Advertisement

A National Portrait

  • Sandra P. González-Santos
Chapter

Abstract

The purpose of A National Portrait is to present the elements needed to explore the overarching question this book addresses: How did the Mexican system of assisted reproduction emerge and develop? This chapter begins with an outline of the Mexican system of assisted reproduction; it then situates the system’s emergence within a particular historical context where puericulture was the regime of reproduction, and within the Mexican healthcare system. This chapter also situates the book within the dual context of science and technology studies and reproduction studies and offers an overview of the methodology employed during this ten-year research project. All these elements help contextualise the stories in this book.

References

  1. Adame Goddard, J. (2004). EL régimen revolucionario del matrimonio civil. In EL matrimonio civil en MÉXICO (1859–2000) (pp. 35–82). Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas—UNAM. Retrieved from https://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/3/1362/4.pdf.
  2. Agostini, C. (2007). Las mensajeras de la salud. Enfermeras visitadoras en la Ciudad de MÉXICO durante la década de los 1920. Estudios de Historia Moderna y Contemporánea de México, 33.Google Scholar
  3. Ahued Ahued, R. J. (2004). Semblanza del Doctor Isidro Espinosa de los reyes. Perinatología y Reproducción Humana, 18(4), 205–207.Google Scholar
  4. Alanís, M. (2015). Más que curar, prevenir: surgimiento y primera etapa de los Centros de Higiene Infantil en la Ciudad de MÉXICO, 1922–1932. História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos, 22(2), 391–409.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702015005000004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alba-Hernandez, F. (Ed.). (1976). La población de MÉXICO. México: Centro de Estudios Económicos y Demográficos, El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  6. Bharadwaj, A. (2016). Conceptions: Infertility and procreative modernity in India. New York: Berghahn Books. Google Scholar
  7. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: the study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=457446.
  9. Chen, S. H., Pascale, C., Jackson, M., Szvetecz, M. A., & Cohen, J. (2016). A limited survey-based uncontrolled follow-up study of children born after ooplasmic transplantation in a single centre. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 33(6), 737–744.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J., Scott, R., Schimmel, T., Levron, J., & Willadsen, S. (1997). Birth of infant after transfer of anucleate donor oocyte cytoplasm into recipient eggs. The Lancet, 350(9072), 186–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)62353-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Cadena, M., Lien, M. E., Blaser, M., Jensen, C. B., Lea, T., Morita, A., … Wiener, M. (2015). Anthropology and STS: Generative interfaces, multiple locations. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 5(1), 437–475.  https://doi.org/10.14318/hau5.1.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Espinosa de los Reyes Sánchez, V. M. (2008). Datos biográficos del Dr. Isidro Espinosa de los Reyes. Boletín Mexicano de Historia y Filosofía de La Medicina, 11(2), 64–67.Google Scholar
  13. Espinosa de los Reyes Sánchez, V. M. (2016). La asistencia materno-infantil en México entre 1921 y 1930 por parte del Departamento de Salubridad Pública. Gaceta Médica de México, 152, 231–245.Google Scholar
  14. Fajardo Ortiz, G., & Sánchez González, J. M. (2005). La medicina mexicana de 1901 a 2003. Revista Latinoamericana de Patología Clínica y Medicina de Laboratorio, 52(2), 118–123.Google Scholar
  15. Franklin, S. (2013). Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Franklin, S., & Inhorn, M. C. (2016). Introduction. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society, 2, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frenk, J. (2002). Los institutos Nacionales de Salud de Mexico. México: Secretaria de Salud.Google Scholar
  18. Garza-Gordoa, M. (2012). Imagen visual del símbolo del Instituto Nacional de Perinatología Isidro Espinosa de los Reyes. Perinatología y Reproducción Humana, 26(2), 133–137.Google Scholar
  19. Gerrits, T. (2016). Assisted reproductive technologies in Ghana: Transnational undertakings, local practices and ‘more affordable’ IVF. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 32–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ginsburg, F. D., & Rapp, R. (Eds.). (1995). Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (p. xii). Berkeley: University of California Press (cloth and paper).Google Scholar
  21. González-Santos, S. P. (2011). Space, structure and social dynamics within the clinical setting: Two case studies of assisted reproduction in Mexico city. Health & Place, 17(1), 166–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González Santos, S. P., Stephens, N., & Dimond, R. (2018). Narrating the first “three-parent baby”: The initial press reactions from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Mexico. Science Communication, 40(4), 419–441.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018772312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guerrero, D. C., (1954). Aspectos Sociales de la Esterilidad. Estudios Sobre Esterilidad, 5(1).Google Scholar
  24. Gürtin, Z. B. (2016). Patriarchal pronatalism: Islam, secularism and the conjugal confines of Turkey’s IVF boom. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 2, 39–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gutiérrez-Sánchez, S. (2000). Transición de la alta a la baja fecundidad en México. Cuadernos de investigación, Cuarta Época, No. 12. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, México.Google Scholar
  26. Gutmann, M. (2009). Planning men out of family planning: A case study. Sexualidad, Salud y Sociedad—Revista Latinoamericana, No. 1, pp. 104–124.Google Scholar
  27. Haraway, D. J. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hörbst, V. (2016). ‘You cannot do IVF in Africa as in Europe’: The making of IVF in Mali and Uganda. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 108–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes, T. P. (1986). The seamless web: Technology, science, etcetera, etcetera. Social Studies of Science, 16(2), 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hughes, T., & Coutard, O. (1996). Fifteen years of social and historical research on large technical systems. An interview with Thomas Hughes. FLUX Cahiers scientifiques internationaux Réseaux et Territoires, 12(25), 44–47.Google Scholar
  31. Inhorn, M. C., & Balen, F. (2002). Infertility around the globe: New thinking on childlessness, gender and reproductive technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  32. Inhorn, M. C., & Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (2008). Assisted reproductive technologies and culture change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37(1), 177–196.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krause, E. L., & De Zordo, S. (2012). Introduction ethnography and biopolitics: tracing ‘rationalities’ of reproduction across the north–south divide. Anthropology & Medicine, 19(2), 137–151.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2012.675050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systemic Practice, 5(4), 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, 3, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Law, J., & Mol, A. (1995). Notes on materiality and sociality. Sociological Review, 43(2), 274–294.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.ep9505171482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leigh Star, S. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lock, M., & Kaufert, P. A. (2006). Pragmatic women and body politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. MacKenzie, D. (2012). Missile accuracy: A case study in the social processes of technological change. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mateos Fournier, M. (1964). El incremento demográfico y la planeación familiar. Esterilidad. Estudios Sobre Esterilidad, 15(2), 60–64.Google Scholar
  41. McNeil, M., Varcoe, I., & Yearley, S. (1990). The new reproductive technologies (pp. 257). No. 28 de explorations in sociology. St. Martin’s Press: British Sociological Association. ISBN 0312035993, 9780312035990.Google Scholar
  42. Mejía-Modesto, A. (2007). Poliíticas de población, los derechos humanos y la individualización. México: Gobierno del Estado de México, Consejo Estatal de Población.Google Scholar
  43. Mendoza García, M. E., & Tapia Colocia, G. (2010). Situación demográfica de México 1910–2010. La Situación Demográfica de México, 11–24.Google Scholar
  44. Mier y Terán, M. (1991). EL gran cambio demográfico. Demos, 4, 4–5.Google Scholar
  45. Mohr, S., & Koch, L. (2016). Transforming social contracts: The social and cultural history of IVF in Denmark. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 88–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morales Suárez, M. (1999). Princesa 3 pedernal serpiente emplumada simbolo del INPer. Perinatología y Reproducción Humana, 13(4), 255–263.Google Scholar
  47. Morales Suárez, M. (2010). Trayectoria del Dr. Eduardo Jurado García (1921–1998). Un acercamiento a su vida y obra. Perinatología y Reproducción Humana, 24(3), 207–211.Google Scholar
  48. O’Hara, H. (1944, June). Review of: Doña Eugenesia y Otros Personajes. American Journal of Public Health, 34(6), 662.Google Scholar
  49. Olavarría, M. E. (2018). La gestación para otros. Parentesco, tecnología y poder. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana and Gedisa.Google Scholar
  50. Pérez-Bustos, T. (2017). “No es sólo una cuestión de lenguaje”: lo inaudible de los estudios feministas latino-americanos en el mundo académico anglosajón. Scientiae Studia, 15(1), 59.  https://doi.org/10.11606/51678-31662017000100004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodriguez Medina, L. (2019). A geopolitics of bad English. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 2(1), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2019.1558806.Google Scholar
  52. Saade Granados, M. (2004). ¿Quiénes deben procrear? Los médicos eugenistas bajo el signo social (México, 1931–1940). Cuicuilco, 11(31), 45–80.Google Scholar
  53. Santacruz-Varela, J. (2010). El aseguramiento de la salud en México y sus tendencias: Del mito al hito. Revista CONAMED, 15(4), 195–203.Google Scholar
  54. Simpson, B. (2016). IVF in Sri Lanka: A concise history of regulatory impasse. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 8–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stern, A. (2002). Madres conscientes y niños normales: la eugencia y el nacionalimiso en México posrevolucionario, 1920–1940. In Laura Cházaro (Ed.), Medicina, Ciencia y Sociedad en México, Siglo XIX. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. Google Scholar
  56. Straw, C., Vargas, E., Viera Cherro, M., & Taminini, M. (2016). Repdoçâo assistida e relações de gênero na américa latina. Curitiba: Editora CRV.Google Scholar
  57. Tamanini, M., & Tamanini Andrade, M. T. (2016). As Novas Tecnologias da reproduÇão humana, aspectos do cenário brasleiro, na voz e nas redes dos especialistas. In C. Straw, E. Vargas, M. Viera Cherro, M. Tamanini (Eds.), Rerpodução Assistida: e relações de género na América liana. Curitiba, Brasil: CRV.Google Scholar
  58. Thompson, C. (2005). Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, C. (2016). IVF global histories, USA: Between rock and a marketplace. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 128–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Unnithan-Kumar, M. (Ed.). (2004). Reproductive agency, medicine and the state: Cultural transformations in childbearing. Berghahn Books. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1btbzpb.
  61. Vallarta-Vázquez, M. (2005). EL consentimiento informado: un derecho reproductivo en México. In M. Torres (Ed.), Nuevas maternidades y derechos reproductivos (pp. 239–274). México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  62. Villa Roiz, C. (1997). Popocatepetl: mitos, ciencia y cultura : un cráter en el tiempo. Mexico: Plaza y Valdés.Google Scholar
  63. Wahlberg, A. (2018). Good quality: The routinization of sperm banking in China. Oakland: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Whittaker, A. (2016). From ‘Mung Ming’ to ‘Baby Gammy’: A local history of assisted reproduction in Thailand. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zavala de Cosío, M. E. (1992). Cambios de fecundidad en México y políticas de población. México: El Colegio de México / Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  66. Zhang, J., Liu, H., Luo, S., Chavez-Badiola, A., Liu, Z., Yang, M. … Huang, T. (2016). First live birth using human oocytes reconstituted by spindle nuclear transfer for mitochondrial DNA mutation causing Leigh syndrome. Fertility and Sterility, 106(3), e375–e376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, J., Liu, H., Luo, S., Lu, Z., Chávez-Badiola, A., Liu, Z. … Huang, T. (2017). Live birth derived from oocyte spindle transfer to prevent mitochondrial disease. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 34(4), 361–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra P. González-Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de BioéticaUniversidad AnáhuacMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations