Search

Egg freezing has led to heated debates in healthcare policy and bioethics. A crucial issue in this context concerns the distinction between "medical" and "social" egg freezing (MEF and SEF)—contrasting objections to bio-medicalization with claims for oversimplification. Yet such categorization remains a criterion for regulation. This paper aims to explore the "regulatory boundary-work" around the "medical"–"social" distinction in different egg freezing regulations. Based on systematic documents' analysis we present a cross-national comparison of the way the "medical"–"social" differentiation finds expression in regulatory frameworks in Austria, Germany, Israel, and the Netherlands. Findings are organized along two emerging themes: (1) the definition of MEF and its distinctiveness—highlighting regulatory differences in the clarity of the definition and in the medical indications used for creating it (less clear in Austria and Germany, detailed in Israel and the Netherlands); and (2) hierarchy of medical over social motivations reflected in usage and funding regulations. Blurred demarcation lines between "medical" and "social" are further discussed as representing a paradoxical inclusion of SEF while offering new insights into the complexity and normativity of this distinction. Finally, we draw conclusions for policymaking and the bioethical debate, also concerning the related cryopolitical aspects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though greatly routinized over the past two decades, assisted reproductive technologies still invoke an occasional public debate around a dilemma that is constituted as unprecedented. This paper examines one such case that took place in Israel—that of a legal dispute between estranged partners over the right to have their fertilized eggs implanted in a surrogate mother's womb. The paper probes the political repercussions of the case in terms of the impact on the pronatalist local order and gender relations. It shows that certain subjects, mostly those of a more ‘female’ domestic character, received exceptional public attention and indeed called into question prevailing ideas and power relations. At the same time, in other contexts of the debate, the status quo was reaffi rmed within an updated framework. On the whole, the dilemma at hand and the innovative options enabled by technology were largely contained within the established gender order. Still, the case did contribute, if modestly, to women's rights and autonomy. The paper's conclusion suggests that public debates regarding reproductive disruptions may become a vehicle for both patriarchal gender relations and social transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]