Features of the attitude to assisted reproductive technologies in Moscow. Analysis of the All-Russian sociological research
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2022-1-412-423
Abstract
The article deals with the analysis of the specifics of attitudes towards assisted reproductive technologies, assessment of the scale and need for the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Moscow based on the data of the author’s study “Demographic well-being of Russia” conducted in late 2019 – early 2020. The analysis shows that Muscovites stand out against the background of Russians by their attitude to the use of methods of abortion and contraceptive behavior, assisted reproductive technologies, assessment of their reproductive health. The need for ART in Moscow is lower than in many regions of the country. That is caused by the assessment of their state of health, which may affect the need for the use of ART and by a model of reproductive behavior of metropolitan residents, characterized by lower reproductive attitudes against the background of all-Russian indicators. The leading role among the obstacles to the use of modern reproductive technologies in the capital, in contrast to the situation in the regions, is played by psychological motives and doubts about the safety of ART. Muscovites – Women are more favorable than Muscovites – Men to the use of modern reproductive technologies. The existing trends suggest that in the future the need for ART may decrease. Voluntary childlessness becomes a socially approved strategy. Such a trend is still most pronounced in large megacities, an example of which is Moscow.
Keywords
assisted reproductive technologies,
demographic policy,
fertility trends,
reproductive health,
reproductive health research
Supporting agencies: The article was prepared with the financial support of the Russian National Science Foundation within the framework of the scientific project No. 20-18-00256 “Demographic behavior of the population in the context of national security of Russia”
About the Authors
T. K. Rostovskaya
Institute of Demographic Research of the National Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IDI FNSC RAS)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tamara K. Rostovskaya, Dr. of Sci. (Sociology), professor
bld. 6, Fotievoi Street, Moscow, 119333
O. V. Kuchmaeva
Institute of Demographic Research of the National Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IDI FNSC RAS); Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oksana V. Kuchmaeva, Dr. of (Economics), Professor
bld. 6, Fotievoi Street, Moscow, 119333
N. A. Bezverbnaya
Institute of Demographic Research of the National Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IDI FNSC RAS)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natal’ya A. Bezverbnaya, Cand. of Sci. (Sociology)
bld. 6, Fotievoi Street, Moscow, 119333
References
1. Aseeva, I.A. and Pashchenko, E.N. (2014), “Social well-being and value orientations of students in the context of social changes”, Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology, no. 3 (10), pp. 12–33.
2. Isupova, O.G. (2017), “Assisted reproductive technologies. New opportunities”. Demographic Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 35–64.
3. Rusanova, N.E. (2020), “Trans-Border Reproductive Care. Birth Rates, Migration, and Institutional Regulation”, Ekonomicheskaya povestka 2020-kh godov “Lomonosovskie chteniya – 2020. sektsiya economicheskikh nauk” [Lomonosov Scientific Conference – 2020. Section of Economic Sciences. “The Economic Agenda of the 2020s”. Collection of reports], Moscow, Russia, pp. 602–603.
4. Rusanova, N.E. (2019), “Dynamics of reproductive health and prospects for increasing the birth rate in Russia”, Zdorov’e kak resurs: V. 2.0: Mezhdunar. nauchno-praktich. konf. [Health as a Resource V. 2.0], pp. 180–182.
5. Rusanova, N.E. (2013). “Assisted reproductive technologies in Russia. History, issues, demographic prospects”, Journal of Social Policy Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 69–86.
6. Hayat, K., Kurilo, L.F. and Chernykh, V.B. (2019), “Assisted reproductive technologies and the legal issue of the fetal sex selection”, Andrology and Genital Surgery, no. 20 (2), pp. 64–68.
7. Grant, J., Hoorens, S., Gallo, F. and Gave, J. (2006), Should ART Be Part of a Population Policy Mix? A Preliminary Assessment of the Demographic and Economic Impact of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe, DB-507-FER
8. Greil, A.L., Slauson-Blevins, K. and McQuillan, J. (2010), “The experience of infertility: a review of recent literature”, Sociology of Health and Illness, no. 32, рр. 140–162.
9. Rostovskaya, T.K. and Kuchmaeva, O.V. (2021), “Assisted Reproductive Technologies through the Eyes of Russians”, Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, no. 91 (5), pр. 578–586.
10. Sorenson, C. (2006), “ART in the European Union”, Euro Observer. The Health Policy Bulletin of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Autumn, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2–8.
Review
For citations:
Rostovskaya T.K., Kuchmaeva O.V., Bezverbnaya N.A. Features of the attitude to assisted reproductive technologies in Moscow. Analysis of the All-Russian sociological research. RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies. 2022;(1):412-423. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2022-1-412-423
Views:
140
Email this article 