Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
White, Pamela (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: K
This paper raises some troubling questions about the fertility treatments provided to Canadian gestational surrogates, women not genetically related to the child that they carry. Using information published between 2003 and 2012 by Canada’s Assisted Reproduction Registry, the paper traces the growing incidence of births to gestational surrogates. The transfer of more than one embryo increases the chance of pregnancy and the incidence of multiple births, and while the incidence of multiple births has declined overall since 2010, gestational surrogates consistently experience a higher proportion of multiple births and experienced higher levels of multiple embryo transfers. In 2012, just 26% of gestational surrogates received a single embryo transfer compared to 47% of other in vitro fertilisation (IVF) patients. The paper suggests that renewed attention needs to be paid to the counselling provided to gestational surrogates and treatment consenting mechanisms used by IVF clinics and that review of the 2007 Canadian Medical Association surrogate treatment guidelines is warranted. Finally, the paper describes the difficulties in obtaining accurate data about Canadian assisted reproductive medicine. Without good data, it becomes far more difficult to identify the possibility of potentially harmful practices.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Ashenden S. Reproblematising relations of agency and coercion: Surrogacy. In: Madhock, Phillips, Wilson, editors. Gender, Agency and Coercion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. p.195-218.
    • 2. Teman E. Embodying Surrogate Motherhood: Pregnancy as a Dyadic Body Project. Body and Society, 2009;15(3): 47-69.
    • 3. Shanley ML, Jesudason S. Surrogacy: Reinscribing or Pluralizing understandings of Family? In: Cutas, Chan, editors. Families: Beyond the Nuclear Ideal. London: Bloomsbury, 2012. p.110-122.
    • 4. Dickenson D. Property in the body: Feminist perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
    • 5. Phillips A. Our Bodies, Whose Property. Philadelphia: Princeton University Press, 2013.
    • 6. Assisted Human Reproduction Act SC 2004 c-2. Amended 2012.
    • 7. Daniluk JC, Koert E. Childless Canadian men's and women's childbearing intentions, attitudes towards and willingness to use assisted human reproduction. Human Reproduction, 2012;27(8):2405-2412.
    • 8. Lau, A. My co-worker gave birth to my baby. Chatelaine Magazine, April 18, 2014. http://www.chatelaine.com/ health/coworker-gave-birth-to-my-baby/
    • 9. Treleaven S. What it feels like to have children by a surrogate. Chatelaine Magazine, November. 20, 2013. http://www.chatelaine.com/living/real-life-stories/what-itfeels-like-to-have-children-by-a-surrogate/.
    • 10. Ewart K, Tansey C, Moore T. Candid chat about surrogacy. Chatelaine Magazine, March 18, 2014. http:// www.chatelaine.com/living/cityline/can-you-pay-asurrogate-in-canada/
    • 11. Desrosiers S. A surrogacy story: Parts 1 &2. Parenting Times, February/March 2015; April/May 2015. http://www. ottawaparentingtimes.com/a-surrogacy-story-part-1/; http:// www.ottawaparentingtimes.com/a-surrogacy-story-part-2/
    • 12. CBC News. Greg and Elaine Smith fight to bring surrogate-born twins home from Mexico. http://www.cbc. ca/news/canada/british-columbia/greg-and-elaine-smithfight-to-bring-surrogate-born-twins-home-from-mexico-1. 2933862. January 27, 2015.
    • 13. Blackwell T. Canadian surrogates get hefty bills as hospitals start charging when babies heading to foreign parents. National Post, February 21, 2013. http://news. nationalpost.com/2013/02/21/ontario-surrogate-gets1400-bill-after-giving-birth-as-hospitals-start-chargingthird-party-carriers-for-post-natal-care/
    • 14. CBC News. Quebec to reimburse gay men for surrogacy costs, Celebrity radio host Joël Legendre and husband first to receive coverage in Quebec. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-toreimburse-gay-men-for-surrogacy-costs-1.2620309. April 24, 2014.
    • 15. Nelson E. Global trade and assisted reproductive technologies: Regulatory challenges in international surrogacy. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013:240-253; Spring.
    • 16. Busby K, Vun D. Revisiting 'The Handmaid's Tale': Feminist theory meets empirical research on surrogate mothers. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 2010;26(1):13-93.
    • 17. Busby K. Of surrogate mother born: Parentage determination in Canada and Elsewhere. Canadian Journal of Women & Law, 2013;25:284-314.
    • 18. Lozanski K. Transnational surrogacy: Canada's Contradictions. Social Science & Medicine, 2015;124: 383-390.
    • 19. Panich V. Surrogate Tourism and Reproductive Rights. Hypatia, 2013;28(2):274-289.
    • 20. Thompson C. Making parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2005.
    • 21. Proctor D. Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know about Cancer. New York: Basic Books, 2005.
    • 22. 106 Stat. 3146 - Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992.
    • 23. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 amended 2008.
    • 24. 2010 SCC 61, [2010] 3 S.C.R. 457.
    • 25. Quebec Government. An Act respecting clinical and research activities related to assisted procreation, CQLR. C-A-5.01. http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/ A-5.0. 2009 amended 2015
    • 26. Ontario Government. Building Ontario Up: Ontario Budget. 2015.
    • 27. Havelock J, Liu K, Levitan, et al. Guidelines for Third Party Reproduction. CFAS, 2016.
    • 28. BORN. website. www.born.ca.
    • 29. Tremblay R. Surrogates in Quebec: The good, the bad and the foreigner. Canadian Journal of Women & Law, 2015; 27(1):94-111.
    • 30. Bernstein G. Unintended consequences: Prohibitions on gamete donor anonymity and the fragile practice of surrogacy. Indiana Health Review, 2013;10(2): 291-324.
    • 31. F2013-001510 Surrogacy Treatments and information, 2007-2012. HFEA.
    • 32. Email exchange. BORN, March 16, 2016.
    • 33. Perkins KM, Boulet S, Jamieson D, et al. 2016. Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States. Fertility and Sterility, 2016 April 14. Pii:S0015-0282 (16)611057-9 .
    • 34. Sundaram S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, et al. Surveillance Summaries, Assisted Reproductive Technology. Surveillance - United States, 2012. MMWR, 2015;62(9).
    • 36. Council for Responsible Genetics. Surrogacy in America. http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org. 2010.
    • 37. Gunby J, Bissonette F, Librach C, et al. 2001-2007, Assisted Reproduction Technologies (ART) in Canada. Fertility and Sterility, 2006-11.Gunby J. 2008-2012 results for Canadian ART Register. www.cfas.ca.
    • 38. Nelson E. Law, Policy and Reproductive Autonomy. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013.
    • 39. Fauser B, Devroey P. Baby Making: What new Reproductive Treatments Mean for Families and Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
    • 40. Dar S, Lazer T, Brasilie D, et al. Assisted reproduction involving gestational surrogacy: an analysis of the medical, psychosocial and legal issues: experience from a large surrogacy program. Human Reproduction, 2015; 30(2):345-352.
    • 41. Commissaire à la santé et au bien-être. Avis détaillé sur les activités de procreation assistée au Québec. Gouvernement du Québec, 2014.
    • 42. Canadian Assisted Reproductive Technologies Registry. Better Outcomes Registry & Network Ontario. Ottawa ONNovember 2015.
    • 43. Analyses of the National ART Surveillance System (NASS) data. Written communication with the Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, August 8, 2015 & March 16, 2016.
    • 44. Schmidt CO, Kohlmann T. When to use the odds ratio or the relative risk? International Journal of Public Health, 2008; 165-7.
    • 45. Statistics Canada. CANSIM Tables: 102-4509; 053-001.
    • 46. HFEA. Trends in Fertility Treatment, 2013: Trends and Figures. 2014. www.hfea.gov.uk
    • 47. Price F. Having triplets, quads or quins: Who bears the responsibility? In: Stacey, Editor. Changing Human Reproduction: Social Science perspectives. London: Sage, 1992. p.92-118.
    • 48. Kulkarni AD, Jamieson DJ, Jones HW, et al. Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 2013;23: 2218-2225.
    • 49. Ragoné H. In: Ragoné, Franklin, editors. Incontestable Motivations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. p.118-131.
    • 50. Min J, Sylvestre C. Guidelines for the number of embryos transferred: Clinical Practice Guidelines. CFAS, 2013.
    • 51. R. v. Leia Picard and Canadian Fertility Consulting Ltd. Statement of Facts. http://noveltechethics.ca/files/files/ ELA2/AHR/AHRA_Facts.pdf.
    • 52. Baylis F, Downie C, Snow D. Fake it till you make it: Policy making and assisted human reproduction in Canada. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2014;3(6): 510-512.
    • 53. Horsey K. Surrogacy in the UK: Myth busting and reform. London: Surrogacy UK, 2015.
    • 54. Manitoba Law Reform Commission Assisted Reproduction and Birth Registration: Issue Paper. http:// manitobalawreform.ca. April 2014.
    • 55. Processing and Distribution of Semen for Assisted Conception Regulations. SOR/96-254.
    • 56. Jeng HB, Wilcock LS. Low and very low weight infants conceived with the use of assisted reproductive technology. New England Journal of Medicine, 2002;346: 731-737.
    • 57. Pharoah PO. Risk of cerebral palsy in multiple pregnancies. Clinics in Perinatology, 2006;33:301-313.
    • 58. Expert Panel on Infertility and Adoption. Raising Expectations. Toronto: Ontario Government, 2009.
    • 59. Jones HW, Schnorr JA. 2001. Multiple pregnancies: Call to Action. Fertility and Sterility, 2001;75(1):11-13.
    • 60. Reilly DR. Surrogate pregnancy: A guide for Canadian prenatal health care providers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2007;176(4):483-487.
    • 61. Shenfield F, Pennings G, Cohen S, et al. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 10: Surrogacy. Human Reproduction, 2002;20(10):2705-2707.
    • 62. Shenfield F, Pennings G, Cohen S, et al. ESHRE's good practice guide for cross-border reproductive care for centres and practitioners. Human Reproduction, 2011; 26(7):1625-1627.
    • 63. Söderström-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, et al. Surrogacy: Outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families - a systemic review. Human Reproduction, 2016;22(2):260-276.
    • 64. Imrie S, Jadva V. The long-term experiences of surrogates: relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 2014;29: 424-435.
    • Résumé Cet article soulève des questions troublantes sur les traitements de la fécondité pratiqués sur les mères porteuses (femmes qui ne sont pas génétiquement apparentées à l'enfant qu'elles portent) canadiennes. En utilisant les informations publiées sur une période de dix ans (2003-2012) par le Registre canadien des techniques de procréation assistée, l'article révèle l'incidence croissante des naissances chez des mères porteuses. L'implantation de plus d'un embryon augmente les chances de grossesse et l'incidence de naissances multiples et, s'il est en général moins fréquent qu'elles donnent naissance à plus d'un enfant à la fois depuis 2010, les mères porteuses enregistrent systématiquement une proportion plus élevée de naissances multiples. En 2012, à peine 26% des mères porteuses avaient reçu l'implantation d'un seul embryon,contre 47% des autres patientes de la FIV. L'article suggère qu'il faut accorder davantage d'attention aux conseils prodigués aux mères porteuses et aux mécanismes de consentement au traitement utilisés par les cliniques de FIV. Il note aussi qu'il est nécessaire de réviser les directives de l'Association médicale canadienne sur le traitement des mères porteuses. Enfin, l'article décrit les difficultés rencontrées pour obtenir des données exactes sur la procréation médicalement assistée au Canada. Sans informations solides, il est beaucoup plus difficile de déceler la possibilité de pratiques potentiellement nuisibles.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article