healthy women know about the consequences of delayed childbearing? J Health Commun. 2013;18(Suppl 1):118–28.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Miura LN, Boxer RS. Women in medicine and the ticking clock. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(4):381–2.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Mac Dougall K, Beyene Y, Nachtigall RD. Age shock: misperceptions of the impact of age on fertility before and after IVF in women who conceived after age 40. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(2):350–6.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Wiebe E, Chalmers A, Yager H. Delayed motherhood: understanding the experiences of women older than age 33 who are having abortions but plan to become mothers later. Can Fam Physician. 2012;58(10):e588–95.
  PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Corbett SL, Frecker HM, Shapiro HM, Yudin MH. Access to fertility services for lesbian women in Canada. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):1077–80.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Access to fertility treatment by gays, lesbians, and unmarried persons. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1190–3.
  Article Google Scholar
• The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Oocyte or embryo donation to women of advanced age: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):337–40.
  Article Google Scholar
• Vincent-Rohfritsch A, Marszalek A, Santulli P, Gayet V, Chapron C, Goffinet F, et al. Risk of perinatal complication and egg donation: role of resorting to cross-border care? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016;45(8):866–75.
  Article CAS Google Scholar
• Ahuja KK. Patient pressure: is the tide of cross-border reproductive care beginning to turn? Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(5):447–50.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Casey V, Crooks V. a, Snyder J, Turner L. Knowledge brokers, companions, and navigators: a qualitative examination of informal caregivers’ roles in medical tourism. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:94.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Speier AR. Brokers, consumers and the internet: how North American consumers navigate their infertility journeys. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;23(5):592–9.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Ikemoto LC. Reproductive tourism: equality concerns in the global market for fertility services. Law Ineq. 2009;27:277–309.
  Google Scholar
• Swink DR, Reich B. Outsourcing reproduction : embryos and surrogacy services in the cyberprocreation era. J Health Care Law Policy. 2011;14:241–97.
  Google Scholar
• Penney K, Snyder J, Crooks VA, Johnston R. Risk communication and informed consent in the medical tourism industry: a thematic content analysis of Canadian broker websites. BMC Med Ethics. 2011;12:17.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Burry KA. Reproductive medicine: where we have been, where we are, where are we going? An ethical perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:578–80.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Donchin A. Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice. Bioethics. 2010;24(7):323–32.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Schäfer D, Baumann R, Kettner M. Ethics and reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2(5):447–56.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Armour KL. An overview of surrogacy around the world: trends, questions and ethical issues. Nurs Womens Health. 2012;16:231–6.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Neri M, Turillazzi E, Pascale N, Riezzo I, Pomara C. Egg production and donation: a new frontier in the global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: ethical concerns. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2016;17(4):316–20.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Norton W, Crawshaw M, Hudson N, Culley L, Law C. A survey of UK fertility clinics’ approach to surrogacy arrangements. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;31(3):327–38.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Janssens PM, Thorn P, Castilla JA, Frith L, Crawshaw M, Mochtar M, et al. Evolving minimum standards in responsible international sperm donor offspring quota. Reprod BioMed Online. 2015;30(6):568–80.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Consideration of the gestational carrier: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(7):1838–41.
  Article Google Scholar
• Loike JD, Fischbach RL. New ethical horizons in gestational surrogacy. J IVF Reprod Med Genet. 2013;1:109.
  Article Google Scholar
• Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:483–91.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Qadeer I. Social and ethical basis of legislation on surrogacy: need for debate. Indian J Med Ethics. 2009;6(1):28–31.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Ergas Y. Babies without borders: human rights, human dignity and the regulation of international commercial surrogacy. Emory Int Law Rev. 2013:1–69.
• Melo-Martín ID. The ethics of anonymous gamete donation: is there a right to know one’s genetic origins? Hast Cent Rep. 2014;44(2):28–35.
  Article Google Scholar
• Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1418–22.
  Article Google Scholar
• Patrizio P, Caplan AL. Ethical issues surrounding fertility preservation in cancer patients. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(4):717–26.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Cohen CB. Ethical issues regarding fertility preservation in adolescents and children. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53(2):249–53.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1224–31.
  Article Google Scholar
• Schenker JG. Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reprod BioMed Online. 2005;10(3):310–9.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Nikiforova B. Theological discourse in bioethics: general and confessional differences. Santalka Filosofija. 2006;14(1):62–76.
  Article Google Scholar
• Sureau C. From transgression to pragmatism in reproductive medicine. Reprod Nutr Dev. 2005;45(3):307–19.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG. Social aspects in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 1999;5(1):26–39.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Schenker JG. Gender selection: cultural and religious perspectives. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(9):400–10.
  Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
• Lanzone A. Ethical issues in human reproduction: catholic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):953–4.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Serour GI, Dickens BM. Assisted reproduction developments in the Islamic world. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;74(2):187–93.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Serour GI. Ethical issues in human reproduction: Islamic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):949–52.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Schenker JG. Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(11):945–8.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Markwell HJ, Brown BF. Bioethics for clinicians: 27. Catholic bioethics CMAJ. 2001;165(2):189–92.
  PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Serour GI, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT. Bioethics in medically assisted conception in the Muslim world. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12(9):559–65.
  Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
• Schenker JG. Assisted reproductive technology: perspectives in Halakha (Jewish religious law). Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(Suppl 3):17–24.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC. The new Arab man: emergent masculinities, technologies, and Islam in the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2012.
  Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC. Local babies, global science: gender, religion, and in vitro fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge; 2003.
  Google Scholar
• Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: twenty key findings for the new millennium. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24(3):158–63.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar