» Articles » PMID: 29892714

Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Ghana: Transnational Undertakings, Local Practices and 'more Affordable' IVF

Overview
Date 2018 Jun 13
PMID 29892714
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The article sketches the origins and development of IVF in Ghana as a highly transnational undertaking. Movements are from and to Africa, involving human beings (providers and users), and also refer to other entities such as technologies, skills and knowledge. None of these movements are paid for using public money, neither are they subsidized by international health organizations. Currently, 'more affordable' IVF is being introduced into Ghana, on initiative of the first Association of Childless Couples of Ghana (ACCOG), in collaboration with the Belgium based non-profit organization the Walking Egg (tWE), representing another form of transnational networking. The article underlines the scarcity of well-trained embryologists in Ghana, which turns the embryologists' expertise and skills into a scarce and precious commodity and guarantees this expertise becomes a major challenge for the directors of the private clinics. Next to local Ghanaian couples, the clinics also attend to transnational reproductive travellers, including women and men from neighbouring countries and Ghanaians in the diaspora returning to their country of origin. Their manifold motivations to cross borders and visit the IVF clinics in Ghana provide insight into the structural conditions impeding or facilitating the use of assisted reproductive technologies at different local sites. Transnational movements also include the flow of new procreation practices (such as surrogacy and the use of donor material), which (re-)shape existing cultural and societal notions regarding kinship and the importance of blood/genetic ties. Finally, the article lists a number of thematic and theoretical issues which require further exploration and studies.

Citing Articles

Awareness and acceptability of assisted reproductive technology among non-medical tertiary students in a low-resource setting.

Johnson-Ekeleba A, Sefogah P, Swarray-Deen A, Mumuni K Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024; 22(1):131.

PMID: 39468518 PMC: 11514781. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01292-w.


Ethical constraints and dilemmas in the provision of in-vitro fertilization treatment in Ghana: from the perspectives of experts.

Appiah D, Ganle J BMC Med Ethics. 2024; 25(1):114.

PMID: 39420330 PMC: 11484389. DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01113-0.


Chains of extraction: shifting bioeconomies in India and East Africa.

Gondouin J, Eriksson A, Thapar-Bjorkert S Front Sociol. 2024; 9:1149368.

PMID: 39139472 PMC: 11320413. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2024.1149368.


Legal and ethical challenges in assisted reproductive technology practice in Ghana.

Barnes T, Abakah-Nkrumah G, Anim-Boamah O, Sefogah P Ghana Med J. 2024; 58(1):78-85.

PMID: 38957285 PMC: 11215236. DOI: 10.4314/gmj.v58i1.11.


Access to assisted reproductive technologies in sub-Saharan Africa: fertility professionals' views.

Whittaker A, Gerrits T, Hammarberg K, Manderson L Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2024; 32(1):2355790.

PMID: 38864373 PMC: 11172248. DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2024.2355790.


References
1.
Inhorn M, Patrizio P . The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: twenty key findings for the new millennium. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 24(3):158-63. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e328352140a. View

2.
Paxson H . Reproduction as spiritual kin work: orthodoxy, IVF, and the moral economy of motherhood in Greece. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2006; 30(4):481-505. DOI: 10.1007/s11013-006-9028-9. View

3.
Inhorn M . Diasporic dreaming: return reproductive tourism to the Middle East. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 23(5):582-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.08.006. View

4.
Horbst V, Wolf A . ARVs and ARTs: medicoscapes and the unequal place-making for biomedical treatments in sub-Saharan Africa. Med Anthropol Q. 2014; 28(2):182-202. DOI: 10.1111/maq.12091. View

5.
Hadolt B, Horbst V, Muller-Rockstroh B . Biomedical techniques in context: on the appropriation of biomedical procedures and artifacts. Med Anthropol. 2012; 31(3):179-95. DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2011.636410. View