couples, psychosocial, gender, infertility, counselling, theory, USA: couples, psychosocial, gender, infertility, counselling, theory, USA.
This study investigated the impact that infertility had in terms of depression and marital strain on 185 infertile and 95 presumed fertile couple in the US. Infertile wives in comparision to their husbands felt more stressed, felt more responsible for and in control of their infertility, and engaged in more problem-focused coping. Infertile husbands experienced more stress in their home life than their wives. These differences were not found in the presumed fertile couples. Theoretical and counselling issues are discussed.
2. Achilles R. Anonymity and Secrecy in Donor Insemination: In Whose Best Interests? Presented at the International conference on new reproductive technologies; Montreal, Canada; 1988.
secrecy, donor insemination, practice, doctors, fatherhood, family, offspring, couples, donors: secrecy, donor insemination, practice, doctors, fatherhood, family, offspring, couples, donors.
This article describes DI and discusses issues of anonymity, and social and biological parenthood. Drawing on limited qualitative research the author comments on the information which different groups in the DI process want about each other. It looks at the reasons given for maintaining secrecy and concludes that it is done primarily to 'normalise' the family. It also concludes that this secrecy is not in the interests of the child, and argues for it to be discontinued.
3. Achilles R. Protection from What? The Secret Life of Donor Insemination. Politics and the Life Sciences. 1993;12(2):171-2.
secrecy, donor insemination, rights, anonymity, sexuality, male infertility, family, parenthood, North America: secrecy, donor insemination, rights, anonymity, sexuality, male infertility, family, parenthood, North America.
This response to Daniel and Taylors article in the same volume, supports being open with children and their DI origins. Issues of male and female sexuality are raised and support is given for a redefinition of fatherhood that recognises the difference between the genetic and social fathers.
4. Arditte R, Klein RD, Minden S. Test-tube Women. What Fututre for Motherhood. London, UK: Pandora Press; 1984.
5. Back KW. Return to Wilberforce: true-believers and evolutionary theory. South Atlantic Quarterly. 1984;83:269-82.
6. Batterman R. A comprehensive approach to treating infertility. Health and Social Work. 1985(August 13):46-54.
7. Becker G. Ambiguous Responsibility in the Doctor-Patient Relationship: The Case of Infertility. Social Science and Medicine. 1991;32(8):875-85.
8. Bellah RN, Madsen R, Sullivan WM, Swidler A, Tipton SM. Habits of the Heart. Berkely, USA: University of California Preaa; 1985.
9. Berg BJ, Wilson JF. Psychiatric morbidity in the infertile population: a reconceptualization. Fertility and Sterility. 1990;53(4):654-61.
10. Bhasker R. Reclaiming Reality: A critical introduction to contemporary philosophy. London: Verso; 1989.
.
.11. Birke L, Himmelweit S, Vines G. Tomorrow's Child Reproductive. Reproductive Technologies in the 90s. London, UK: Virago Press; 1990.
12. Blank RH. Regulating Reproduction. N.Y.: Columbia University Press; 1990.
regulation, policy, law, ethics, USA, assisted reproduction: regulation, policy, law, ethics, USA, assisted reproduction.
This book provides an overview of recent developments in reproductive technology. It looks at ethical, regulatory and policy issues particularly in a US context and argues for greater public debate and more comprehensive regulatory control of this area.
13. Bok S. Lying. New York: Pantheon; 1978.
14. Bonnicksen AL. Human Embryos and Genetic Testing. Politics and the Life Sciences. 1992;11(1):53-62.
15. Bryson L. Welfare and the State: Who Benefits? London: MacMillan; 1992.
16. Busfield J. Ideologies and Reproduction. In: Richards MPM, ed. The integration of a child into a social world. London: Cambridge University Press; 1974.
17. Callan VJ, Hennessey JF. Stategies for coping with infertility. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1989;62:343-354.
18. Cameron J. Why Have Children? A New Zealand Case
Study. Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press; 1990.
19. Caplan G. An Approach to Community Mental Health. London: Tavistock Pulications; 1961.
20. Caplan G. The Theory and Practice of Mental Health Consultation. London: Tavistock; 1970.
.
.21. Cassel J. The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1976;104:107-23.
22. Christiaens M. Artificial insemination by donor and the view of man. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 1988;28:347-52.
23. Cobb S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1976;38:300-14.
24. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support and the buffering hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin. 1985;98(2):310-57.
25. Collins A, Freeman EW, Boxer AS, Tureck R. Perceptions of Infertility and Treatment Stress in Females as Compared to Males Entering In Vitro Fertilization Treatment. Fertility and Sterility. 1992;57(2):350-6.
Infertility, Stress, Gender, IVF: Infertility, Stress, Gender, IVF.
This study investigates gender differences with regard to perceptions of infertility, and stress resulting from IVF treatment. It was undertaken on 200 couples applying for acceptance into an IVF programme. It found that women anticipated more stress in IVF programmes but related that they received a greater degree of social support. It notes that certain factors are associated with IVF being stressful for a couple, the major one being a couples' strong desire to have a child.
26. Corea G. The mother machine - Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper and Row; 1985.
27. Craib I. Modern Social Theory. From Parsons to Habermas. New York: St. Martin's Press; 1992.
28. Daly K. Reshaped Parenthood Identity. The Transition to Adoptive Parenthood. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1988;17(1):40-66.
adoption, parenthood, infertility, process, couples, identity, stress, social attitudes, assisted reproduction, doctors: adoption, parenthood, infertility, process, couples, identity, stress, social attitudes, assisted reproduction, doctors.
This study of 74 infertile childless couples found that the process of taking on the infertile identity and the role of an adoptive parent was complex. It found that disagreements between couples at various points interfered with this process.
29. Daniels K. Issues and problems for the infertile couple. New Zealand Medical Journal. 1984;97(28 March 1984):185-7.
infertility, adp[tion, couples, gender, sexuality, psychosocial, social attitudes, grief, stress.: infertility, adp[tion, couples, gender, sexuality, psychosocial, social attitudes, grief, stress.
This article addresses issues raised by infertility for couples such as: the social unacceptability of childlesssness, infertility as a problem in relation to other problems, access to information, reproduction vs. sexuality, ideas about gender role, and substitutes and alternatives to natural childbirth such as adoption. It looks at grieving, guilt and blame in relation to infertility and to these associated issues.
30. Daniels KR. Artificial insemination using donor semen and the issue of secrecy: the views of donors and recipient couples. Social Science and Medicine. 1988;27(4):377-83.
donor insemination, secrecy, legal, psychosocial, children, rights: donor insemination, secrecy, legal, psychosocial, children, rights.
A report on two studies which gathered donors and recipient couples opinions on issues of secrecy as regard to whether DI children should know about their conception or have access to identifying or non-identifying information about their genetic fathers. This information is compared to a similar Australian survey and psychosocial, legal and moral implications associated with this issue are discussed.31. Daniels KR. Counselling - the private and public components. British Infertility Counselling Newsletter. 1990;3:9-11.
infertility counselling, psychosocial: infertility counselling, psychosocial.
.
32. Daniels KR. Relationships between Semen Donors and their Networks. Australian Social Work. 1991;44(1):29-35.
donors attitudes, doctors, networks, social support, Australia, donor experience, single women, lesbians, social attitudes: donors attitudes, doctors, networks, social support, Australia, donor experience, single women, lesbians, social attitudes.
This article outlines the relationship between donors and their networks by presenting theresults of a survey of Australian donors. It shows that these donors valued interactive relationships in their networks, and were generally positive about the service they received from medical practitioners. It notes the extent to which donors told others about their involvement and the relatively low level of enbthusiasm for their involvement from their wives and partners. It looks at donor attitudes to who they believed should be have access to their gametes, and on the number of offspring that should be permitted from any one donor.
33. Daniels KR. Management of the psychosocial aspects of infertility. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1992;32(1):57-63.
infertility, psychosocial, counselling, social workers, doctors, health professionals, counselling, stress, couples, social support, semen donors, interests of the child, assisted reproduction, psychological, clinics, practice: infertility, psychosocial, counselling, social workers, doctors, health professionals, counselling, stress, couples, social support, semen donors, interests of the child, assisted reproduction, psychological, clinics, practice.
This paper looks at some of the psychosocial issues involved in infertility. It presents a systems perspective, and considers the role played by the couple, donor, and offspring. It looks at teamwork in the treatment of infertility by groups of professionals and outlines particular issues of importance for individuals, relationships and treatment staff.
34. Daniels KR. Infertility Counselling: The Need for a Psychosocial Perspective. British Journal of Social Work. 1993;23(5):501-15.
counselling, infertility, support groups, professions: counselling, infertility, support groups, professions.
This paper argues for a psychosocial perspective on infertility counselling in which the social issues are given greater emphasis than they are being given currently. A case study is used to explore a variety of psychosocial issues realating to infertility and to make suggestions with regard to responses that can be made to these issues.
35. Daniels KR, Taylor K. Secrecy and openness in donor insemination. Politics & the Life Sciences. 1993;12(2):155-170.
secrecy, openness, donors, recipients, offspring, families, practice, policy, doctors, adoption, regulation, rights, anonymity,: secrecy, openness, donors, recipients, offspring, families, practice, policy, doctors, adoption, regulation, rights, anonymity,.
Explores the issues surrounding the notions of secrecy and openness in DI. Secrecy in DI is placed in its historical context, with an outline of some of the main reasons it has been advocated. Openness is then introduced and some of the arguments for a more open approach presented. Outlines responses of various governments and social policy implications. It is concluded that more openness would be advantageous to all of those involved. Couples, professionals, and policymakers are therefore urged to re-examine their views about the need for maintaining secrecy in this area.
36. Daniels KR. Cambridge Journal. forthcoming.
37. Daniels KR, Lewis G. Donor Insemination: The Gifting and Selling of Semen. . under review.
38. Dejener T. Female self-determination between feminist claims and 'voluntary' eugenics, between 'rights' and ethics. Issues in Reproductive and Genetic Engineering. 1990;3:87-99.
39. Ellis J. Infertility as an emotional crisis: the role of counselling. Patient Management. 1982(September):57-64.
40. Engel G. The need for a new medical model: Achallenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196:129-36.
.
.41. Erikson EH. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton; 1963.
42. Feldman E. Medical Ethics the Japanese Way. Hastings Center Report. 1985;15(15):21-4.
43. Finch J. Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1989.
44. Foucault M. Madness and Civilisation. London: Tavistock; 1967.
45. Foucault M. The Order of Things. London: Tavistock; 1970.
46. Foucault M. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock; 1972.
47. Foucault M. The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock; 1973.
48. Foucault M. Discipline and Punish. London: Tavistock; 1977.
49. Foucault M. The History of Sexuality. London: Allen Lane; 1979-86.
50. Franklin S. Deconstructing 'Desperateness': The Social Construction of Infertility in Popular Representations of New Reproductive Technologies. In: McNeil M, Varcoe I, Yearly S, eds. The New Reproductive Technologies. London, UK: Macmillan Press; 1990.
.
.51. Goffman E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican; 1959.
52. Goffman E. Stigma. Notes on the Management of the Spoiled Identity. Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican; 1963.
53. Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays in face-to-face behaviour. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.
54. Goffman E. Strategic Interaction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1970.
55. Goffman E. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books; 1971.
56. Gottlieb BH. The development and application of a classification system of informal helping behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 1978;10:105-15.
57. Government NZ. Human Rights Commision Act. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government Printer; 1977.
58. Haimes EV, Timms NW. Access to birth records and counselling of adopted persons under Section 26 of the Children Act 1975: Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), UK; 1983.
59. Haimes EV, Timms NW. Adoption, Identity and Social Policy. Aldershot, UK: Gower; 1985.
60. Haimes EV. Recreating the Family? Policy Considerations Relating to the 'new' Reproductive Technologies. In: McNeil M, Varcoe I, Yearly S, eds. The New Reproductive Technologies. London: MacMillan; 1990.
.
.61. Haimes E. Gamete donation and the management of genetic origins. In: Stacey M, ed. Changing Human Reproduction. London: Sage; 1992.
sociological, policy, gamete donation: sociological, policy, gamete donation.
entry incomplete.
62. Hartsock N. Feminist theory and the development of revolutionary strategy. In: Eisenstein ZR, ed. Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism. New York: Monthly Review; 1979.
63. Humphrey M, Humphrey H. A fresh look at genealogical bewilderment. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1986;59:133-40.
64. Humphrey M, Humphrey H. Families with a Difference. London: Routledge; 1988.
65. Inhorn M. Interpreting Infertility: Medical Anthropological Perspectives. Social Science and Medicine. 1994;39(4):459-61.
AIDS, infertility, Cameroon, Egypt, India, USA, gender, assisted reproduction, gender, social attitudes: AIDS, infertility, Cameroon, Egypt, India, USA, gender, assisted reproduction, gender, social attitudes.
This article introduces and summarises four other articles in the same issue on anthropology and infertility. It notes that women often bear the worse aspects of infertility and that the topic as a whole has had very little attention paid to it.
66. Jaggar AM, Struhl PR. Feminist Frameworks. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
67. Knoppers BM, Bris SL. Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal Ethical and Social Issues. American Journal of Law and Medicine. 1991;18(4):329-61.
law, ethics, legislation, social attitudes, rights, assisted reproduction: law, ethics, legislation, social attitudes, rights, assisted reproduction.
This article outlines legislation concerned with ART issues internationally in the period 1987-91. It notes the similarities and differences between states, and the ethical principles, and cultural and religious concerns upon which legislation and practices in this area are founded.
68. Lazarus RS, Folkman R. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.
69. Leigh H, Reisner MF. The patient: Biological psychological and social dimensions of medical practice. New York, USA; 1980.
70. Lindahl MW, Back KW. Lineage identity and generational continuity: family history and family reunions. Comparative Gerontological Behaviour. 1987;1:30-34.
.
.71. Lindemann E. Symptomology and Management of Acute Grief. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1944;101(September).
72. Lorber J. Choice, gift or patriarchal bargain? Women's consent to in vitro fertilization in male infertility. Hypatia. 1989;4(3):23-35.
73. Martin E. The woman in the body. Boston: Beacon; 1989.
74. Mauss M. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press; 1954.
The gift, society, reciprocity, giver, receiver, anthropology, theory: The gift, society, reciprocity, giver, receiver, anthropology, theory.
.
75. Maynard T. Shared understandings: A glimmer of hope? Infertility Awareness. 1991;7(5):12-13.
76. McCartney CF, Wada CY. Gender Differences in Counseling Needs During Infertility Treatment. In: Stotland NL, ed. Psychiatric Aspects of Reproductive Technology. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 1990.
gender, counselling, infertility, reproductive technologies: gender, counselling, infertility, reproductive technologies.
This is a study of 269 women who had been associated with an infertility clinic and 217 men who were their partners. It was discovered that while men and women often had similar reactions to infertility the timing of these reactions and their intensity was often different. It notes that women see more relationship stress arising from infertility than men and are more likely to seek counselling.
77. McKinlay JB. Issues in the Political Economy of Health Care. London: Tavistock; 1984.
78. McWhinnie AM. Doubts and Realities in DI Family Relationships. Politics and the life Sciences. 1993;12(2):189-91.
Donor Insemination, secrecy, families, social attitudes, psychosocial: Donor Insemination, secrecy, families, social attitudes, psychosocial.
This response to Daniels and Taylor's article in the same volume focuses on the potential problems associated with parents telling and not telling children about their DI origins. While favouring openess it calls for increased public discussion in this area.
79. Mead GH. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1934.
80. Menning BE. the infertile couple. In: Bergen AW, ed. Community Mental Health: Target Populations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1976.
.
.81. Menning BE. The emotional needs of infertile couples. Fertility and Sterility. 1980;34:313-19.
infertility: infertility.
.
82. Menning BE. The psychosocial impact of infertility. Nursing Clinics of North America. 1982;17(1):155-63.
83. Menzies H. Fast forward and out of control: How technology is changing your life. Toronto: MacMillan; 1989.
84. Merton RK. Social Theory and Social Structure. New Jersey: The Free Press; 1968.
85. Miall CE. Perceptions of Informal Sanctioning and the Stigma of Involuntary Childlessness. Deviant Behaviour. 1985;6(November 1985):383-403.
86. Miall CE. The Stigma of Involuntary Childlessness. Social Problems. 1986;33:268-82.
infertility, stigma, society, deviance: infertility, stigma, society, deviance.
.
87. Miall CE. Reproductive technology vs. the stigma of voluntary childlessness. Social Casework. 1989;70:43-50.
88. Mies M. Why do we need all this? A call against genetic engineering and reproductive technology. In: Spallone P, Steinberg DL, eds. Made to order - The myth of reproductive and genetic progress. Oxford, UK: Pergamon; 1989.
89. Ministerial Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future; 1994.
90. Mitchenson W. The medical treatment of women. In: Burt S, Code L, Dorney L, eds. Changing patterns: Women in Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart; 1988.
.
.91. Moen E. What does 'control over our bodies' really mean? International Journal of Women Studies. 1979;2:129-43.
92. Monach JH. Childless: no choice. The experience of involuntary childlessness. London: Routledge; 1993.
93. Mulkay M. Rhetorics of hope and fear in the Great
Embryo Debate. Social Studies of Science. 1993;23:721-42.
94. Mulkay M. Women in the Parliamentary Debate over Embryo Research. Science Technology and Human Values. 1994 a;19(1):5-22.
gender, law, legislation, regulation, embryos, research, UK, family, women, men, rights: gender, law, legislation, regulation, embryos, research, UK, family, women, men, rights.
This study of the debates in the UK parliament around the issue of whether or not to allow embryo research to continue looks at the language, arguments and emphasis of the male and female speakers. It finds that male speakers used rights based language and tended to begin with the interests of embryos and children. Women speakers tended to use arguments centred around the reproductive experiences and best interests of women. Both men and women and pro and anti-research groups both were concerned with whether this research threatened or benefitted conventional familylife and womens traditional role within this.
95. Mulkay M. Changing minds about embryo research. Public Understanding and Science. 1994 b;3:195-213.
UK, legislation, ethics, embryos, research, genetic engineering, scientists, regulation, policy, prohibition, social attitudes: UK, legislation, ethics, embryos, research, genetic engineering, scientists, regulation, policy, prohibition, social attitudes.
This paper uses documentary research to discover how and why there was a change in the UK parliament from opposition to, to favouring of embryo research. This was achieved by a science lobby which influenced the general public and the media by emphasising the benefits of genetic screening; and by directly lobbying parliamentarians by bringing them into their research facilitates to show them their activities. It also reports on the ban on certain forms of research and the arguments about whether this sort of ban will stick over time.
96. Murray TH. Gifts of the Body and the Needs of Strangers. Hastings Center Report. 1987;17(2):30-38.
gift, biomedicine, theory, ethics, altruism, blood, organs, social values: gift, biomedicine, theory, ethics, altruism, blood, organs, social values.
Relationships governed by markets keep moral and social dimensions to a bare minimum. Gifts, by their open-endedness, defy such minimalisation. Impersonal gifts, such as blood or body parts or charity may not regulate relationships between specific individuals, buth they serve other functions by regulating larger relationships and honoring important human values, precisely those threatened by massive and impersonal bureaucracies.
97. Novaes S. Giving, Receiving, Repaying: Gamete Donors and Donor Policies in Reproductive Medicine. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 1989;5:639-657.
donors, donor insemination, IVF, gift, policy, recipients, kinship: donors, donor insemination, IVF, gift, policy, recipients, kinship.
Analyses current donor recruitment in the light of Marcel Mauss' essay on the gift. Donor policies seem primarily designed to spare infertile recipients the obligation to recognize the donor's contribution, thus avoiding the kinship issues that they raise. Questions relating meaning of donation, social recognition of donors' role and clarification of the kinship issues are essential in order to establish the social legitemacy of fertilisation procedures using donated gametes.
98. O'Brien M. The politics of reproduction. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1981.
99. O'Donovan K. A Right to Know One's Parentage? International Journal of Law and the Family. 1988;2:27-45.
100. O'Donovan K. 'What Shall We Tell the Children?' Reflections on Children's Perspectives and the Reproductive Reproduction. In: Lee R, Morgan D, eds. Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life; 1989.
.
.101. Oakley A. From walking wombs to test-tube babies. In: Stanworth M, ed. Reproductive technologies - Gender, motherhood and medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987.
102. Oakley A, Rajan L. Obstetric Technology and Maternal Emotional Well-being: a Further Research Note. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 1990;8(1):45-55.
103. Overall C. Ethics and Human Reproduction. A Feminist analysis. Winchester, USA: Allen and Unwin, Inc.; 1987.
104. Owens D. The desire to father: Reproductive ideologies and involuntarily childless men. In: McKee L, O'Brien M, eds. The Father Figure. London: Tavistock Publications; 1982.
105. Peck E, Senderowitz. Pronatalism: The Myth of Man and Apple Pie. New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell; 1974.
106. Petchetsky RP. Reproduction freedom: Beyond 'a woman's right to choose'. Signs - The Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 1980;5:661-85.
107. Petchetsky RP. Foetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In: Stanworth M, ed. Reproductive technologies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987.
108. Pfeffer N. Artificial Insemination, In-vitro Fertiliszation and the Stigma of Infertility. In: Stanworth M, ed. Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press; 1987.
109. Prattke TW, Gass-Sternas KA. Appraisal, Coping, and Emotional Health of Infertile Couples Undergoing Donor Artificial Insemination. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing. 1992;22(6):516-27.
110. Raynor L. The adopted child comes of age. London: Allen and Unwin; 1980.
.
.111. Rose S, Lewontin RC, Kamin LJ. Not In Our Genes: Penguin Books; 1984.
112. Rothman BK. Recreating motherhood. New York: Norton; 1989.
113. Rowland R. Motherhood, patriarchal power, alienation and the issue of 'choice' in sex pre-selection. In: al GCe, ed. Man-made women. Bloomington, USA: Indiana University Press; 1987.
114. Rubin S. A Spermdonor Baby Grows Up. In: Zimmerman J, ed. The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow. New York: Praeger; 1983.
donors, offspring, anonymity, telling the child, secrecy, regulation, sperm banks, payment, family, law: donors, offspring, anonymity, telling the child, secrecy, regulation, sperm banks, payment, family, law.
This article is the account by a DI offspring, of what she thinks about DI practice, and how she feels about being the product of DI. She is disapproving of her inability to gain access to her biological father, the law which allows this , her parents for witholding the information from her for thirty years and DI as a practice as such.
115. Sacks O. A Leg to Stand on. London: Pan Books; 1986.
116. Sants HJ. Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology. 1964;37:133-41.
117. Schwartz GE. Testing the Biopsychosocial Model: The Ultimate Challenge Facing Behavioral Medicine? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1982;50(6):1040-1053.
medical aspects, systems theory, psychosocial, psychological, doctors: medical aspects, systems theory, psychosocial, psychological, doctors.
This article suggests that medicine is moving from a single-category single-cause single-effect model to one which recognises multiple interactions in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. It calls this new approach the biopsychosocial model which it sees as being based on systems theory. It looks at the philosophy of science and the relation of existing disciplines to this new development.
118. Shapiro CH. The Impact of Infertility on the Marital Relationship. Social Casework. 1982(September):387-393.
psychosocial, infertility crisis, social workers, stress, counselling, grief,: psychosocial, infertility crisis, social workers, stress, counselling, grief,.
This article looks at infertility as a point of crisis and as a mourning process. It describes the mourning process utilising Kubler-Ross's time-line and addresses how social workers can respond at differenrent points in this process. It also presents advice on appropriate counselling approaches.
119. Snowden R, Mitchell GD. The Artificial Family. A Consideration of Artificial Insemination by Donor. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1981.
donor insemination, psychosocial, couples, family, donors, secrecy, adoption, marriage, legal, donors, lesbian, single women: donor insemination, psychosocial, couples, family, donors, secrecy, adoption, marriage, legal, donors, lesbian, single women.
This book concentrates on the political and social implications of DI and presents the results of studying over 1000 DI situations. It looks at the roles of the various participants the legal situation and addresses issues of secrecy and DI being used with single women and lesbians.
120. Snowden R, Mitchell GD. The Artificial Family. A Consideration of Artificial Insemination by Donor. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd; 1981.
donor insemination, psychosocial, couples, family, donors, secrecy, adoption, marriage, legal, donors, lesbian, single women: donor insemination, psychosocial, couples, family, donors, secrecy, adoption, marriage, legal, donors, lesbian, single women.
This book concentrates on the political and social implications of DI and presents the results of studying over 1000 DI situations. It looks at the roles of the various participants the legal situation and addresses issues of secrecy and DI being used with single women and lesbians.121. Snowden R, Mitchell GD, Snowden EM. Artificial Reproduction: A Social Investigation. London: George Allen and Unwin; 1983.
family, donor insemination, stress, sexuality, social attitudes, assisted reproduction, parenthood, regulation, couples: family, donor insemination, stress, sexuality, social attitudes, assisted reproduction, parenthood, regulation, couples.
This book looks at the social implications of assisted reproduction concentrating on DI. It presents the results of a study of DI families and addresses such issues as sexuality, stress and secrecy. It concludes by making recommendations about regulation in this area.
122. Stacey M. Social dimensions of assisted reproduction. In: Stacey M, ed. Changing Human Reproduction. Social Science Perspectives. London: Sage Publications; 1992.
123. Stanworth M. Reproductive technologies - Gender, motherhood and medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987.
124. Stewart CR, Daniels KR, Boulnois JDH. The development of a psychosocial approach to artificial insemination of donor sperm. New Zealand Medical Journal. 1982;95(December 8):853-6.
Psychosocial, Couples, Assessment, Selection, Counselling, Multidisciplinary teams, Biology,: Psychosocial, Couples, Assessment, Selection, Counselling, Multidisciplinary teams, Biology,.
This paper emerges from the experiences of the author as a member of a multidisciplinary team operating in a hospital based obstetrics and gynaecology unit. This team was trying to develop a model within which the psychosocial assessment of couples applying for AID could be carried out. The paper presents guidelines in five areas which it believes should be considered in the AID assessment process and addresses medical and counselling issues associated with this.
125. Strathern M. The meaning of assisted kinship. In: Stacey M, ed. Changing Human Reproduction. Social Science Perspectives. London: Sage Publications; 1992.
126. Strauss AL. Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity. Glencoe, USA: The Free Press; 1959.
127. Tefft SK. Secrecy. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Human Science Press Inc.; 1980.
128. Triseliotis J. In Search of Origins: The Experiences of Adopted People. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1973.
adoption, tracing, secrecy, openness: adoption, tracing, secrecy, openness.
entry incomplete.
129. Turner B. Medical Power and Social Knowledge. London: Sage; 1987.
130. United Kingdom Go. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. London: HMSO; 1990.131. Valentine DP. Psychological impact of infertility: identifying issues and needs. Social Work in Health Care. 1986;11(4):61-9.
132. Vanderwater B. Meanings and Strategies of Reproductive Control: Current Feminist Approaches to Reproductive Technology. Issues in Reproductive and Genetic Engineering. 1992;5(3):215-30.
133. Veevers JE. The Social Meaning of Parenthood. Psychiatry. 1973;36(August 1973):291-310.
134. Veiel HOF. Dimensions of social support: a conceptual framework for research. Social Psychiatry. 1985;20(4):156-62.
135. Veveers C. Childless by Choice. Toronto: Butterworths; 1980.
136. Von Bertalanffy L. Robots, Men and Minds. NewYork: Braziller; 1967.
137. Walby C, Symons B. Who am I? identity, adoption and human fertilisation. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering; 1990.
138. Walters L. Ethics and the New Reproducticve Technologies: An International Review of Committee Statements. The Hastings Center Report. 1987;17:3-9.
139. Warnock MC. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology.: Department of Health and Social Security, UK; 1984.
140. Wikler D, Wikler NJ. Turkey-baster Babies: The Demedicalisation of Artificial Insemination. The Milbank Quarterly. 1991;69(1):5-39.
.
.141. Wilcox BL. Social support, life stress, and psychological adjustment: A test of the buffering hypothesis. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1981;9:371-86.
142. Williams LS. Biology or Society? Parenthood Motivation in a Sample of Canadian Women Seeking In Vitro Fertilization. In: Holmes HB, ed. Issues in Reproductive Technology 1: An Anthology. New York: Garland; 1992.
143. Winkler RC, Midford SM. Biological Identity in Adoption, Artificial Insemination by Donor (A.I.D.) and the New Birth Techmologies. Journal of Early Childhood. 1986;11(4):43-8.
144. Working Party for ART MMMoMA. Guidelines for the use of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Wellington: Reprinted in the report of the Ministerial Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology, 1994, Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating Our Future (Appendix E). NZ Govt.; 1991.
145. Wright J, Bissonette F, Duchesne C, Benoit J, Sabourin S, Girard Y. Psychosocial distress and infertility: men and women respond differently. Fertility and Sterility. 1991;55(1):100-108.
psychosocial, couples infertility, gender, longitudinal,: psychosocial, couples infertility, gender, longitudinal,.
This study looks at the stress associated with infertility for 449 consecutive first admission couples to a fertility clinic. Women were found to be more distressed than men. The level is stress is compared to generalised stress in the population, and reasons for stress differences between men and women are discusssed.