Rerception of assisted reproductive technologies by Russian student youth
Research Article
Acknowledgments
The study was performed with the financial support of RFBR, grant № 20-011-00609
How to Cite
Isupova O.G., Rusanova N.E. Rerception of assisted reproductive technologies by Russian student youth. Population. 2021. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 34-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2021.24.4.3 (in Russ.).
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are an innovative area of medicine having the potential to positively influence population fertility. However, this potential is limited, among other factors, by values and ethical barriers to their use in prospective patients. Decisions on whether to use them or not, in the case of reproductive health disorders, may be associated not only with the high cost of such intervention and/or complicated geographical accessibility, but also with ideas about their insufficient "naturalness" or moral burden associated with certain methods, such as surrogacy. In the conditions of low fertility and increase of the average age of mother at birth of her first child in Russia, the question of the reproductive values of young people in this area is becoming more and more urgent.
The article is based on a questionnaire study of students of both sexes in Moscow and Novosibirsk on the issues related to ideas about the ethics of certain ART methods and the willingness to use them in case of reproductive health disorders. As a result of the study, it was found that students, on average, have rater a positive attitude to the use of all fairly widespread and well-known methods, although with regard to surrogacy, as the method, the ethics of which is most widely covered in media discussions, there is polarization of views. However, still, there are more of those who have positive attitude to this method than those who adhere to a negative point of view. Thus, the main barriers to the use of reproductive technologies by young Russians continue to be economic and geographic circumstances, the impact of which is currently diminished due to the government's policy of providing free access to IVF programs to all who need them for medical reasons.
Keywords:
assisted reproductive technologies, barriers to use, bioethics, reproductive values of youth
References
1. Rusanova, N. Е. Reproduktivnyje vozmozhnosti demograficheskogo razvitiya [Reproductive Possibilities of Demographic Development]. Moscow. Sputnik. 2008. 338 p. (in Russ.)
2. Rusanova, N. E. Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje tekhnologii v Rossii: meditsinskije proryvy i obshestvennyje problemy [Assisted reproductive technologies in Russia: medical breakthroughs and social problems]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 5-18. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e58271.
3. Isupova O. G. Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje technologii: novyje vozmozhnosti [Assisted reproductive technologies: new possibilities]. Demograficheskoye obozreniye [Demographic Review]. 2017. No. 4. P. 35-64. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v4i1.6987. (in Russ.)
4. Moskaleva А. А. Effekt ot vklucheniya vspomogatelnykh reproduktivnykh technologiy v programmu gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo strakhovaniya v Rossii [Effect of the inclusion of assisted reproductive technologies in the state health insurance program in Russia]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 19-42. DOI:10.3897/popecon.4.e59062. (in Russ.)
5. Philippova G. G. Reproduktivnaya psychologiya: psychologicheskaya pomochsh besplodnym param pri ispol'zovanii vspomogatelnykh reproduktivnykh technologiy [Reproductive psychology: psychological assistance to infertile couples using assisted reproductive technologies]. Tsentr perinatalnoy psychologii i psykhologii roditelstva Mariny Lantsburg [Center for Perinatal Psychology and Psychology of Parenting Marina Lanzburg]. 2019. Available at: https://www.psymama.ru/biblioteka/stati/reproduktivnaya-psihologiya/ (Accessed: 30 June 2021). (in Russ.)
6. Isupova O. G. Konstruirovanije "sily" iz "bessiliya": analiz internet-soobchshestva patsijentok klinik reproduktivnogo zdorovia [Constructing "strength" from "impotence": an analysis of the online community of patients of reproductive health clinics]. Zdorovje i intimnaya zhizn': sotsiologicheskije podkhody [Health and intimate life: sociological approaches]. Yevropeyskiy Universitet v Sankt-Peterburge [Saint-Petersburg. European University at Saint-Petersburg]. 2012. Iss. 3. Ch. 5. P. 129-153. ISBN 978-5-94380-124-2. (in Russ.)
7. Isupova O. G. Delegirovanije roditelstva i yazyk reproduktsii: experty i patsijenty o rozhdenii VRT-detei [Delegation of parenting and language of reproduction: experts and patients on the birth of ART children]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 43-56. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e57400. (in Russ.)
8. Bronfman S. A. Novaya normativnost i reproduktivnyj vybor: popytka osmysleniya [New normativity and reproductive choice: an attempt at comprehension]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 74-83. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e58814. (in Russ.)
9. Sidorova T. A. Philosofskiy analiz prokreatsii v tsennostnom izmerenii [Philosophical analysis of procreation in the aspect of values]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 57-66. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e57249. (in Russ.)
10. Grant J., Hoorens S., Gallo F., Cave J. Should ART be Part of a Population Policy Mix? Assessing of the Demographic Impact of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. RAND publications. 2007. Available at: http://www.rand.org//pubs/research_briefs/2007/RAND_RB9200.pdf. (Accessed: 30 June 2021).
11. Connolly M., Gallo F., Hoorens S., Ledger W. Assessing long-run economic benefits attributed to an IVF-conceived singleton based on projected lifetime net tax contributions in the UK. Human Reproduction. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 626-632.
12. Dadaeva T. M., Baranova V. V., Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje technologii v reproduktivnom povedenii gorodskoj molod'ozhi (opyt pilotazhnogo issledovaniya) [Assisted reproductive technologies in reproductive behavior of urban youth (pilot study experience)]. Regionologia. 2019. Vol. 27. No 1. P. 138-155. (in Russ.)
13. Korzhavina A. I., Chernyshev A. V., Lebedev V. V., Chernysheva M. L. Otnoshenije naseleniya k etiko-pravovym problemam novykh reproduktivnykh technologiy (rezultaty sotsiologicheskikh issledovaniy) [The attitude of the population to the ethical and legal problems of new reproductive technologies (results of sociological research)]. Vestnik TGU. 2010. Vol. 15. Iss. 5. P. 1524-1526. (in Russ.)
14. Bogomiagkova E. S., Lomonosova M. V. Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje tekhnologii: k voprosu o novykh formakh sotsialnogo neravenstva [Assisted reproductive technologies: on the issue of new forms of social inequality]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial'noy antropologii [Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. 2017. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 180-198. (in Russ.)
15. Okhovati M., Zare M., Zare F., Bazrafshan M. S., Bazrafshan A. Trends in global assisted reproductive technologies research: a scientometrics study. Electronic Physician. 2015. Vol. 7. Iss. 8. P. 1597-1601.
2. Rusanova, N. E. Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje tekhnologii v Rossii: meditsinskije proryvy i obshestvennyje problemy [Assisted reproductive technologies in Russia: medical breakthroughs and social problems]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 5-18. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e58271.
3. Isupova O. G. Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje technologii: novyje vozmozhnosti [Assisted reproductive technologies: new possibilities]. Demograficheskoye obozreniye [Demographic Review]. 2017. No. 4. P. 35-64. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v4i1.6987. (in Russ.)
4. Moskaleva А. А. Effekt ot vklucheniya vspomogatelnykh reproduktivnykh technologiy v programmu gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo strakhovaniya v Rossii [Effect of the inclusion of assisted reproductive technologies in the state health insurance program in Russia]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 19-42. DOI:10.3897/popecon.4.e59062. (in Russ.)
5. Philippova G. G. Reproduktivnaya psychologiya: psychologicheskaya pomochsh besplodnym param pri ispol'zovanii vspomogatelnykh reproduktivnykh technologiy [Reproductive psychology: psychological assistance to infertile couples using assisted reproductive technologies]. Tsentr perinatalnoy psychologii i psykhologii roditelstva Mariny Lantsburg [Center for Perinatal Psychology and Psychology of Parenting Marina Lanzburg]. 2019. Available at: https://www.psymama.ru/biblioteka/stati/reproduktivnaya-psihologiya/ (Accessed: 30 June 2021). (in Russ.)
6. Isupova O. G. Konstruirovanije "sily" iz "bessiliya": analiz internet-soobchshestva patsijentok klinik reproduktivnogo zdorovia [Constructing "strength" from "impotence": an analysis of the online community of patients of reproductive health clinics]. Zdorovje i intimnaya zhizn': sotsiologicheskije podkhody [Health and intimate life: sociological approaches]. Yevropeyskiy Universitet v Sankt-Peterburge [Saint-Petersburg. European University at Saint-Petersburg]. 2012. Iss. 3. Ch. 5. P. 129-153. ISBN 978-5-94380-124-2. (in Russ.)
7. Isupova O. G. Delegirovanije roditelstva i yazyk reproduktsii: experty i patsijenty o rozhdenii VRT-detei [Delegation of parenting and language of reproduction: experts and patients on the birth of ART children]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 43-56. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e57400. (in Russ.)
8. Bronfman S. A. Novaya normativnost i reproduktivnyj vybor: popytka osmysleniya [New normativity and reproductive choice: an attempt at comprehension]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 74-83. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e58814. (in Russ.)
9. Sidorova T. A. Philosofskiy analiz prokreatsii v tsennostnom izmerenii [Philosophical analysis of procreation in the aspect of values]. Population and Economics. 2020. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 57-66. DOI: 10.3897/popecon.4.e57249. (in Russ.)
10. Grant J., Hoorens S., Gallo F., Cave J. Should ART be Part of a Population Policy Mix? Assessing of the Demographic Impact of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. RAND publications. 2007. Available at: http://www.rand.org//pubs/research_briefs/2007/RAND_RB9200.pdf. (Accessed: 30 June 2021).
11. Connolly M., Gallo F., Hoorens S., Ledger W. Assessing long-run economic benefits attributed to an IVF-conceived singleton based on projected lifetime net tax contributions in the UK. Human Reproduction. 2009. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 626-632.
12. Dadaeva T. M., Baranova V. V., Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje technologii v reproduktivnom povedenii gorodskoj molod'ozhi (opyt pilotazhnogo issledovaniya) [Assisted reproductive technologies in reproductive behavior of urban youth (pilot study experience)]. Regionologia. 2019. Vol. 27. No 1. P. 138-155. (in Russ.)
13. Korzhavina A. I., Chernyshev A. V., Lebedev V. V., Chernysheva M. L. Otnoshenije naseleniya k etiko-pravovym problemam novykh reproduktivnykh technologiy (rezultaty sotsiologicheskikh issledovaniy) [The attitude of the population to the ethical and legal problems of new reproductive technologies (results of sociological research)]. Vestnik TGU. 2010. Vol. 15. Iss. 5. P. 1524-1526. (in Russ.)
14. Bogomiagkova E. S., Lomonosova M. V. Vspomogatelnyje reproduktivnyje tekhnologii: k voprosu o novykh formakh sotsialnogo neravenstva [Assisted reproductive technologies: on the issue of new forms of social inequality]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial'noy antropologii [Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology]. 2017. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 180-198. (in Russ.)
15. Okhovati M., Zare M., Zare F., Bazrafshan M. S., Bazrafshan A. Trends in global assisted reproductive technologies research: a scientometrics study. Electronic Physician. 2015. Vol. 7. Iss. 8. P. 1597-1601.
Article
Received: 15.07.2021
Accepted: 09.12.2021
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Isupova, O. G., & Rusanova, N. E. (2021). Rerception of assisted reproductive technologies by Russian student youth. Population, 24(4), 34-46. https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2021.24.4.3
Section
DEMOGRAPHY: THEORY AND PRACTICE ISSUES
