Conventional vs unconventional assisted reproductive technologies: Opinions of young physicians

References

• Adashi EY, Cohen J, Hamberger L, Jones HW Jr, de Kretser DM, Lunenfeld B . 2000. Public perception on infertility and its treatment: an international survey. Human Reproduction 15:330–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Akour NA, Khassawneh M, Khader Y, Dahl E. 2009. Sex preference and interest in preconception sex selection: a survey among pregnant women in the north of Jordan. Human Reproduction 24:1665–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birnbacher D. 2005. Human cloning and human dignity. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10:50–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman MC, Saunders DM. 1994. Community attitudes to maternal age and pregnancy after assisted reproductive technology – too old at 50 years. Human Reproduction 9:167–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowring F. 2004. Therapeutic and reproductive cloning: a critique. Social Science and Medicine 58:401–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell P. 2011. Boundaries and risk: Media framing of assisted reproductive technologies and older mothers. Social Science and Medicine 72:265–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einwohner J. 1989. Who becomes a surrogate personality characteristics. In: Offerman-Zuckerberg, J., editor. Gender in transition. A new frontier. New York: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Fagan PJ, Schmidt CW Jr, Rock JA, Damewood MD, Halle E, Wise TN. 1986. Sexual functioning and psychologic evaluation of in-vitro fertilization couples. Fertility and Sterility 46:668–672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golombok S, Brewaeys A, Cook R, Giavazzi MT, Guerra D, Mantovani A . 1996. Children: The European study of assisted reproduction families: family functioning and child development. Human Reproduction 11:2324–2331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurmankin A, Caplan A, Braverman A. 2005. Screening practices and beliefs of assisted reproductive technology programs. Fertility and Sterility 83:61–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall S, Reid E, Marteau TM. 2006. Attitudes towards sex selection for non-medical reasons: a review. Prenatal Diagnosis 26:619–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes HB, Tymstra T. 1987. In vitro fertilization in the Netherlands – experiences and opinions of Dutch women. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 4:116–123.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hostiuc S, Curca CG. 2010. Informed consent in posthumous sperm procurement. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 282:433–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson KL. 2006. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: public policy and public attitudes. Fertility and Sterility 85:1638–1645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson MH. 1999. The medical ethics of paid egg sharing in the UK. Human Reproduction 14:1912–1918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jouannet P. 2009. Evolution of assisted reproductive technologies. Bulletin de L’Academie Nationale de Medecine 193:573–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katayama A. 2001. A seminar on human cloning: human reproductive cloning and related techniques: an overview of the legal environment and practitioner attitudes. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 18:442–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konstantinidis G, Spasojevic S, Todorovic MK. 2010. Newborns from in vitro fertilization conceived pregnancies. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 23:110–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacs GT, Wood C, Morgan G, Brumby M. 1985. The attitudes of the Australian community to treatment of infertility by in-vitro fertilization and associated procedures. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 2:213–216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kozaki N, Kuroki H, Islam MN, Wakasugi C. 1995. Application of reproductive techniques in Japan and Japanese views on surrogate motherhood. Fertility and Sterility 64:686–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancet. 2001. Editorial: Biological uncertainties about reproductive cloning. Lancet 358:519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landaum R. 2004. Posthumous sperm retrieval for the purpose of later insemination or IVF in Israel: An ethical and psychosocial critique. Human Reproduction 19:1952–1956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence RE, Rasinski KA, Yoon JD, Curlin FA. 2010. Obstetrician- gynecologists’ beliefs about assisted reproductive technologies. Obstetrics and Gynecology 116:127–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melzer H. 1991. Artificial human donor insemination as a treatment possibility for sterile couples at the gynecologic clinic of the Chemnitz Friedrich Wolf district hospital. Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie 113:7–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mènèzo YJ, Veiga A, Pouly JL. 2000. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) in humans: Facts and uncertainties. Theriogenology 53:599–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mladovsky P, Sorenson C. 2010. Public financing of IVF: A review of policy rationales. Health Care Analysis 18:113–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen L, Golombok S. 2009. Families created by assisted reproduction: Parent-child relationships in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence 32:835–848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reubinoff BE, Schenker JG. 1996. New advances in sex preselection. Fertility and Sterility 66:343–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer MV, Ary BR, Paulson RJ. 1994. The demographic characterization of women participating in oocyte donation – a review of 300 consecutively performed cycles. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 45:147–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenker JG. 2002. Gender selection: Cultural and religious perspectives. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 19:400–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenker JG. 2011. Surrogate motherhood. Gineco Ro 7:32–38.
   Google Scholar
• Segev J, Van Den Akker O. 2006. A review of psychosocial and family functioning following assisted reproductive treatment. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing 9:e162–e170.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro RS. 2008. Future issues in transplantation ethics: ethical and legal controversies in xenotransplantation, stem cell, and cloning research. Transplantation Reviews 22:210–214.
   Google Scholar
• Smith G. 1969. Through a test tube darkly: artificial insemination and the law. Michigan Law Review 67:127–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorenson C. 2006. IVF/ART funding and reimbursement. Euro Observer 8:6–7.
   Google Scholar
• Stan, G.Procrearea asistata medical [Medical assisted procreation]. Available at: www.crestinortodox.ro/sanatate-stiinta/procrearea-medical-asistata- 72629.html (Accessed 14 April 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Stern J, Cramer C, Garrod A, Green R. 2002. Attitudes on access to services at assisted reproductive technology clinics: comparisons with clinic policy. Fertility and Sterility 77:537–541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Bergh T, Lundkvist O. 2003. Public opinion regarding oocyte donation in Sweden. Human Reproduction 18:1107–1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welin S. 2004. Reproductive ectogenesis: The third era of human reproduction and some moral consequences. Science and Engineering Ethics 10:615–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox LS, Mosher WD. 1993. Use of infertility services in the United States. Obstetrics and Gynecology 82:122–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yogev Y, Simon Y, Ben-Haroush A, Simon D, Orvieto R, Kaplan B. 2003. Attitudes of Israeli gynecologists regarding candidate screening and personal responsibility in assisted reproductive technologies versus adoption in Israel. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 110:55–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar