On the scales: Social justice and pluralism in reproductive tourism
Posted by Gina Maranto, Biopolitical Times guest contributor February 1, 2011
Biopolitical Times
The term “reproductive tourism” first surfaced in Canada in the late
1980s as that country carried out an exhaustive survey of public opinion
under the Royal Commission headed by Dr. Patricia Baird. The coinage
was used to refer to the prospect that unless the government passed
comprehensive national laws, women and couples unable to obtain
treatments in their own province would seek them out in another. By
1999, Canadians were using it to talk about women who, when refused high
risk procedures there, went to the U.S. instead. Today, borders are
being crossed throughout the EU, where member states have quite
different codes, among different U.S. states, and internationally.
In some quarters, a concerted effort has been made to rename the practice, giving it a less negative spin as “cross-border [or transborder] reproductive care.” Some have also hyperbolically framed those who travel outside their own countries for reproductive services as victims of repressive legal systems, “reproductive exiles” who take on added risks by traveling abroad, because if procedures go awry, they are unlikely to have ready access to their original clinicians.
Whatever you call it, the practice has grown significantly over the last decade, although precise numbers worldwide are difficult to obtain. A study carried out by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Taskforce on Cross Border Reproductive Care and published in early 2010 put the figure at “a minimum estimated number of 11,000-14,000 patients per year” within the EU. In 2008, according to the ESHRE Taskforce on Ethics and Law, among the most frequent reasons for the travel by EU residents were “law evasion, difficulty of access because of either restrictive legislation or long waiting lists, and expected quality of care.” The 2010 study confirmed these reasons, as well as finding that patients also sought countries where anonymous donation of gametes was permitted.
Read more
In some quarters, a concerted effort has been made to rename the practice, giving it a less negative spin as “cross-border [or transborder] reproductive care.” Some have also hyperbolically framed those who travel outside their own countries for reproductive services as victims of repressive legal systems, “reproductive exiles” who take on added risks by traveling abroad, because if procedures go awry, they are unlikely to have ready access to their original clinicians.
Whatever you call it, the practice has grown significantly over the last decade, although precise numbers worldwide are difficult to obtain. A study carried out by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Taskforce on Cross Border Reproductive Care and published in early 2010 put the figure at “a minimum estimated number of 11,000-14,000 patients per year” within the EU. In 2008, according to the ESHRE Taskforce on Ethics and Law, among the most frequent reasons for the travel by EU residents were “law evasion, difficulty of access because of either restrictive legislation or long waiting lists, and expected quality of care.” The 2010 study confirmed these reasons, as well as finding that patients also sought countries where anonymous donation of gametes was permitted.
Read more