The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Bashmakova N.V.

Ural Research Institute of Maternity and Child Care

Polyakova I.G.

Ural Federal University

Ryabko E.V.

Family Medicine Center

Recent developments in providing medical insurance for reproductive health: global and national trends

Authors:

Bashmakova N.V., Polyakova I.G., Ryabko E.V.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2023;29(5): 37‑44

Read: 2147 times


To cite this article:

Bashmakova NV, Polyakova IG, Ryabko EV. Recent developments in providing medical insurance for reproductive health: global and national trends. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2023;29(5):37‑44. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/repro20232905137

Recommended articles:
Reproductive aspe­cts in the treatment of colo­rectal endo­metriosis. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2024;(6):140-148
The expe­rience of using the nasal form of GnRH agonists in in vitro fertilization programs. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2024;(6):79-84
Medi­cal and social characteristics of mate­rnal deaths after extracorporeal fertilization. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2025;(2):5-14

References:

  1. Baron T. Surrogacy and the Fiction of Medical Necessity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2023:1-8.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180123000269
  2. Ghodrati F. A comparative study of surrogacy rights in Iran and European countries, a review article. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. 2023;27:100880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2023.100880
  3. Tewari R. Legal trend of judicial rights in the process of surrogacy. Journal of critical reviews. 2020;7(2):1869-1880.
  4. Jana M, Hammer A. Reproductive Work in the Global South: Lived Experiences and Social Relations of Commercial Surrogacy in India. Work, Employment and Society. 2022;36(5):945-966.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017021997370
  5. Goli M, Kohan S, Oloonabadi SMA, Farajzadegan Z, Heidari Z. A reproductive health-care program for surrogate mothers: A mixed methods study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 2022; 25(11):250.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_437_21
  6. Jacobson H, Rozée V. Inequalities in (trans)national surrogacy: A call for examining complex lived realities with an empirical lens. International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 2022;63(5-6):285-303.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00207152221098336
  7. Ghane-Mokhallesouni Z, Askari-Nodoushan A, Bibi Razeghi Nasrabad H, Kalateh Sadati A, Dehghani Firouzabadi R. Representation of a `positive experience’ of surrogacy in Yazd, Iran: A qualitative study. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine. 2022; 20(9):769-778.  https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v20i9.12067
  8. Rusanova NE. Assisted reproductive technologies in Russia: history, problems, demographic prospects. The Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2013;11(1):69-86. (In Russ.).
  9. Gavashelishvili E. The Unheard Voices of Surrogate Mothers. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. 2022. https://feminism-boell.org/en/2022/08/04/unheard-voices-surrogate-mothers
  10. Van Zyl L, Walker R. Beyond altruistic and commercial contract motherhood: the professional model. Bioethics. 2013;27(7):373-381.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01962.x
  11. Civil Code (Code Civil). https://www.e-elgar.com/textbooks/smits/student-resources/french-law/#:~:text=(%E2%80%A6)-,Art.,of%20somebody%20else%20is%20void
  12. Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen. Vom 13. Dezember 1990. https://www.bgbl.de/xaver/bgbl/start.xav?start=//*%5B@attr_id=%27bgbl190s2746.pdf%27%5D#__bgbl__%2F%2F*%5B%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl190s2746.pdf%27%5D__1673016901387
  13. Boampong O, Appiah-Boateng S, Osei NY, Ametefe R. Commercial Surrogacy: Invisible Reproductive Workers in Ghana. Global Labour Journal. 2023;14(2). https://doi.org/10.15173/glj.v14i2.5287
  14. Family Code of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 1995 No. 223-FZ (as amended on July 31, 2023). Accessed August 10, 2023. (In Russ.). https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_8982/062dc2e007c56e8d7bef623d85e867a4b0e99a1d/
  15. Federal Law of November 21, 2011 No. 323-FZ «On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation». Accessed August 10, 2023. (In Russ.). https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_121895/
  16. Order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation dated July 31, 2020 No. 803n «On the procedure for the use of assisted reproductive technologies, contraindications and restrictions on their use» (Registered on October 19, 2020 No. 60457). Accessed August 10, 2023. (In Russ.). https://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202010190041
  17. Federal Law No. 538-FZ of December 19, 2022 «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation». Accessed August 10, 2023. (In Russ.). https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/41630-8
  18. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 31, 2023 No. 882 «On the establishment of potential parents as a genetic mother and genetic father, as well as a single woman as a genetic mother». Accessed August 10, 2023. (In Russ.). https://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202306010072
  19. Smietana M, Rudrappa S, Weis C. Moral frameworks of commercial surrogacy within the US, India and Russia. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters. 2021;29(1):1-17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2021.1878674
  20. Tyuvina NA, Nikolaevskaya AO. Psychoneurological, moral, ethical and sociocultural aspects of assisted reproductive technologies. Nevrologiya, neiropsikhiatriya, psikhosomatika. 2020;12(5):104-110. (In Russ.).
  21. Tkach OA. «Half family»? Problematization of kinship and family in newspaper publications on assisted reproductive technologies. The Journal of Social Policy Studies. 2013;11(1):50-58. (In Russ.).
  22. Novitskaya TE. Transformational potential of assisted reproductive technologies in the context of reconfiguration of family ties: on the example of Russia and Belarus. V kn.: Bioethics and biotechnologies: the limits of human improvement. Pod Red. Grebenshchikovoi E.G., Yudina B.G. M.: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta; 2017. (In Russ.).
  23. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Vanderpoel S. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertility and Sterility. 2009;92(5):1520-1524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009
  24. Fayemi AK, Chimakonam AE. Global justice in the context of transnational surrogacy: an African bioethical perspective. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2022;43:75-93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09581-4
  25. Hibino Y. The advantages and disadvantages of altruistic and commercial surrogacy in India. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 2023;18(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-023-00130-y
  26. Walker R, van Zyl L. Towards a Professional Model of Surrogate Motherhood. Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.
  27. Gunputh RP, Choong KA. Surrogacy tourism: the ethical and legal challenges. International Journal of Tourism Sciences. 2015; 15(12):1621.
  28. Reddy S, Patel T, Kristensen MT, Nielsen BB. Surrogacy in India: Political and Commercial Framings. In: Mitra S, Schicktanz S, Patel T (eds.), Cross-Cultural Comparisons on Surrogacy and Egg Donation: Interdisciplinary Perspectives From India, Germany and Israel. Springer Verlag. 2017;153-179. 
  29. Kirby J. Transnational gestational surrogacy: does it have to be exploitative? American Journal of Bioethics. 2014;14(5):24-32. 
  30. Sama—Resource Group for Women and Health. Birthing A Market A Study on Commercial Surrogacy. New Delhi: Sama—Resource Group for Women and Health; 2012.
  31. Berend Z. The social context for surrogates’ motivations and satisfaction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(4):399-401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.07.001
  32. van den Akker OBA. Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood. Human Reproduction Update. 2007;13(1):53-62. 
  33. Readings J, Blake L, Casey P, Jadva V, Golombok S. Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2011;22(5):485-495.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.01.014
  34. Holcomb M., Byrn M.P. When your body is your business. Washington Law Review. 2010;85(4):647-686. 
  35. Naik Africawala A, Kapadia S. Women’s Control Over Decision to Participate in Surrogacy: Experiences of Surrogate Mothers in Gujarat. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2019;16(4):501-514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09931-3
  36. Teman E. The social construction of surrogacy research: an anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood. Social Science & Medicine. 2008;67(7):1104-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.026
  37. Pande A. Commercial surrogacy in India: manufacturing the perfect mother-worker. Signs. 2010;35(4):969-992.  https://doi.org/10.1086/651043
  38. Rozée V, Unisa S, de La Rochebrochard E. The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the new law of 2018. BMC Women’s Health. 2020;20(1):234.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-01087-2
  39. Elder AH. Wombs to Rent: Examining the Jurisdiction of International Surrogacy. Oregon Review of International Law. 2014;16(2): 347-374. 
  40. Deomampo D. Transnational Reproduction: Race, Kinship, and Commercial Surrogacy in India. New York: New York University Press; 2016.
  41. Secretariat of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community Opinion of the Reflection Group on Bioethics on Gestational Surrogacy. The Catholic Church in the European Union. 2015. https://www.comece.eu/dl/nLpuJKJnmLLJqx4KJK/Surrogacy_EN_WEB.pdf
  42. Attawet J, Wang A, Sullivan E. ‘Womb for work’ experiences of Thai women and gestational surrogacy practice in Thailand. Human Fertility. 2021;25(5):912-923.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2021.1937716
  43. Nilsson E. Merit making, money and motherhood: women’s experiences of commercial surrogacy in Thailand. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press; 2005.
  44. Whittaker A. Merit and money: The situated ethics of transnational commercial surrogacy in Thailand. IJFAB. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. 2014;7:2:100-120.  https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.7.2.0100
  45. Arvidsson A, Vauquline P, Johnsdotter S, Essén B. Surrogate mother — praiseworthy or stigmatized: a qualitative study on perceptions of surrogacy in Assam, India. Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1328890. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1328890
  46. O’Reilly K. When Parents and Surrogates Disagree on Abortion. The Atlantic. 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/surrogacy-contract-melissa-cook/463323/
  47. Walker R, van Zyl L. Surrogate Motherhood and Abortion for Fetal Abnormality. Bioethics. 2015;29(8):529-535.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12157
  48. Forman DL. Abortion Clauses in Surrogacy Contracts: Insights from a Case Study. Family Law Quarterly. 2015;49(1):29-53. 

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.