Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review)

Abstract

CBRC is a growing reality worldwide with potential benefits and risks. Therefore, it is very crucial to regulate the global market of CBRC on legal, economic, and ethical bases in order to increase harmonization and reduce any forms of exploitation. Establishment of accurate international statistics and a global registry will help diminish the current information gap surrounding the CBRC phenomenon.

Preserving fertility in female patients with hematological malignancies: a multidisciplinary oncofertility approach

“…If thirdparty reproduction services are not available or not legally allowed in a country, patients may travel abroad to get them. This growing phenomenon is called cross border reproductive care (CBRC) as addressed by ASRM, ESHRE, and several experts in the field [255][256][257][258][259][260][261].…”

Preserving fertility in female patients with hematological malignancies: the key points

“…If fertility preservation options are rejected, contraindicated, infeasible, unavailable, or unsuccessful, adoption and third-party reproduction (egg donation, embryo donation, and surrogacy) can be offered as family building alternatives [23][24][25].…”

Cross‐Border Reproductive Care: Two Lenses in Political Science

“…Hudson et al (2011) identified 54 items for their review of CBRC research from 15 different academic databases, and in 2018 Salama et al identified 85 full-text articles from PubMed Online for their review. Our search methods targeted social science sources, returning a higher number of total references (147) than Hudson et al (2011) and Salama et al (2018), respectively, which appears to show increasing attention from social scientists to the topic over the last 8 years. Yet only 42 of the 147 sources we identified were categorized as political science (19 references) or health policy (23 references) in JSTOR.…”

“…Despite the recognition of CBRC as a growing practice, research has been minimal. Several reviews have examined the state of academic research on CBRC (Hudson et al, ; Inhorn & Gürtin, ; Inhorn & Patrizio, ; Salama et al, ), revealing that clinicians, bioethicists, and anthropologists have engaged most predominantly with CBRC (Inhorn & Gürtin, ; Salama et al, ). While all of these reviews highlight the interest in CBRC, they also acknowledge that the dearth of existing data and obstacles to data collection regarding patient motivations and outcomes have challenged social scientists’ ability to perform empirical work.…”