Современные вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии: нейропсихиатрические, социально-психологические, морально-этические аспекты

Полный текст:   Только для подписчиков

Рекомендуемое оформление библиографической ссылки:

Тювина Н.А., Николаевская А.О., Морозова В.Д. Современные вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии: нейропсихиатрические, социально-психологические, морально-этические аспекты // Российский психиатрический журнал. 2021. №6. С. 88-96.

Аннотация

В научном обзоре с целью освещения как преимуществ, так и возможных негативных последствий особенностей вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий как современного и результативного способа преодоления женского бесплодия приведены данные о психическом и физическом здоровье детей, рождённых с помощью вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий, а также затронуты вопросы, касающиеся социально-психологических, морально-этических, культурально-религиозных и правовых аспектов процедуры экстракорпорального оплодотворения в контексте суррогатного материнства.

Ключевые слова бесплодие; вспомогательные репродуктивные технологии; экстракорпоральное оплодотворение; суррогатное материнство; психические расстройства; психоневрологические нарушения у детей

Литература

1. World Health Organization. Accelerating progress towards the attainment of international reproductive health goals. A framework for implementing the WHO global reproductive health strategy. Geneva: WHO. 2006. URL: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/general/RHR_06.3/en/ (accessed on: 20.10.2021). 2. Rusanova NE. Philosophical analysis of procreation in the value dimension. Population and Economics. 2020;4(4):5–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/popecon.4.e58271 3. United Nations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, Item 10 of the provisional agenda. New York: United Nations; 2006. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A-HRC-20-15-Add2_en.pdf (accessed on: 20.10.2021). 4. ICMART and WHO Revised Glossary on ART Terminology. 2009. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6920899_The_ICMART_glossary_on_ART_terminology (accessed on: 20.10.2021). 5. Zivaridelavar M, Kazemi A, Kheirabadi GR. The effect of assisted reproduction treatment on mental health in fertile women. J Educ Health Promot. 2016;5:9. DOI: https://www.ohchr.org/10.4103/2277-9531.184552 6. Nifantova RV, Krivenko NV. Reproduktivnye tekhnologii kak sotsial'nye innovatsii v sisteme zdravookhraneniya. Ekonomika regiona. 2014;3:191–7. (In Russ.) 7. Smerdon UR. Crossing bodies, crossing borders: international surrogacy between the United States and India. Cumberland Law Rev. 2008;39:15. 8. Bhattacharyya R. Discounted life: the price of global surrogacy in India. Gend Place Cult. 2016;23(12):1813–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1211585 9. Daniel R. Ciocca, Gabriela Delgado. The reality of scientific research in Latin America; an insider’s perspective. Cell Stress Chaperones. 2017;22(6):847–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12192-017-0815-8 10. Patel N.H., Jadeja Y.D., Bhadarka H.K. et al. Insight into Different Aspects of Surrogacy Practices. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11(3):212–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_138_17 11. Moorti S. ‘Womb Farms’ in India: Orientalism in Scientific Garb. Political Science. 2011. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%22Womb-Farms%22-in-India%3A-Orientalism-in-Scientific-Moorti/873a0634ff200530ddd04b2986893ca06074f8d9#citing-papers (accessed on: 20.10.2021). 12. Baumhofer E. Commodifying the Female Body: Outsourcing Surrogacy in a Global Market. California: UCLA Center for the Study of Women; 2012. 24 р. 13. Palattiyil G, Blyth E, Sidhva D, Balakrishnan G. Globalization and cross-border reproductive services: ethical implications of surrogacy in India for social work. Int Soc Work. 2010;5:686–700. 14. Deomampo D. Globalization and Transnational Surrogacy in India: Outsourcing Life. S. Das Gupta, S. Das Dasgupta, editors. South Asia: J South Asian Studies. 2014;37(4):739–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2014.961232 15. Burdo EP. Ponyatie surrogatnogo materinstva i ego pravovoe regulirovanie. Probely v Rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve. 2014;(4):54–6. (In Russ.) 16. Savel'ev DB. Soglashenie v semeinoi sfere: Uch. posobie. Moscow: Prospekt; 2017. p. 95. (In Russ.) 17. Bryukhina ER, Tryastsina OS. Surrogatnoe materinstvo: “za” i “protiv”. Problemnye voprosy normativnogo regulirovaniya. Vestnik PGGPU. Seriya № 3. Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki. 2017;(3):164–74. (In Russ.) 18. Middelburg KJ, Heineman MJ, Bos AF, Hadders-Algra M. Neuromotor, cognitive, language and behavioural outcome in children born following IVF or ICSI-a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:219–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmn005 19. Bay B, Mortensen EL, Kesmodel US. Assisted reproduction and child neurodevelopmental outcomes: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:844–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.034 20. Hart R, Norman RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment. Part II – Mental health and development outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:244–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt002 21. Stromberg B, Dahlquist G, Ericson A, et al. Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet. 2002;359(9305):461–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07674-2 22. Knoester M, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. Leiden Artificial Reproductive Techniques Follow-up Project. Cognitive development of singletons born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(2):289–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.090 23. Sandin S, Nygren KG, Iliadou A, et al. Autism and mental retardation among offspring born after in vitro fertilization. JAMA. 2013;310(1):75–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.7222 24. Kallen AJ, Finnstrom OO, Lindam AP, et al. Is there an increased risk for drug treated attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children born after in vitro fertilization? Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2011;15(3);247–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2010.12.004 25. Svahn MF, Hargreave M, Nielsen TS, et al. Mental disorders in childhood and young adulthood among children born to women with fertility problems. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2129–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev172 26. Kissin DM, Zhang Y, Boulet SL, et al. Association of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment and parental infertility diagnosis with autism in ART-conceived children. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:454–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu338 27. Liu L, Gao J, He X, et al. Association between assisted reproductive technology and the risk of autism spectrum disorders in the offspring: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:46207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46207 28. Diop H, Cabral H, Gopal D, et al. Early autism spectrum disorders in children born to fertile, subfertile, and ART-treated women. Matern Child Health J. 2019;23:1489–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-019-02770-z 29. Klemetti R, Sevóna T, Gissler M, Hemminki E. Health of children born as a result of in vitro fertilization. Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):1819–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0735 30. Atlasov VO, Arzhanova ON, Sosheleva NG. Osobennosti rodorazresheniya i sostoyaniya novorozhdennykh u zhenshchin posle EKO. Zhurnal akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei. 2004;52(1):37–41. (In Russ.) 31. Bakhtiyarova VO. Sostoyanie zdorov'ya detei, rodivshikhsya v rezul'tate ektrakorporal'nogo oplodotvoreniya i iskusstvennoi inseminatsii [PhD thesis]. [Moscow (Russia)]: Nauch. tsentr akusherstva, ginekologii i perinatologii [Scientific Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology]; 1993. 22 р. (In Russ.) 32. Savvina OV, Lapshin IE. Vliyanie vspomogatel'nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologii na sovremennoe obshchestvo (na primere Indii). In: Materialy konferentsii “Chelovek i obshchestvo v kontekste sovremennosti”. Filosofskie chteniya pamyati professora PK Grechko. Moscow: RUDN; 2017. Vol. 1. p. 303‒17. (In Russ.) 33. Kiseleva MA. Zdorov'e detei, rozhdennykh donoshennymi v rezul'tate primeneniya vspomogatel'nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologii. Kurskii nauchno-prakticheskii vestnik “Chelovek i ego zdorov'e”. 2016;(1):32–36. (In Russ.) 34. Andreadou MT, Katsaras GN, Talimtzi P, et al. Association of assisted reproductive technology with autism spectrum disorder in the offspring: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:2741–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04187-9 35. Kuznetsova VS, Loginova IN, Korotkikh NN. Osobennosti adaptatsii v rannem neonatal'nom periode novorozhdennykh detei, rozhdennykh u zhenshchin s besplodiem v anamneze posle tsiklov ekstrakorporal'nogo oplodotvoreniya. Zhurnal teoreticheskoi i prakticheskoi meditsiny. 2004;2(1):59–62. (In Russ.) 36. Zyuzikova ZS, Volevodz NN, Grigoryan OR, et al. The state of health of children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: the position of endocrinologist. Problems of Endocrinology. 2018;64(4):235–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14341/probl9470 37. Mel'nik LA, Iova AS, Shchugareva LM. Sostoyanie zdorov'ya detei, rozhdennykh pri pomoshchi vspomogatel'nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologii. Pediatriya. 2017;96(1):110–6. (In Russ.) 38. Shenfield F, Pennings G, Cohen J, et al. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 10: surrogacy. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(10):2705–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei147 39. Volgsten H, Schmidt L, Skoog Svanberg A, et al. Psychiatric disorders in women and men up to five years after undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment – a prospective cohort study. Human Fertility. 2019;22(4):277–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2018.1474279 40. Söderström-Anttila V., Wennerholm U.B., Loft A. et al. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families – a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update. 2016;22(2):260–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv046 41. Pande A. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters? Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(5):618–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.007 42. Isupova OG. Vspomogatel'nye reproduktivnye tekhnologii: novye vozmozhnosti. Demograficheskoe obozrenie. 2017;4(1):35–64. (In Russ.) 43. Roberts EF. God’s Laboratory: Assisted Reproduction in the Andes. California: University of California Press; 2012. 298 р. 44. Deonandan R, Green S, van Beinum A. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(12):742–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100 45. Savvina OV. Diskurs o moral'noi opravdannosti i regulirovanii meditsinskikh biotekhnologii (na primere ekstrakorporal'nogo oplodotvoreniya). Eticheskaya mysl'. 2019;19(1):104–17. (In Russ.) 46. Fischer S, Gillman I. Surrogate motherhood: attachment, attitudes and social support. Psychiatry. 1991;54(1):13–20. PMID: 2023971 47. Cranley MS. Development of a tool for the measurement of maternal attachment during pregnancy. Nurs Res. 1981;30(5):281–4. PMID: 6912989 48. Lorenceau ES, Mazzucca L, Tisseron S, Pizitz TD. A cross-cultural study on surrogate mother's empathy and maternal-foetal attachment. Women Birth. 2015;28(2):154–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2014.11.006 49. Van den Akker OB. Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13(1):53–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dml039 50. Gnatik EN. Geneticheskaya inzheneriya cheloveka: vyzovy, problemy, riski. Moscow: Librokom; 2009. 240 р. (In Russ.) 51. Jadva V, Golombok S, Scott R, et al. Surrogacy: issues, concerns and complexities In: Regulating Reproductive Donation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. 126–39. 52. Jadva V, Murray C, Lycett E, et al. Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(10):2196–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg397 53. Imrie S, Jadva V. The long-term experiences of surrogates: relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(4):424–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.004 54. Snowdon C. What makes a mother? Interviews with women involved in egg donation and surrogacy. Birth. 1994;21(2):77–84. PMID: 11644638



DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.47877/1560-957Х-2021-10610

Метрики статей

Загрузка метрик ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM