International Journal of
Reproductive Biomedicine
Mon, Feb 3, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 8, Issue 1 (7-2010)
IJRM 2010, 8(1): 33-40 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Pashmi M, Sadegh Tabatabaie S M, Ahmadi S A. Evaluating the experiences of surrogate and intended mothers in terms of surrogacy in Isfahan. IJRM 2010; 8 (1) :33-40
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-165-en.html
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-165-en.html
Abstract: (2713 Views)
Background: Using the method “surrogacy” in which a woman accepts to bear and deliver a child for a married couple is considered as a subsidiary method in infertility therapy. This method is relatively new in Iran.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the experiences of the women involved in surrogacy and to reveal some issues related to this method.
Materials and Methods: The method of research was analytic–deh1ive and causative – comparative type. The 5-item neo - questionnaire and structured interview were used simultaneously. The sample consisted of 15 surrogate mothers 15 intended mothers and 30 normal mothers (each with one or more children). The studied data was gathered in the fall and winter of 2009 in Isfahan by the researcher (Monir Pashmi) and data analysis was executed through the use of deh1ive data (such as the median standard deviation) and interpretive data (T- test).
Results: The research revealed that in terms of social – cultural status the surrogate and intended mothers were completely different but their psychological characteristics were not significantly varied. Results indicate the satisfaction and consent of both sides involved in the surrogacy. They had a good relationship during the pregnancy period but after delivery the intended mother wanted no further relationship they found out this method an altruistic experience.
Conclusion: Most surrogate and intended mothers do not consider surrogacy a problematic issue. A number of mothers however did mention that they had not been given the appropriate counseling beforehand. It seems plausible therefore to endeavour a general rise in the socio – cultural awareness of surrogacy in Iranian society.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the experiences of the women involved in surrogacy and to reveal some issues related to this method.
Materials and Methods: The method of research was analytic–deh1ive and causative – comparative type. The 5-item neo - questionnaire and structured interview were used simultaneously. The sample consisted of 15 surrogate mothers 15 intended mothers and 30 normal mothers (each with one or more children). The studied data was gathered in the fall and winter of 2009 in Isfahan by the researcher (Monir Pashmi) and data analysis was executed through the use of deh1ive data (such as the median standard deviation) and interpretive data (T- test).
Results: The research revealed that in terms of social – cultural status the surrogate and intended mothers were completely different but their psychological characteristics were not significantly varied. Results indicate the satisfaction and consent of both sides involved in the surrogacy. They had a good relationship during the pregnancy period but after delivery the intended mother wanted no further relationship they found out this method an altruistic experience.
Conclusion: Most surrogate and intended mothers do not consider surrogacy a problematic issue. A number of mothers however did mention that they had not been given the appropriate counseling beforehand. It seems plausible therefore to endeavour a general rise in the socio – cultural awareness of surrogacy in Iranian society.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy: Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques. Taylor & Francis 2004; 855-866.
2. Sullivan L. Surrogacy: the case for a conventional approach. Med Law 1991; 10: 401-415.
3. Golombok S, Murray C, Jadva V, Lycett E, MacCallum F, Rust J. Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: consequences for parent-child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1918-1924. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del039]
4. Raziel A, Schachter M, Strassburger D, Komarovsky D, Ron-El R, Friedler S. Eight years' experience with an IVF surrogate gestational pregnancy program. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11: 254-258. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60966-2]
5. Carp HJ, Dirnfeld M, Dor J, Grudzinskas JG. ART in recurrent miscarriage: preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening or surrogacy? Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 1502-1505. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh293]
6. Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 483-491. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmg033]
7. Blyth E. I wanted to be interesting. I wanted to be able to say 'I've done something interesting with my life'. Interview with surrogate mother in Brittain. J Rreprod Infant Psychol 1994; 12: 189-198. [DOI:10.1080/02646839408408885]
8. Jadva V, Murray C, Lycett E, MacCallum F, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2196-2204. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deg397]
9. Kleinpeter CB.Surrogacy: the parents' story. Psychol Rep 2001; 91: 201-219. [DOI:10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.201]
10. Van den Akker OB. Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood. Hum Reprod Update 2007; 13: 53-62. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dml039]
11. Pervin L, John O. Personality: theory and research. 8th Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
12. Reilly DR. Surrogate pregnancy: a guide for Canadian prenatal health care providers. CMAJ 2007; 176: 483-485. [DOI:10.1503/cmaj.060696]
13. Harrison M. Financial incentives for surrogacy. Women's Health Issues 1991; 1: 145-147. [DOI:10.1016/S1049-3867(05)80120-3]
14. Committee on Ethics. ACOG committee opinion number 397, February 2008: surrogate motherhood. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 465-470.
15. Van den Akker OB. Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers, experience of surrogacy. J Repord Infant Psychol 2003; 21: 145-161. [DOI:10.1080/0264683031000124091]
16. Hanafin H. Surrogate parenting: reassessing human bonding, Paper presented at the American sychological Association Convention, NewYork. 1987.
17. Baslington H. Anxiety overflows. Womens Stud Int Forum 1996; 19: 675-684. [DOI:10.1016/S0277-5395(96)00088-X]
18. Van den Akker OB. HFEA Commissioned Report. Review: Psychosocial, moral and ethical issues involved in Donor, Surrogacy and Adoption Triads: A Graded Evaluation. Human fertilization and Embryology Association. London. 2002.
19. Ragone H. Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the heart first edition. Westview press Boulder Co, Oxford, USA. 1994.
20. Shenfield F, Pennings G, Cohen J, Devroey P, de Wert G, Tarlatzis B. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 10: surrogacy. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 2705-2707. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dei147]
21. Van den Akker OB. Psychological trait and state characteristics, social support and attitudes to the surrogate pregnancy and baby. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2287-2295. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dem155]
22. MacCallum F, Lycett E, Murray C, Jadva V, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experience of commissioning couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1334-1342. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deg253]
23. Golombok S, Murray C, Jadva V, Mac Callum F, Lycett E. Families created through surrogacy arrangements: parent-child relationships in the 1st year of life. Dev Psychol 2004; 40: 400-411. [DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.400]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
