ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2020
Cross-border reproductive care in the USA: Who comes, why do they come, what do they purchase?
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- International gestational surrogacy in the United States, 2014-2020.Fertility and sterility · 2024Article
- Reprowebs: a conceptual approach to elasticity and change in the global assisted reproduction industry.BioSocieties · 2023Article
- Article
- Commercial Surrogacy: An Overview.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2022Review
- The ART clock: Temporal limits to assisted reproduction.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2022Article
- Reprotech in France and the United States: Differences and similarities - An introduction.Reproductive biomedicine & society online · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article explores the participation of non-US-resident patients/clients in the US reproductive market, garnering a picture of cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) into the USA by drawing on the existing literature, identifying the frequency of and motivations for such arrangements, the primary sending countries, and the reproductive services sought. I find that although the expense of US CBRC necessarily limits the patient/client pool, it is largely non-economic factors that drive CBRC into the USA. The US CBRC patient/client base, which is diverse in terms of national origin, race and sexual orientation, is recruited by the US fertility industry and drawn to the full range of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, such as in-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, oocyte donation and preimplantation genetic screening/preimplantation genetic diagnosis, available in the US market which are often restricted or limited in their countries of origin. CBRC patients/clients enjoy the legal clarity for establishing parentage and citizenship for their children available in the USA, as well as what some view as a medically and ethically superior ART market.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.