What motivates kinship? Exploring the mobilities of gametes and individuals in the argentine biomedical context
Keywords:
reproductive mobilities, gametes, eggs and sperm, bioethics, assisted reproduction, ArgentinaAbstract
In recent years, various studies have explored reproductive mobilities, especially in Europe, focusing on normative restrictions in cross-border reproductive care. This study aimed to explore, conversely, the mobilities of gametes and persons in contexts with fragmented healthcare systems and fragile or non-existent regulatory frameworks. Eleven interviews were conducted with reproductive health professionals to understand if and how people and gametes move or are moved to produce reproductive events in Argentina. From the analysis of the collected material, three logics motivating the movements of gametes and individuals were identified. The first one refers to situations where a logic of choice prevails: the ability to see, select, decide, and preserve eggs and sperm. This logic assumes for patients the possibility of becoming active participants in reproductive decisions. The second, which we call logic of affinity, shows that the pursuit of certain traits in donors motivates selection that can sometimes involve transcending of country borders. Finally, a third logic that we call the health risk logic, promotes the movement of gametes and persons to and from the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires. The identification of these logics has led to the conclusion that in the production of technologically mediated kinship, strategies involving user desires coexist with offerings from healthcare professionals that allow expectations to be met.
References
Ariza, L. (2012) “Gestión poblacional del parentesco y normatividad: la producción de variabilidad biológica en el intercambio de gametas de la reproducción asistida”. En D. Jones, C. Figari y S. Barrón López (eds.). La producción de la sexualidad: políticas y regulaciones sexuales en Argentina (pp. 127-146). Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Ariza, L. (2014) “Fotografías, registros médicos y la producción material del parentesco: acerca de la coordinación fenotípica en la reproducción asistida”. En A. Cepeda y C. Rustuyburu (eds.). De las hormonas sexuadas al Viagra: ciencia, medicina y sexualidad en Argentina y Brasil (pp.173-206). Mar del Plata: Eudem.
Ariza, L. (2015) Keeping Up Appearances in the Argentine Fertility Clinic. Making Kinship Visible through Race in Donor Conception. Tecnoscienza. Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 6, 1, 5-31.
Ariza, L. (2020) Ordinary Ethics. Examining Ethical Work in the Argentine Fertility Clinic. Tapuya. Latin American Science, Technology & Society, 3, 2, 303-321.
Ariza, L. (2023) “Automatización y escenarios médicos (post-)genómicos”. En H. Borisonik y F. C. Rocca (eds.). ¿Un futuro automatizado? Perspectivas críticas y tecnodiversidades (pp. 13-126). San Martín: UNSAM Edita.
Babbie, E. (2014) The Basics of Social Research, Sixth Edition, International Edition, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Becker, G., Butler, A., y Nachtigall, R. D. (2005) Resemblance Talk: A Challenge for Parents whose Children were Conceived with Donor Gametes in the US. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 6, 1300-1309.
Bergmann, S. (2015) “Assisted authenticity: Naturalisation, regulation and the enactment of “race” through donor matching”. En V. Kantsa, L. Papadopoulou y G. Zanini (eds.). (In)Fertile Citizens: Anthropological and Legal Challenges of Assisted Reproduction Technologies (pp. 231-246). Mitilene: University of the Aegean.
Bestard, J. (1998). Artificial y natural: ¿Qué queda de la naturaleza? Parentesco y modernidad (pp. 201-237). Barcelona: Paidós.
Bestard, J. y Marre, D. (2004). El cuerpo familiar: personas, cuerpos y semejanzas. En D. Marre y J. Bestard (eds.). La adopción y el acogimiento: presente y perspectivas (pp. 293-312). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Branzini, C. y Osés, R. (2020) “Consanguinidad”. En SAMER, Tratado de Reproducción Humana. Fisiopatología, fertilización asistida, reprogenética y aplicaciones clínicas (pp. 505-512). Buenos Aires: Editorial Ascune.
Desy, A., y Marre, D. (2022). Reproductive Exclusion: French Clients of Cross-Border Reproductive Care in Barcelona. En C. S. Guerzoni, y C. Mattalucci (eds.) Reproductive Governance and Bodily Materiality (pp. 163-177). Leeds, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Farji Neer, A. (2015) Cuerpo, derechos y salud integral: Análisis de los debates parlamentarios de las leyes de Identidad de Género y Fertilización Asistida (Argentina, 2011-2013). SaludColectiva, 11, 3, 351-365.
Franklin, S. (1998). Making Miracles: Scientific Progress and the Facts of Life, en S. Franklin y H. Ragoné (eds.). Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation (pp. 102-117). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Franklin, S. (2013). Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press.
Frohlick, S., Lozanski, K., Speier, A., & Sheller, M. (2019). Mobilities Meet Reproductive Vibes Transfers, 9(1), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2019.090108.
Glaser, B. y Strauss, A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Press.
Haraway D. (2021) Testigo_Modesto@Segundo_Milenio. HombreHembra©_Conoce_OncoRata® Feminismo y Tecnociencia. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Rara Avis.
Herrera, M. y Lamm, E. (2014) De identidad e identidades: el derecho a la información y el derecho a conocer los orígenes de niños nacidos de reproducción humana asistida heteróloga. La Ley, 155; 5-12.
Inhorn, M. C., y Patrizio, P. (2012). The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: twenty key findings for the new millennium. Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology, 24, 3, 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e328352140a.
Inhorn, M. C., y Gürtin, Z. B. (2011). Cross-border reproductive care: a future research agenda. Reproductive biomedicine online, 23, 5, 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.002.
Inhorn, M. C., y Patrizio, P. (2009). Rethinking reproductive "tourism" as reproductive "exile". Fertility and sterility, 92, 3, 904–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.055.
Jones, D., Ariza, L. y Pecheny, M. (2018). Sexual rights, Religion and Post-Neoliberalism in Argentina (2003–2015). Religion and Gender, 8, 1, 84-101.
Lafuente-Funes, S. (2021). Mercados reproductivos: crisis, deseo y desigualdad. Navarra: Editorial Katakrak Liburuak.
Lima N. S. (2018). Narrative Identity in Third Party Reproduction: Normative Aspects and Ethical Challenges. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 15(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9823-8.
Machin, R., Álvarez Plaza, C., y Puig Hernández, M. A. (2023). The reproductive silk route: transnational mobility of oocytes from Europe to Brazil. Mobilities, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2023.2220976.
Machin, R. (2022). Reproducción transnacional con terceros: el mercado reproductivo en Brasil. Inter disciplina, 10(28), 27-49.
Mackey M. E., Giordano, D., Estofán, G. y Morente, C., (2020). Registro Argentino de Fertilización Asistida (RAFA): datos 2018. Reproducción, 35(2), 63-74.
Mamo, L. (2005). Biomedicalizing kinship: sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties. Science as Culture, 14, 3, 237-264.
Martiniello, M. (2012) Beyond Race and Colour Lines and Scales in the Twenty- First Century? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35, 7, 1137-1142.
Massacese, J. (2023) Riesgos y promesas de la era posgenómica. Los estudios médicos personalizados. En H. Borisonik y F. C. Rocca (eds.) ¿Un futuro automatizado? Perspectivas críticas y tecnodiversidades (pp. 127-143). San Martín, Argentina: Unsam Edita.
M'charek, A. (2013) Beyond Fact of Fiction: On the Materiality of Race in Practice. Cultural Anthropology, 28, 3, 420-442.
Mol, A. (2002) The body multiple. Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care. Health and the problem of patient choice. Londres; Nueva York: Routledge.
Nordqvist, P. (2010) Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Family Resemblances in Lesbian Donor Conception. Sociology, 44, 6, 1128-1144.
Pavone, V. (2012). Ciencia, neoliberalismo y bioeconomía. Revista iberoamericana de ciencia tecnología y sociedad, 7(20), 145-161.
Regalado, P., y Rawe, V. (2020). First sperm and egg bank in Latin America with open identity donors: a five-year study on patients' and donors' preferences between anonymous and open-identity donation. Human Reproduction, 35, 95-96.
Regalado, P. (2020). La identidad en la donación de gametos. En: L. Jurkowski, N. S. Lima y M. Rossi (coords.), La producción del parentesco. Una mirada interdisciplinaria de la donación de óvulos y espermatozoides (249-272). Buenos Aires: Editorial Teseo.
Rivas Rivas, Ana María y Álvarez Plaza, Consuelo (2020). Etnografía de los mercados reproductivos: actores, instituciones y legislaciones. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Rose, N. (2013). Personalized medicine: promises, problems and perils of a new paradigm for healthcare. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 77, 341-352.
Schurr, C. (2019) Multiple mobilities in Mexico’s fertility industry, Mobilities, 14, 1, 103-119, https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2019.1522881.
Speier, A., Lozanski, K., & Frohlick, S. (2020). Reproductive mobilities. Mobilities, 15, 2, 107-119, https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2020.1726644.
Strathern, M. (1992). After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szkupinski Quiroga, S. (2007) Blood Is Thicker than Water: Policing Donor Insemination and the Reproduction of Whiteness. Hypatia, 22, 2, 143-161.
Telles, E. (2012) The Overlapping Concepts of Race and Colour in Latin America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35, 7, 1163-1168.
Tober D. y Pavone V. (2018). Las bioeconomías de la provisión de óvulos en Estados Unidos y en España: una comparación de los mercados médicos y las implicaciones en la atención a las donantes. Revista de Antropología Social, 27, 2, 261-286. https://doi.org/10.5209/RASO.61852.
Vertommen, S., Pavone, V., & Nahman, M. (2022). Global Fertility Chains: An Integrative Political Economy Approach to Understanding the Reproductive Bioeconomy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(1), 112-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921996460.
Viera Cherro, M. (2014). Los límites de la ciudadanía para las mujeres. Un análisis sobre la reproducción asistida en el Rio de la Plata. Antropología Experimental, 14, 207-224.
Wade, P. (2012a) Race, Kinship and the Ambivalence of Identity. En K. Schramm, D. Skinner y R. Rottenburg (eds.), Identity Politics and the New Genetics: Re/Creating Categories of Difference and Belonging (pp. 79-96). Oxford, Berghahn Books.
Wade, P. (2012b) Race and Skin Colour as Analytic Concepts. Ethnic and Ra- cial Studies, 35, 7, 1466-4356.
Zegers-Hochschild, F., Crosby, J. A., Musri, C., Souza, M. D. C. B., Martínez, A. G., Silva, A. A., Mojarra, J. M., Masoli, D., y Posada, N. (2021). Celebrating 30 years of ART in Latin America; and the 2018 report. JBRA assisted reproduction, 25, 4, 617–639.https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20210055.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Natacha Salome Lima, Lucía Ariza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The author retains the copyright and grants Revista de Bioética y Derecho the right of first publication of the article. All articles published in Revista de Bioética y Derecho are under Creative Commons licensing Recognition – Non Commercial – NoDerivedArtwork (by-nc-nd 4.0), which allows sharing the content with third parties, provided that they acknowledge its authorship, initial publication in this journal and the terms of the license. No commercial use of the original work or generation of derivative works is permitted.
