© 2024 Tatiana Mikhailovna KRIHTOVA
2024 – № 1 (27)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33876/2224-9680/2024-1-27/01
For citation: Krichtova T.M. (2024) Perception of the IVF Procedure in the Context of Childbearing Paradigms, Medical Anthropology and Bioethics, No. 1(27).
Tatiana Mikhailovna Krihtova –
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences;
Research Associate
The Sociology of Religion Laboratory
Orthodox St. Tikhon’s
University of the Humanities (PSTU)
(Moscow)
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2572-8316
E-mail: Krihtova@gmail.com
Keywords: reproduction, IVF, religion, extra-medical practices
Abstract. The article describes the perception of obstetrics paradigms among women who have resorted or are about to resort to in vitro fertilization. In this case, women become involved in complex relationships with medicine, their own family, and sometimes religious institutions, and they need to make decisions and, if possible, maintain their autonomy. Patients who turn to IVF can use a variety of non-medical methods and do it for different purposes: to regain control of their own body, to become an equal participant in the medical process, to contribute to the success of the procedure. The study was conducted using in-depth interviews. The data obtained were examined from the point of view of the reproductive paradigms identified by R. Davis-Floyd. We have seen that regardless of the choice of paradigm, a woman builds her reproductive history in such a way that she herself becomes the main decision-maker in it, choosing more appropriate ways to achieve results. In this case, religion is perceived as one of the ways to influence the situation, which can be used when the woman herself considers this method appropriate, which has almost nothing to do with her personal religious beliefs.
The article discusses the perception of obstetric paradigms among women who have used the method of in vitro fertilization. These women play an active role in a complex relationship between medicine, family, and religious institutions, and as a result, they must make their own decisions and maintain autonomy whenever possible. Patients who choose to undergo IVF may also incorporate a variety of non-medical methods for various reasons, such as regaining control over their own bodies, becoming equal participants in the medical process, and contributing to the success of the procedure.
The study was conducted using in-depth interviews, and the theoretical perspective of R. Davis-Floyd’s research was utilized. In the case of the technocratic paradigm, women reject non-medical methods as they believe these may interfere with the success of the IVF procedure. This rejection is also seen as an interaction with religion, and women may follow this paradigm at different stages of pregnancy planning.
In the holistic paradigm, women do not deny the authority of medicine but believe that the successful birth of a child depends on other factors. This paradigm is closer to those informants who initially planned to use IVF but then became pregnant naturally. From the standpoint of the humanistic paradigm, the ultimate success depends on various actions in different areas. Informants combine the IVF method with practices of traditional religions and magical rituals. Women who have become mothers using the IVF method after multiple attempts or are still in the planning process tend to choose this paradigm. We have observed women shaping their reproductive history where they are the primary decision-makers. Religion is one way to influence the situation, and it is used when a woman considers it appropriate, regardless of her personal religious beliefs.
Sources
Author’s Field Materials-1 (2022) M.S. 37. Moscow. She is preparing for her second IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-2 (2022) K.P. 41. Moscow. Unsuccessful IVF attempt, refused further attempts.
Author’s Field Materials-3 (2022) P.B. 39. Minsk. Was preparing for IVF. Two children, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-4 (2022) B.S. 35. St. Petersburg. Was preparing for IVF. One child, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-5 (2022) N.S. 39. Novosibirsk. Was preparing for IVF. One child, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-6 (2022) V.A. 40. Moscow. Unsuccessful IVF attempt, refused further attempts.
Author’s Field Materials-7 (2022), G.P. 36. Rome. Was preparing for IVF. One child, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-8 (2022) P.M. 39. St. Petersburg. One child after the second IVF attempt
Author’s Field Materials-9 (2022) K.S. 37. Moscow. At the time of the interview, was expecting a result after first IVF protocol.
Author’s Field Materials-10 (2022) D.K. 42. Moscow. Two children, both IVF.
Author’s Field Materials-11 (2022) P.I. 37. Moscow. Unsuccessful natural pregnancy, one child after the first IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-12 (2022) A.N. 31. Moscow. One child after the first IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-13 (2022) T.G. 32. Tbilisi. Preparing for her third IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-14 (2022) S.I. 41. St. Petersburg. Two unsuccessful IVF attempts. One child, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-15 (2022) A.S. 36. Ufa. Unsuccessful natural pregnancy, one child after IVF.
Author’s Field Materials-16 (2022) I.K. 42. Moscow. Preparing for her third IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-17 (2022) V.K. 42. St. Petersburg. One unsuccessful IVF attempt. One child, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-18 (2022) M.P. 43. Moscow region. Was preparing for IVF. One child, natural pregnancy.
Author’s Field Materials-19 (2022) P.S. 42. Moscow. One child after the first IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-20 (2022) M.I. 36. Moscow. Unsuccessful natural pregnancy, one child after the first IVF attempt.
Author’s Field Materials-21 (2022) I.P. 38. Moscow region. The first child after IVF, the second in a natural way.
References
Adon’eva S. B. (2009) Materinstvo: mifologiia i sotsial’nyi institute [Motherhood: Mythology and Social Institution]. Available at: https://folk.ru/Research/adonyeva_motherhood.php?rubr=Research-articles (accessed 20 November 2024).
Becker G., Nachtigall R. D. (1994) ‘Born to be a mother’: the cultural construction of risk in infertility treatment in the US, Social science & medicine, vol. 39, No. 4, p. 507–518.
Bell A. V. (2009) “It’s Way out of my League” Low-income Women’s Experiences of Medicalized Infertility, Gender & Society, vol. 23, No. 5, p. 688–709.
Bergart A. M. (2000) The experience of women in unsuccessful infertility treatment: what do patients need when medical intervention fails?, Social Work in Health Care, vol. 30, No. 4, р. 45–69.
Birenbaum-Carmeli D., Carmeli Y. S. (2010) Kin, gene, community: reproductive technologies among Jewish Israelis, Berghahn Books.
Borozdina E.A. (2017) Logiki okazanija medicinskoj pomoshhi i telesnoe izmerenie doverija v medicinskih vzaimodejstvijah [Logic of medical care and the corporal dimension of trust in medical interactions], Sociologija vlasti [Sociology of Power], No. 29(3), p. 82–102.
Brednikova O., Nartova, N. (2007) Narushaja molchanie: diskriminacija zhenshhin v prostranstve Novyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij [Breaking the Silence: Discrimination against Women in the New Reproductive Technologies Space]. Sovremennaja zhenshhina, sem’ja, demografija. Aktual’nye issledovanija [Modern woman, family, demography: current research]. M.: Zven’ja, p. 156–180.
Buzunova L.G. (2007) Zhiznennye strategii zhenshhin rossijskoj provincii [Life strategies of women in the Russian provinces], Psihologicheskaja nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological science and education], No. 12(3), p. 47–59.
Davis‐Floyd R (2001) The technocratic, humanistic, and holistic paradigms of childbirth, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, vol. 75, p. 5–3.
Deomampo D. (2016) Race, nation, and the production of intimacy: Transnational ova donation in India, East asia cultures critique, vol. 24, No. 1, р. 303–332.
Efimkina R. (2019) Kak dela? – Eshhe ne rodila! Vozmozhnosti psihoterapii v iscelenii besplodija [How are you? – I have’t given birth yet! Possibilities of psychotherapy in the treatment of infertility]. Moscow: Klass.
Emelyanova T.P. (2006) Konstruirovaniye sotsial’nykh predstavleniy v usloviyakh transformatsii rossiyskogo obshchestva [Construction of social ideas in the conditions of transformation of Russian society]. Moscow, 2006.
Gana K., Jakubowska S. (2016) Relationship between infertility-related stress and emotional distress and marital satisfaction, Journal of health psychology, No. 21(6), p. 1043–1054.
Greil A., McQuillan J., & Slauson-Blevins K. (2011) The social construction of infertility, Sociology Compass, vol. 5, No. 5, p. 736–746.
Jordan, A. (1993). Women’s earnings and inequality of family income, Social Security Journal, No. 01 Mar 1993, p. 55–68.
Lock M. (1993) Cultivating the body: Anthropology and epistemologies of bodily practice and knowledge, Annual review of anthropology, p. 133–155.
Lomonosova M.V., Bogomjagkova E.S. (2015) Reproduktivnye prava cheloveka i vspomogatel’nye reproduktivnye tehnologii: novye formy i vidy neravenstva [Reproductive human rights and assisted reproductive technologies: new forms and types of inequality], Jekonomicheskie strategii [Economic strategies], vol. 17, No. 9.
Mel’nikova O.O. (2012) Pereopredelenie rodovspomozhenija v roditel’skih Internet-diskussijah (na primere tomskogo foruma) [Redefining obstetrics in parental Internet discussions (on the example of the Tomsk forum)], Zhurnal issledovanij social’noj politiki [The Journal of Social Policy Studies], vol. 10, No. 3.
Novkunskaja A. (2016) Raspredelenie otvetstvennosti v oblasti reproduktivnogo zdorov’ja: perspektiva akusherov-ginekologov [Sharing Responsibility in Reproductive Health: An Obstetricians Perspective], Laboratorium: Zhurnal social’nyh issledovanij [Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research], vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50–75.
Ozhiganova A.A. (2020) Avtoritetnoe znanie o rodah i rodovspomozhenii: analiz diskursivnyh praktik rossijskih perinatal’nyh specialistov [Authoritative knowledge about childbirth and obstetric care: analysis of discursive practices of Russian perinatal specialists], Naselenie i jekonomika [Population and Economy], vol. 4, No. 4, p. 84–99.
Roberts E. F. (2012) God’s laboratory: assisted reproduction in the Andes. Univ. of California Press.
Sexton M. B., Byrd M. R., von Kluge S. (2010) Measuring resilience in women experiencing infertility using the CD-RISC: Examining infertility-related stress, general distress, and coping styles, Journal of psychiatric research, vol. 44, No. 4, р. 236–241.
Shchepanskaya T.B. (1999) Mifologiya sotsial’nykh institutov: rodovspomozheniye [Mythology of social institutions: obstetrics]. Mifologiya i povsednevnost [Mythology and everyday life], No. 3, p. 389–423.
Temkina A.A. (2016) Oplachivaemaja zabota i bezopasnost’: chto prodaetsja i pokupaetsja v rodil’nyh domah? [Paid care and safety: what is sold and bought in maternity hospitals?], Sociologija vlasti [Sociology of Power], vol. 28, No. 1, p. 76–106.
Thompson C. (2005) Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies, MIT press.
Wertz R. W. & Wertz D. C. (1989) Lying-in: A history of childbirth in America, Yale University Press.
World Health Organisation (2020) Infertility. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility (accessed 17 October 2022).
Zaharov S.V. (2012) Vtoroj demograficheskij perehod i izmenenie vozrastnoj modeli rozhdaemosti [The second demographic transition and the change in the age pattern of fertility], Demoskop weekly, No. 495–496. Available at: https://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2012/0495/tema05.php (accessed 20 November 2024).