Search

Canada has recently emerged as a hotspot in a burgeoning global surrogacy bio‐economy. On the grounds that any commercial trade in reproductive capabilities would result in the exploitation of marginalised women willing to sell their eggs and wombs, Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) bans commercial surrogacy, allowing only for altruistic arrangements. Drawing together analysis of the AHRA and related legal, regulatory, and policy documents, feminist political economic theory, and a growing body of critical social scientific scholarship on surrogacy, this paper troubles altruism as a means of insulating surrogacy from market‐based exploitation. It contributes to the extant literature an explicit focus on the law as a key site in the reproduction of the gendered division of labour. Acknowledging the serious concerns that dog commercial markets in reproductive biology, it argues that the legal constitution of gestational work as altruistic is part of a broader juridico‐economic apparatus that has systematically devalued reproductive labour under capitalism. Efforts to insulate surrogacy from the market by legally designating it as a gift freely given facilitate the ongoing appropriation of reproductive labour, which is assigned, once again, to the realm of non‐value. A feminist political‐economic critique of altruism, this paper does not forward an argument in favour of commercialisation. Rather, its aim is to upend the commercial/altruistic binary that has circumscribed so much of the thinking and legislating around surrogacy. This paper explores the role of the law in devaluing reproductive labour under capitalism. It does so via an examination of Canada's burgeoning surrogacy bio‐economy and the legislation – the Assisted Human Reproduction Act – designed to regulate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Do publicly funded fertility treatment and single embryo transfer (SET) result in lower hospitalization rates of children of parents with infertility?Summary Answer: Following the 2010 Quebec law introducing free fertility treatment and SET, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions decreased among all children born to parents with infertility, but not among singletons, whose risk remained slightly higher than that of children of parents without infertility, even accounting for treatment and maternal age.What Is Known Already: Previous studies reported lower NICU admission rates among children conceived with ART after the 2010 law; however, children conceived without ART by parents with infertility were not considered.Study Design, Size, Duration: Cohort study of children born in 1997-2017 to patients evaluated for infertility ('exposed') at an academic fertility center in Montreal (Canada) in 1996-2015. A random sample of births to Montreal residents served as comparison. Outcomes were identified from Quebec administrative databases.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We compared children's healthcare utilization before and after the 2010 law in 6273 exposed and 12 583 randomly sampled births (6846 and 12 775 children, respectively). We repeated the analysis among children conceived in the 63 months before and after the law ('restricted period'), and examined whether differences in twinning, fertility treatment, and maternal age explained the higher risk of NICU admission among children of parents with infertility.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: In the exposed cohort, the proportion of twin births and of several adverse outcomes declined after the law. NICU admission and duration of NICU stay decreased overall, but not in singletons. Both measures remained higher in exposed children. Except for NICU admission, hospitalization rates were similar in exposed and random sample children. After accounting for fertility treatment and maternal age, exposed singletons were 17% more likely to be admitted to the NICU than children of parents with no medical history of infertility.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Sample size was relatively small; infertile patients were from a single center and the random sample from one city. Despite some limitations, administrative databases are likely to accurately reflect healthcare utilization.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Universal access to treatment and, particularly, SET results in an overall reduction of adverse outcomes among children conceived with treatment; however, children of parents with infertility are at a slightly higher risk, regardless of treatment.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR, grant no. 123362). No competing interests.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act seeks to protect egg donors' health and well-being and prevent trade in their reproductive capabilities. In order to fulfill these objectives, the Act prohibits the buying and selling of ova, and only allows for egg donors to be reimbursed for their expenses. However, no regulations setting out what expenses can be reimbursed were promulgated. Sixteen years later, these long-awaited regulations finally came into force in June 2020. In this study, I rely on data from interviews with sixteen egg donors in order to assess how the new regulations might help or hinder concerns that egg donors have with how egg transactions are regulated in Canada. I argue that the new regulations might hinder, more than help with, addressing current concerns related to egg transactions in Canada. The most likely result is that they will not change the current state of affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]