'What are you going to do, confiscate their passports?' Professional perspectives on cross-border reproductive travel
'What are you going to do, confiscate their passports?' Professional perspectives on cross-border reproductive travel
复制标题
“你要做什么，没收他们的护照？”
DOI：
10.1080/02646838.2012.762084
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Culley L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Culley L
目的本文报道了一项英国研究的结果，该研究探讨了海外旅行治疗不孕不育的现象。该项目的第一阶段旨在探索不孕不育临床医生和其他参与生育治疗的专业人员如何理解跨境生殖旅行的性质和后果。背景有迹象表明，由于各种原因，越来越多的英国人跨越国界旅行，以获得辅助生殖技术。虽然对患者的研究正在增加，但对于健康专业人员和其他与不孕症患者密切相关的人是如何看待“生育旅游”的，我们知之甚少。方法采用解释主义的方法，这项探索性研究包括与20名专业人士进行集中讨论，这些人了解那些曾在国外或正在考虑在英国以外接受治疗的患者。半结构化访谈被记录下来，逐字转录，并进行主题分析。结果根据数据，形成了三个概念类别：“自主患者”、“作为风险的跨境旅行”和“将伤害降至最低的职业责任”。专业人士对“生育旅行者”的描述微妙、复杂，有时甚至自相矛盾，认为他们很脆弱，知识渊博，从事危险行为，而且积极地将其降至最低。结论认为，州政府应该设法防止跨境治疗的建议几乎没有得到支持。相反，人们主张采取不那么直接的策略来保护患者的利益。在出国旅行之前、期间和之后，需要进一步的研究来评估专业意见和行动对患者选择和患者治疗经验的影响。
ObjectiveThis article reports findings from a UK-based study which explored the phenomenon of overseas travel for fertility treatment. The first phase of this project aimed to explore how infertility clinicians and others professionally involved in fertility treatment understand the nature and consequences of cross-border reproductive travel.BackgroundThere are indications that, for a variety of reasons, people from the UK are increasingly travelling across national borders to access assisted reproductive technologies. While research with patients is growing, little is known about how ‘fertility tourism’ is perceived by health professionals and others with a close association with infertility patients.MethodsUsing an interpretivist approach, this exploratory research included focussed discussions with 20 people professionally knowledgeable about patients who had either been abroad or were considering having treatment outside the UK. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and subjected to a thematic analysis.ResultsThree conceptual categories are developed from the data: ‘the autonomous patient’; ‘cross-border travel as risk’, and ‘professional responsibilities in harm minimisation’. Professionals construct nuanced, complex and sometimes contradictory narratives of the ‘fertility traveller’, as vulnerableandknowledgeable; as engaged in risky behaviourandin its active minimisation.ConclusionsThere is little support for the suggestion that states should seek to prevent cross-border treatment. Rather, an argument is made for less direct strategies to safeguard patient interests. Further research is required to assess the impact of professional views and actions on patient choices and patient experiences of treatment, before, during and after travelling abroad.