Transforming social contracts: the social and cultural history of IVF in Denmark

Abstract

The introduction of IVF in Denmark was accompanied by social transformations: contestations of medical authority, negotiations of who might access reproductive biomedicine and changes in individual and social identity due to reproductive technologies. Looking at the making of Danish IVF, this article sketches its social and cultural history by revisiting the legal, medical, technological and social developments that characterized the introduction of IVF in Denmark as well as by contextualizing the social research on the uses and impacts of IVF carried out in the 1980s and 1990s within these developments. The making of Danish IVF is presented as a transformative event in so far as it changed Denmark from being a society concerned about the social consequences of reproductive technologies to a moral collective characterized by a joined sense of responsibility for Denmark’s procreative future.

Vulnerability When Fecundity Fails: Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies in The Bridge

“…In a 2016 article on the history of IVF in Denmark, Mohr and Koch argue IVF transformed Denmark from 'a society concerned about the social consequences of reproductive technologies to a moral collective characterized by a joined sense of responsibility for Denmark's procreative future' (Mohr and Koch 2016, p. 88). Echoing Fineman (2013) and Fenton (2013) in the way they frame infertility issues for vulnerable subjects and a responsive state, Mohr and Koch (2016) argue that the acceptance of IVF in Denmark was about more than medical procedures helping involuntarily childless individuals, for it became a 'technology of social contract' that created 'a space of possibility' for negotiations between the state, its institutions and its citizens to construct a unified 'pursuit of procreative futures' (Mohr and Koch 2016, p. 89). Mohr and Koch claim that IVF has become a normalized part of Danish life now, given the relatively high number of children born following ART procedures (8% per year in 2016 in Denmark), allowing citizens to establish families 'whose mode of creation and existence is rarely questioned by either political or media representatives' (Mohr and Koch 2016, p. 89).…”

“…Denmark's reputation as a 'reproductive collective' is growing, for ART treatments and for gamete donation. Mohr and Koch (2016) reported 21 public and private fertility clinics, and four sperm banks in Denmark. This includes Cryos International, one of the world's largest sperm banks, which began in 1981 as Ole Schou's dream; it eventually opened in Aarhus in 1987 and now has international offices (Petroff 2015).…”

“…5. Mohr and Koch (2016) specify that the provision of three cycles of 'IVF treatments are covered by the tax-financed Danish public health service for all involuntarily childless women residing in Denmark up to the age of 40' but prohibits ART treatments for women over 45 (p. 89). 6.…”

“…Cohen et al (2005) site the years as Norway-1987Norway- (revised 1994; Sweden-1988;Iceland-1996;Denmark-1997;and Finland-no laws in 2005, when the article was published, but 2006 appears to be the first law on ART in Finland (www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2006/ en20061237.pdf). Schmidt's (2006) research on infertile Danish couples, Mohr and Koch (2016) state 'IVF makes infertility and childlessness legitimate subject positions in a society which perceives having children as an important rite of passage into adulthood. The central role of IVF is thus to give people hope that they too may join a collective invested in the common good of having children' (p. 93).…”

The Success Models of Financing the Artificial Reproductive Techniques and the Albanian Case

“…A comparative study of policies and regulations", Nordic Council of Ministers 2006. 2 Mohr S., Koch L., (2016), "Transforming social contracts; the social and cultural history of IVF in Denmark." ELSEVIER Journal, Volume 2, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661816300181#bbb0080 3 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.…”