Form Of Reproductive Technology Research Articles

Mitochondrial diseases: causes and solutions (literature review)

The discovery of mitochondrial desoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mutations and the association of these mutations with the development of severe, sometimes, fatal diseases led to new forms of reproductive technologies, i.e., mitochondrial replacement therapy. Currently, researchers are investigating three main methods of mitochondrial replacement therapy: pronuclear transfer, maternal spindle transfer, and polar body genome transfer. Thanks to these methods, the transmission of faulty mitochondrial DNA from the mother to the next generation can be prevented, with the main goal of developing a healthy offspring free of genetic disorders and lethal mitochondrial diseases. However, the implementation of these technologies has raised several moral, social, and cultural concerns, as it marks the emergence of a child with genetic material from three parents for the first time. This review presents an objective summary of the causes of mitochondrial disorders and various techniques employed in mitochondrial replacement therapy, along with their outcomes.

Reproductive Autonomy and Reproductive Technology

The emergence of new forms of reproductive technology raise an increasingly complex array of social and ethical issues. Nevertheless, this paper focuses on commonplace reproductive technologies used during labor and birth such as ultrasound, fetal monitoring, episiotomy, epidurals, labor induction, amniotomy, and cesarean section. This paper maintains that social pressures increase women’s perceived need to such reproductive technologies and thus undermine women’s capacity to choose an elective cesarean or avoid an emergency cesarean. Routine, normalized use of technology interferes with the possibility of choosing use of technology where best suited through misdirecting laboring women to use technological resources whenever possible. This normalized use of technology decreases risk tolerance and increases dependence on technology for reassurance, which bears significant implications for self-trust and self-confidence. My account encourages women’s cultivation of autonomy as a capacity interconnected with our own attitudes and those of other persons; and as a function of cultivating trust and confidence in one’s body.

Recreating the vertical

Asked, a year before his death in 1922, why it was important to climb Mount Everest, the climber and writer George Mallory famously replied: 'Because it is there'. Mallory's intention was to stress the fact that, though the systematic climbing of mountains emerged within explicitly scientific paradigms (Schama 1995), science was not the point of mountaineering. Rather, its main point lay in exploring a meaningful response to the inviting 'there-ness' of landforms that were previously viewed as lying, like medieval forests, beyond the frontier of truly human being. In the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution, such thinking led to the cultivation of specific bodily techniques (Mauss 1934) for climbing mountains and to the parallel development of the material technology required to surmount steep snow, ice and rock. Today, base camp for a distinctly anthropological approach to mountaineering (rock-climbing being one of its offshoots) is the premise that the inviting 'there-ness' of mountains and the technical response of modem actors to this symbolic charge is historically generated and culturally embedded (Ortner 1999, MacFarlane 2004). Three questions suggest themselves. Firstly, what, in modem times, is the cultural nature of this compelling 'there-ness'? Secondly, how do climbing practices technically and culturally elaborate its evocative, if elusive, meaning? And, thirdly, why is it important to ask why? Indeed, should anthropologists even take time out from studying 'matters of life and death' (such as ethnicity, economy, religion or new forms of reproductive technology) to examine a traditionally marginal, if now rapidly growing, pastime? The counter-cultural and the mainstream Rock-climbing began to be distinguished from mountaineering as a specialized sport or 'activity' towards the end of the 19th century. It shared with the latter a passion for grapp ing with forms and degrees of the vertical in natural si uations and a reliance on similar technology. Nowadays rock-climbing equipment consists of ropes, helmets, harnesses, sma l ballet shoe-like rock boots and a rack of metallic protective 'gear' made up of karabiners, 'friends' and 'rocks', as well as fabric slings and 'quick-draws', all of which are either temporarily slotted into cracks in the rock by 'leaders' and taken out by 'seconds', or draped over 'spikes', pinnacles or 'bollards' of rock and then remov . (Alternatively, in 'sports climbing', leaders clip karabiners and rope into metal pegs or bolts, drilled and driven permanently into the rock.) Friction devices and anchors are held by the 'second' so that an active, 'lead' climber can be held without effort in the event of a fall; thus, provided that the equipment is in good operational condition an arranged correctly, and given enough cracks (courtesy of natural weathering), a system of 'protection' can be organized that, relative to high-altitude snow and ice climbing, confers reasonable levels of safety. Indeed, because of the relatively high levels of safety, because they are not normally affected by altitude, and because they wear footwear that adds friction, stays on the tiniest of ledges and toe-pokes the smallest of 'pockets' of rock, rock-climbers can make far more gymnastic 'moves' on uch smaller 'holds' than can high-altitude mountaineers (whose feet are shod with big, tough, insulated

Surrogate motherhood: demystifying the controversies

Surrogate motherhood is a ‘hot topic’ for discussion in the media, the medical and scientific community and in government For the people using surrogate arrangements, it is a way of overcoming childlessness. This article outlines some of the controversies surrounding the debates, and seeks to demystify them by suggesting that we focus on the evidence available. Failing the availability of sufficient evidence, we could borrow from the experiences of alternative forms of reproductive technology or adoption and fostering practices. The recent government report commissioned by Tessa Jowell the health minister, recommends we do not pay surrogates, except for the expenses, and that surrogates should only be allowed to offer themselves once for this practice, or twice for the same couple with a two year gap. Fostering practice has shown that payment for fostering services and repeated or professional fostering practice is an advantage. This demonstrates we have not consulted alternative practices, and have not learned from our past experiences for which evidence is available.