Talk:Fertility tourism

Untitled

Linking the ending of donor anonymity to the UK sperm shortage doesn't make sense. According to HFEA figures, the numbers of sperm donors went *up* four years in a row following the ending of anonymity, thus reversing a three-year decline: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html Ml66uk2 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am looking to create a Wikipedia entry for Commodification of the womb, focusing on commercial surrogacy, as a global concept. I would like to look at the international problems with commercial surrogacy. A specific question I have, that I am hoping you would be willing to help answer, is the ways in which the children born of a commercial surrogate birth are able to gain citizenship, and the difficulties/legal issues the parents face. In your research did you find that parents obtaining a child through commercial surrogacy had the mother come to their home country for the birth, or do the births commonly take place in the mother's home nation. I assume that the child would need to be born in a nation where commercial surrogacy is legal. As I further my research and create this page, I would like to link back to this page page. Miss Smithington (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 June 2020 and 21 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tzolfaghari, EmjChow, P.Concepcion, UCSF PharmD Candidate, EWoo95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fertility tourism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208130627/http://www.medicaltourismforyou.com/fertility.htm to http://www.medicaltourismforyou.com/fertility.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127025158/http://www.hfea.gov.uk:80/3422.html to http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3422.html#3426
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121523042000/http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html to http://www.hfea.gov.uk/3411.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 8 Peer Review

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? I feel like the group's edits substantially improved the article, which began as a preliminary article, because they added more background information in the introductory paragraph and wrote 2 new sections (legal controversies and religious views). I would suggest adding a section titled History and stating the difference between fertility tourism versus birth tourism.K. Lam, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The large addition of a lead section is also a substantial and needed addition to the article, and generally fits the Wikipedia Manual of Style. However, one suggestion to make would be to use the Lead section as a summary of other parts of the article. The paragraph touches upon main causes of fertility tourism, but it may be better to make a short statement about specific causes and then have a more in-depth section later on in the article that details more. AHean2022 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the group has overall improved the article quality. There was major improvement to the background, IVF and Surrogacy sections which followed the “Guiding framework”. As a suggestion, because gamete shortage is a major reason for fertility tourism, I would perhaps include more information on egg donation shortage as well if secondary sources are present. Also, it might be beneficial to link “birth tourism” in the “see also” section as well since it is a substantial part of medical tourism. But overall, good job guys! LLu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes, the group overall had many formatting and citations they wanted to change and they were able to accomplish this. They were able to clarify topics they had outlined, such as the actual potential complications and risks of multiple births. They added a sentence about the rates of complications and it was cited with a secondary source. Additionally, they followed through with their plan to add history regarding the expansion of treatments in places like Israel or the United States that make them centers for fertility tourism. AHean2022 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In the Talk page, the group mentioned that they wanted to add types of prohibitions/regulations for fertility in other countries, specific numbers of people that go to each country for fertility tourism, and why people go to certain countries for fertility tourism. It doesn't seem like these goals were met, perhaps to due a lack of secondary literature available for these questions. However, they did accomplish all other goals and general suggestions listed (ex: providing information on the risks of fertility tourism).K. Lam, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe this group has achieved most of its overall goals for improving this article given the understanding of the difficulty in finding secondary sources for some of their original goals. LLu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify... This draft reflects a neutral point of view because almost all statements are written in a manner that is objective and factual. Both the Legal Controversies and Religious Views sections present facts in a non-biased point of view and lack personal opinions. The only word that some readers could perceive to have a negative connotation is the word "even" in "religion has even lead to legal bans on surrogacy in some countries", so I would recommend removing this word from the sentence.K. Lam, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... There are secondary sources cited in this article. Given the topic, it may be more difficult to find numerous secondary sources, but we suggest trying to incorporate more references that are not just from primary sources if possible, and perhaps editing previous citations that other people had added with more substantial sources. For example, this article on gender selection in Australia: https://web.archive.org/web/20150105133928/http://gender-selection.com.au/index.php/component/content/article/19-portfolio/dec-2014-1-1/27-australian-couple-spend-50k-to-have-a-baby-girl?Itemid=0 LLu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify... Overall, the general tone of the writing is consistent with the manual of style and does not address the reader directly or ever imply the reader is a patient. However one place this article may come across as address the reader is under the cost factors section—stated as the costs “should be considered” in the last sentence, which sounds like advise and could be re-worded to sound more like a neutral viewpoint. Since this article is not a disease state or drug and rather a phenomenon, the formatting appears to be consistent and in a logic manner.AHean2022 (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

No, I did not find signs of plagiarism by following stated instructions on the Wikipedia:Plagiarism page and using a plagiarism detector.LLu, Future UCSF Pharm.D. (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Foundations II 2020 Group 7 proposed edits

First Paragraph

Things to add:

what type of prohibitions/ regulations for fertility in other countries

Citations for:

The main reasons for fertility tourism are legal prohibitions or regulation of the sought procedure in the home country, the non-availability of a procedure in the home country, as well as lower costs in the destination country. (restructure sentence) Comparison of costs later? The main procedures sought are in vitro fertilization (IVF) and donor insemination, but also surrogacy Change IVF destinations to just IVF

Destinations

General Suggestions

About 20,000 to 25,000 women (often accompanied by their partners) annually seek cross-border assisted reproductive technology (ART) services. -> Move this away from being its own sentence and into the Destinations category.

See if we can be more specific about how many people go to each country and cite See if we can get a history on how this started or why people go to certain countries -> More history/background info Need Citations

Many travel from countries like Germany and Italy, which are very restrictive of the number of eggs that may be fertilized and how many embryos can be used for implantation or cryopreservation. In recent years, Mexico has become a popular destination for cross-border IVF treatment due to its liberal ART and egg donation policies. With over 30 years of experience in infertility research and treatment, Iran is one of the world’s pioneers in effective infertility treatment especially IVF. IVF centers in Iran are using the most advanced methods and utilizing the up-dated equipment provide the infertility treatment services to all Iranian and foreign couples. Even small countries such as Barbados provide JCI-accredited IVF treatment aimed at women from abroad.

Risks

General Suggestions

The burden of multiple births generated by placing too many embryos is carried by the patients and the home country. talk more about this and elaborate on potential complications what are the risks?

Donor Insemination

General Suggestions

Make a characteristics header for second paragraph make second paragraph starting at "another emerging destination.." Need Citations

A woman may go to another country to obtain artificial insemination by donor. The practice is influenced by the attitudes and sperm donation laws in the host country.

Origins

General Suggestions

change header to donor shortages At least 250 Swedish sperm recipients travel to Denmark annually for insemination. Some of this is also due to that Denmark also allows single women to be inseminated. It is illegal to pay donors for eggs or sperm in Canada. Women can still import commercial U.S. sperm, but that's not true for eggs, resulting in many Canadian women leaving the country for such procedures. these two need to be moved Need Citations

Prior to the change in the law, the limit in the number of children born to each donor depended upon practitioners at fertility clinics, and Belgian and Spanish clinics were purchasing donor sperm from abroad to satisfy demand for treatments. Anonymous donation was permitted in Belgium and is a legal requirement in Spain. These two countries also allowed single heterosexual and single and coupled lesbians to undergo fertility treatment. Ironically, at the time, many Belgian and Spanish clinics were buying sperm from British clinics donated by British donors, and they were able to use that sperm according to local laws and limits. In addition, lesbian women from France and eastern Europe travelled to these countries in order to achieve a pregnancy by an anonymous donor since this treatment was not available to them in their own countries. British fertility tourists must therefore now travel to other countries particularly those that do not include children born to foreigners in their national totals of children produced by each donor. Surrogacy destinations

General Suggestions

Fertility tourism for surrogacy is driven by legal restrictions in the home country or the incentive of lower prices abroad. move this to the introduction change the order of the countries to how they are said in the introduction see if we can talk about different factors of surrogacy include religious views and law regarding surrogacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWoo95 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Need Citations

The whole first introduction paragraphs Cite first paragraph in the U.S. section

Put in a timeline - such as is it decreasing or increasing in popularity. Tzolfaghari (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments: Please beware of drawing conclusions and then looking for citations to support them. That doesn't meet with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, and will often lead to original research and sythesis of multiple sources to create a conclusion not made by any of them.

Try instead to survey the modern literature in the areas that you are interested in. Scholarly articles and books from respected publishers will be the best quality sources, but popular science articles are usable for non-biomedical statements. Once you have read the sources, then decide on how best to summarise them.

Hope that helps, and please feel free to ask if you're unsure about anything. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Risks of IVF

You can't use individual studies to make biomedical claims such as "a 2-fold increase in the risk of an ectopic pregnancy". I strongly recommend looking for better sources. One site that may be useful is that of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. See https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/in-vitro-fertilisation-ivf/, https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/our-campaign-to-reduce-multiple-births/ and https://www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/risks-of-fertility-treatment/ for some usable sources. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)