Assisted Conception and South Asian communities in the UK: public perceptions of the use of donor gametes in infertility treatment

References

• Bharadwaj, A. (2003). Why adoption is not an option in India: the visibility of infertility, the secrecy of donor insemination, and other cultural complexities. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 1867–1880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, M. (2011). Islam and New Kinship. Reproductive technology and the Shariah in Lebanon. New York: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L. & Hudson, N. (2006). Diverse bodies and disrupted reproduction: infertility and minority ethnic communities in the UK. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 5, 117–126.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L. & Hudson, N. (2007). Public understandings of science. British South Asian men's perceptions of third party assisted conception. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2, 79–86.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L. & Hudson, N. (2009a). Constructing relatedness: Ethnicity, gender and third party assisted conception in the UK. Current Sociology, 57, 257–275.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L. & Hudson, N. (2009b). Commonalities, differences and possibilities: culture and infertility in British South Asian Communities. In: Culley L., Hudson N., van Rooij F. (Eds), Marginalized reproduction: ethnicity, infertility and new reproductive technologies. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L. & Hudson, N. (2010). “For him, it's got to be your own son”: Adoption and infertility in British South Asian Communities. In: Crawshaw M., Balen R. (Eds), Adopting after infertility. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L., Hudson, N., & Rapport, F. (2007a). Using focus groups with minority ethnic communities: researching infertility in British South Asian Communities. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 102–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culley, L., Hudson, N., & Van Rooij, F., Eds. (2009). Marginalized reproduction: Ethnicity, infertility and new reproductive technologies. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L., Hudson, N., Rapport, F., Johnson, M., & Bharadwaj, A. (2006b). Public perceptions of gamete donation in British South Asian Communities. Report on ESRC study. Leicester: De Montfort University.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L., Hudson, N., Rapport, F., Katbamna, S., & Johnson, M. (2007b). “I know about one treatment where they keep the egg somewhere”: British South Asian community understandings of infertility and its treatment. Diversity in Health and Social Care, 4, 113–121.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L., Hudson, N., Rapport, F., Katbamna, S., & Johnson, M. (2006a). British South Asian Communities and Infertility Services. Human Fertility, 9, 37–45.
   Google Scholar
• Culley, L., Rapport, F., Katbamna, S., Johnson, M., & Hudson, N. (2004). A study of the provision of infertility services to South Asian Communities. Final report to NHS executive trent. Leicester: De Montfort University.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. (1998). Donor insemination and ‘Public Opinion’. In: Daniels K., Haimes E. (Eds), Donor insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p 151–172.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, J. (1999). Explicit Connections: ethnographic enquiry in North-West England. In: Edwards J., Franklin S., Hirsch E., Price F., Strathern M. (Eds), Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted conception. Manchester: Manchester University Press, p 60–85.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied progress: A cultural account of assisted conception. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greil, A., McQuillan, J., Benjamins, M., Johnson, D., Johnson, K., & Heinz, C. (2010). Specifying the effects of religion on medical help-seeking: the case of infertility. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 734–742.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haimes, E. (1993). Issues of gender in gamete donation. Social Science and Medicine, 36, 85–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, N., Culley, L., Rapport, F., Johnson, M., & Bharadwaj, A. (2009). “Public” perceptions of gamete donation: a research review. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 61–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inhorn, M.C. & van Balen, F., Eds. (2002). Infertility around the globe: New thinking on childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies. Berkley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inhorn, M.C. (2005). Fatwas and ARTS: IVF and gamete donation in Sunni v. Shi'a Islam. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 9, 291–318.
   Google Scholar
• Inhorn, M.C., Ceballo, R., & Nachtigall, R. (2009). Marginalized, invisible and unwanted: American minority struggles with infertility and assisted conception. In: Culley L., Hudson N., van Rooij F. (Eds), Marginalized reproduction: Ethnicity, infertility and new reproductive technologies. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Inhorn, M.C. (2003). Local babies, global science: Gender, religion and in vitro fertilization in Egypt. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kailasam, C., Sykes, K., & Jenkins, J. (2001). A survey of public attitudes to gamete donation. Journal of Fertility Counselling, 8, 45–48.
   Google Scholar
• Kazem, R., Thompson, L.A., Hamilton, M.P.R., & Templeton, A. (1995). Current attitudes towards egg donation among men and women. Human Reproduction, 10, 1543–1548.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kleinman, A.M. (1995). Local worlds of suffering: An interpersonal focus for ethnographies of illness experience. Qualitative Health Research, 2, 127–134.
   Google Scholar
• Konrad, M. (2005). Nameless relations: Anonymity, melanesia, and reproductive gift exchange between British ova donors and recipients. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books.
   Google Scholar
• Nash, C. (2004). Genetic kinship. Cultural Studies, 18, 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papreen, N., Sharma, A., Sabin, K., Begum, L., Ahsan, S.K., & Baqui, A.H. (2000). Living with infertility: experiences among urban slum populations in Bangladesh. Reproductive Health Matters, 8, 33–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purewal, S. & van den Akker O. (2009). Systematic review of oocyte donation: investigating attitudes, motivations and experiences. Human Reproduction Update, 15, 499–515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reissman, C.K. (2000). Stigma and everyday practices: childless women in South India. Gender and Society, 14, 111–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roudsari, R.L., Allan, H.T., & Smith, P.A. (2007). Looking at infertility through the lens of religion and spirituality: a review of the literature. Human Fertility, 10, 141–149.
   Google Scholar
• Schenker, J.G. (2005). Assisted reproduction practice: religious perspectives. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10, 310–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, C. (2005). Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tremayne, S. (2009). Law, ethics and donor technologies in Shia Iran. In: Birenbaum-Carmeli D., Inhorn M.C. (Eds), Assisting reproduction, testing genes. Global encounters with new biotechnologies. New York: Bergahn Books, p 144–163.
   Google Scholar
• Widge, A. (2005). Seeking conception: experiences of urban Indian women with in vitro fertilisation. Patient Education and Counseling, 59, 226–233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar