Characteristics of Spanish families created through surrogacy
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
12-09-2018
Anna María Morero
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8837-5960
Abstract
Despite the lack of quantitative data available on surrogacy in Spain, a number of indicators point out that it is an increasingly common way to access maternity and paternity today. This paper explores the main characteristics of Spanish families formed through surrogacy in different countries across the world. For this purpose, primary data obtained from the EMirrors survey will be provided. This survey aims to deepen the knowledge about the surrogacy processes undertaken by Spanish individuals to create their families, either with a partner or alone. Specifically, the results presented here offer a sociodemographic profile of the parents, but also show the motivations for choosing surrogacy and the main characteristics of these processes.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
surrogacy, Spain, maternity, paternity
References
18.000 menores siguen esperando una familia de acogida (12 de mayo de 2016). Servimedia. Recuperado de: www.servimedia.es/Noticias/Detalle.aspx?n=572950&s=23.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2012a).
Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carriers: an ASRM practice committee guideline. Fertility and Sterility, 97(6), 1301-1308.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2012b). Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 97(4), 835-842.
Atrapados en México con sus dos gemelos por un vacío legal (12 de febrero de 2015. La Vanguardia. Recuperado de: www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20150214/54427236643/atrapados-mexico-dos- gemelos-vacio-legal.html
Asociación Estatal de Acogimiento Familiar (s.f.). Tipos de acogimiento familiar. España. Recuperado de: www.aseaf.org/qu%C3%A9-es-el-acogimiento-familiar/tipos-de-acogimiento-familiar/
Bailey, A. (2011). Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a Reproductive Justice Account of Indian Surrogacy. Hypatia, 26(4), 715-741. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01168.x.
Bergman, K. et. al. (2010). Gay Men Who Become Fathers Via Surrogacy: The Transition to Parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(2), 111-141. doi: 10.1080/15504281003704942.
Brunet, L. et.al. (2013). A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Bruselas: Policy Department of Citizen's Right and Constitutional Affairs. Recuperado de: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2013/474403/IPOL-JURI_ET(2013)474403_EN.pdf
Chakravarthi, I. (2016). Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Gains and Losses. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 23(1), 133–156.
Ciccarelli, J., y Beckman, L. (2005). Navigating Rough Waters: an Overview of Psychological Aspects of Surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues, 61(1), 21-43. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2005.00392.x.
Comité de Bioética de España (2017). Informe del Comité de Bioética de España sobre los aspectos éticos y jurídicos de la maternidad subrogada. Recuperado de: http://assets.comitedebioetica.es/files/documentacion/es/informe_comite_bioetica_aspectos_eticos_juridicos_maternidad_subrogada.pdf.
Darnovsky, M., y Beeson, D. (2014). Report for Thematic Area 5 International Forum of Intercountry Adoption and Global Surrogacy. Working Paper Global Surrogacy Practices. The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies.
Dempsey, D. (2012). More Like a Donor or More Like a Father? Gay Men's Concepts of Relatedness to Children. Sexualities, 15(2), 156-174.
Dempsey, D. (2013). Surrogacy, Gay Male Couples and the Significance of Biogenetic Paternity. New Genetics and Society, 32(1), 37-53. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2012.735859.
Deonandan, R. (2015). Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 8, 111–119. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S63862.
Ekis, K. (2013). Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press.
Escoda, E. (2013). Spain. En L. Brunet et. al. (Eds.), A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States. Bruselas: Policy Department of Citizen's Right and Constitutional Affairs (pp. 351-367). Recuperado de: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2013/474403/IPOL-JURI_ET(2013)474403_EN.pdf.
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) (2015). Revised Guidelines for Good Practice in IVF Laboratories. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Grimbergen: ESHRE.
Farnós Amorós, E. (2011). Acceso a la reproducción asistida por parejas del mismo sexo en España: estado de la cuestión, propuestas y retos. Revista de Derecho y Familia, 49, 153-181.
Golombok, S. (2015). Modern Families Parents and Children in New Family Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gryshchenko, M., y Pravdyuk, A. (2016). Gestational Surrogacy in Ukraine. En E.S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 25-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horsey, K., Smith, N., Norcross, S., y Ghevaert, L. (2015). Myth Busting and Reform Surrogacy in the UK. Report of the Surrogacy UK Working Group on Surrogacy Law Reform. Canterbury: Surrogacy UK-Kent Law School-Michelmores-Progress Educational Trust. Recuperado de www.surrogacyuk.org/Downloads/Surrogacy%20in%20the%20UK%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
Inhorn, M. C., y Gürtin, Z. B. (2011). Cross-border Reproductive Care: a Future Research Agenda. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), 665-676. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.002.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) (2015). España en cifras. Madrid: INE Recuperado de: www.ine.es/prodyser/espa_cifras/2015/files/assets/basic-html/page-1.html#
Jacobson, H. (2016). Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies. Nueva Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Jociles, M. I. (Ed.). (2016). Revelaciones, filiaciones y biotecnologías. Una etnografía de la comunicación de los orígenes a los hijos e hijas concebidos mediante donación reproductiva. 1ª ed. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Lysytsia, S. (2011). 26 Law regulation of ART in Ukraine. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22, S104. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(11)60043-6.
Koert, E., y Daniluk, J. (2016). Psychological and Interpersonal Factors in Gestational Surrogacy. En E.S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 70-77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroløkke, C., y Pant S. (2012). "I only need her uterus": neo-liberal discourses on transnational surrogacy. NORA. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20(4), 233-248. doi: 10.1080/08038740.2012.729535.
Lamm. E. (2013). Gestación por sustitución. Ni maternidad subrogada ni vientres de alquiler. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, Publicacions i Edicions, D.L.
Marre, D., San Román, B., y Guerra, D. (2017). On Reproductive Work in Spain: Transnational Adoption, Egg Donation, Surrogacy. Medical Anthropology, 37(2), 158-173. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2017.1361947.
Orejudo, P. (2013). Spain. En K. Trimmings y P. Beaumont (Eds.), International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level. Londres: Hart Publishing.
Parks, J. A. (2016). Gestational Surrogacy and the Feminist Perspective. En E. S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 25-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ragone, H. (1996). Chasing the Blood Tie: Surrogate Mothers, Adoptive Mothers and Fathers. American Ethnologist, 23(2), 352-365.
Rudrappa, S. (2012). Working India's reproduction assembly line: surrogacy and reproductive rights?. Western Humanities Review, 66(3), 77-102.
SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health. (2012). Birthing a market. A study on commercial surrogacy. Nueva Delhi: SAMA. Recuperado de http://www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/e/e8/Sama_Birthing_A_Market.pdf.
SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health (2010). Unravelling the Fertility Industry: Challenges and Strategies for Movement Building. Report of International Consultation. Nueva Delhi: SAMA. Recuperado de http://www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/c/c5/ARTConsultation2010SAMA.pdf.
SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health. (2006). ARTs and women. Assistance in reproduction or subjugation?. Nueva Delhi: SAMA. www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/3/38/Sama_ARTs_and_Women.pdf.
Scherman, R. et. al. (2016). Global Commercial Surrogacy and International Adoption: Parallels and Differences. Adoption & Fostering, 40(1), 20-35.
Selman, P. (2012). Global Trends in Intercountry Adoption: 2001-2010. Adoption Advocate, 44, 1-17. www.adoptioncouncil.org/images/stories/documents/NCFA_ADOPTION_ADVOCATE_NO44.pdf
Shalev, C. (1989). Birth power: the case for surrogacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smietana, M. et. al. (2014). Family Relationships in Gay Father Families with Young Children in Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. En T. Freeman et. al (Eds.), Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities (p.192-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smietana, M. (2016). "Families like we'd always known"? Spanish Gay Fathers' Normalization Narratives in Transnational Surrogacy. En M. Lie y N. Lykke (Eds.), Assisted Reproduction Across Borders: Feminist Perspectives on Normalizations, Disruptions and Transmissions (pp. 49-60). Nueva York-Londres: Routledge.
Snyder, S. H. (2016). Reproductive Surrogacy in the United States of America Trajectories and Trends. En E. S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 276-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spar, D. (2006). The baby business: How money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Teman, E. (2008). The Social Construction of Surrogacy Research: an Anthropological Critique of the Psychosocial Scholarship on Surrogate Motherhood. Social Science & Medicine, 67(7), 1104-1112.
Teman, E. (2010). Birthing a Mother. The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self. California: University California Press.
Vilar, S. (2014). Situación actual de la gestación por sustitución. Revista de Derecho UNED, 14, 897-932.
Widdance-Twine, F. (2014). Outsourcing the Womb. Race, Class, and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market, 2.ª edición. Nueva York: Routledge.
Whittaker A. (2015). Thai in Vitro: Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Thailand. Londres: Berghahn Books.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2012a).
Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carriers: an ASRM practice committee guideline. Fertility and Sterility, 97(6), 1301-1308.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2012b). Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 97(4), 835-842.
Atrapados en México con sus dos gemelos por un vacío legal (12 de febrero de 2015. La Vanguardia. Recuperado de: www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20150214/54427236643/atrapados-mexico-dos- gemelos-vacio-legal.html
Asociación Estatal de Acogimiento Familiar (s.f.). Tipos de acogimiento familiar. España. Recuperado de: www.aseaf.org/qu%C3%A9-es-el-acogimiento-familiar/tipos-de-acogimiento-familiar/
Bailey, A. (2011). Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a Reproductive Justice Account of Indian Surrogacy. Hypatia, 26(4), 715-741. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01168.x.
Bergman, K. et. al. (2010). Gay Men Who Become Fathers Via Surrogacy: The Transition to Parenthood. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6(2), 111-141. doi: 10.1080/15504281003704942.
Brunet, L. et.al. (2013). A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Bruselas: Policy Department of Citizen's Right and Constitutional Affairs. Recuperado de: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2013/474403/IPOL-JURI_ET(2013)474403_EN.pdf
Chakravarthi, I. (2016). Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Gains and Losses. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 23(1), 133–156.
Ciccarelli, J., y Beckman, L. (2005). Navigating Rough Waters: an Overview of Psychological Aspects of Surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues, 61(1), 21-43. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-4537.2005.00392.x.
Comité de Bioética de España (2017). Informe del Comité de Bioética de España sobre los aspectos éticos y jurídicos de la maternidad subrogada. Recuperado de: http://assets.comitedebioetica.es/files/documentacion/es/informe_comite_bioetica_aspectos_eticos_juridicos_maternidad_subrogada.pdf.
Darnovsky, M., y Beeson, D. (2014). Report for Thematic Area 5 International Forum of Intercountry Adoption and Global Surrogacy. Working Paper Global Surrogacy Practices. The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies.
Dempsey, D. (2012). More Like a Donor or More Like a Father? Gay Men's Concepts of Relatedness to Children. Sexualities, 15(2), 156-174.
Dempsey, D. (2013). Surrogacy, Gay Male Couples and the Significance of Biogenetic Paternity. New Genetics and Society, 32(1), 37-53. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2012.735859.
Deonandan, R. (2015). Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 8, 111–119. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S63862.
Ekis, K. (2013). Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press.
Escoda, E. (2013). Spain. En L. Brunet et. al. (Eds.), A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States. Bruselas: Policy Department of Citizen's Right and Constitutional Affairs (pp. 351-367). Recuperado de: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2013/474403/IPOL-JURI_ET(2013)474403_EN.pdf.
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) (2015). Revised Guidelines for Good Practice in IVF Laboratories. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Grimbergen: ESHRE.
Farnós Amorós, E. (2011). Acceso a la reproducción asistida por parejas del mismo sexo en España: estado de la cuestión, propuestas y retos. Revista de Derecho y Familia, 49, 153-181.
Golombok, S. (2015). Modern Families Parents and Children in New Family Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gryshchenko, M., y Pravdyuk, A. (2016). Gestational Surrogacy in Ukraine. En E.S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 25-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horsey, K., Smith, N., Norcross, S., y Ghevaert, L. (2015). Myth Busting and Reform Surrogacy in the UK. Report of the Surrogacy UK Working Group on Surrogacy Law Reform. Canterbury: Surrogacy UK-Kent Law School-Michelmores-Progress Educational Trust. Recuperado de www.surrogacyuk.org/Downloads/Surrogacy%20in%20the%20UK%20Report%20FINAL.pdf.
Inhorn, M. C., y Gürtin, Z. B. (2011). Cross-border Reproductive Care: a Future Research Agenda. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), 665-676. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.002.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE) (2015). España en cifras. Madrid: INE Recuperado de: www.ine.es/prodyser/espa_cifras/2015/files/assets/basic-html/page-1.html#
Jacobson, H. (2016). Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies. Nueva Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Jociles, M. I. (Ed.). (2016). Revelaciones, filiaciones y biotecnologías. Una etnografía de la comunicación de los orígenes a los hijos e hijas concebidos mediante donación reproductiva. 1ª ed. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Lysytsia, S. (2011). 26 Law regulation of ART in Ukraine. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22, S104. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(11)60043-6.
Koert, E., y Daniluk, J. (2016). Psychological and Interpersonal Factors in Gestational Surrogacy. En E.S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 70-77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroløkke, C., y Pant S. (2012). "I only need her uterus": neo-liberal discourses on transnational surrogacy. NORA. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 20(4), 233-248. doi: 10.1080/08038740.2012.729535.
Lamm. E. (2013). Gestación por sustitución. Ni maternidad subrogada ni vientres de alquiler. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, Publicacions i Edicions, D.L.
Marre, D., San Román, B., y Guerra, D. (2017). On Reproductive Work in Spain: Transnational Adoption, Egg Donation, Surrogacy. Medical Anthropology, 37(2), 158-173. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2017.1361947.
Orejudo, P. (2013). Spain. En K. Trimmings y P. Beaumont (Eds.), International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level. Londres: Hart Publishing.
Parks, J. A. (2016). Gestational Surrogacy and the Feminist Perspective. En E. S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 25-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ragone, H. (1996). Chasing the Blood Tie: Surrogate Mothers, Adoptive Mothers and Fathers. American Ethnologist, 23(2), 352-365.
Rudrappa, S. (2012). Working India's reproduction assembly line: surrogacy and reproductive rights?. Western Humanities Review, 66(3), 77-102.
SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health. (2012). Birthing a market. A study on commercial surrogacy. Nueva Delhi: SAMA. Recuperado de http://www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/e/e8/Sama_Birthing_A_Market.pdf.
SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health (2010). Unravelling the Fertility Industry: Challenges and Strategies for Movement Building. Report of International Consultation. Nueva Delhi: SAMA. Recuperado de http://www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/c/c5/ARTConsultation2010SAMA.pdf.
SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health. (2006). ARTs and women. Assistance in reproduction or subjugation?. Nueva Delhi: SAMA. www.communityhealth.in/~commun26/wiki/images/3/38/Sama_ARTs_and_Women.pdf.
Scherman, R. et. al. (2016). Global Commercial Surrogacy and International Adoption: Parallels and Differences. Adoption & Fostering, 40(1), 20-35.
Selman, P. (2012). Global Trends in Intercountry Adoption: 2001-2010. Adoption Advocate, 44, 1-17. www.adoptioncouncil.org/images/stories/documents/NCFA_ADOPTION_ADVOCATE_NO44.pdf
Shalev, C. (1989). Birth power: the case for surrogacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smietana, M. et. al. (2014). Family Relationships in Gay Father Families with Young Children in Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom. En T. Freeman et. al (Eds.), Relatedness in Assisted Reproduction: Families, Origins and Identities (p.192-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smietana, M. (2016). "Families like we'd always known"? Spanish Gay Fathers' Normalization Narratives in Transnational Surrogacy. En M. Lie y N. Lykke (Eds.), Assisted Reproduction Across Borders: Feminist Perspectives on Normalizations, Disruptions and Transmissions (pp. 49-60). Nueva York-Londres: Routledge.
Snyder, S. H. (2016). Reproductive Surrogacy in the United States of America Trajectories and Trends. En E. S. Sills (Ed.), Handbook of Gestational Surrogacy: International Clinical Practice & Policy Issues (pp. 276-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spar, D. (2006). The baby business: How money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Teman, E. (2008). The Social Construction of Surrogacy Research: an Anthropological Critique of the Psychosocial Scholarship on Surrogate Motherhood. Social Science & Medicine, 67(7), 1104-1112.
Teman, E. (2010). Birthing a Mother. The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self. California: University California Press.
Vilar, S. (2014). Situación actual de la gestación por sustitución. Revista de Derecho UNED, 14, 897-932.
Widdance-Twine, F. (2014). Outsourcing the Womb. Race, Class, and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market, 2.ª edición. Nueva York: Routledge.
Whittaker A. (2015). Thai in Vitro: Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Thailand. Londres: Berghahn Books.
Section
Single Topic Issues
Papeles del CEIC is distributed under the licence Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 ES)
Usted es libre de:
- copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra
Bajo las condiciones siguientes:
- Reconocimiento — Debe reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciador (pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene su apoyo o apoyan el uso que hace de su obra).
- No comercial — No puede utilizar esta obra para fines comerciales.
- Sin obras derivadas — No se puede alterar, transformar o generar una obra derivada a partir de esta obra.
Entendiendo que:
- Renuncia — Alguna de estas condiciones puede no aplicarse si se obtiene el permiso del titular de los derechos de autor
- Dominio Público — Cuando la obra o alguno de sus elementos se halle en el dominio público según la ley vigente aplicable, esta situación no quedará afectada por la licencia.
- Otros derechos — Los derechos siguientes no quedan afectados por la licencia de ninguna manera:
- Los derechos derivados de usos legítimos u otras limitaciones reconocidas por ley no se ven afectados por lo anterior.
- Los derechos morales del autor;
- Derechos que pueden ostentar otras personas sobre la propia obra o su uso, como por ejemplo derechos de imagen o de privacidad.
- Aviso — Al reutilizar o distribuir la obra, tiene que dejar bien claro los términos de la licencia de esta obra.
The author can use his/her article freely always indicating that it has been published in Papeles del CEIC. International Journal on Collective Identity Research. Any re-edition of the article must be approved by the journal editorial team.