Global and Russian Reproductive Care in the Context of Medical Tourism: Ethical, Social, Economic and Political Issues
Cross-border reproductive care is a complex issue of the modern world that also impacts the Russian Federation. The main reasons for engaging in cross-border reproductive care are various legal, social, cultural, economic and religious factors, as well as national healthcare quality. In many countries, reproduction involving third parties, i.e., their sperm, eggs and embryos, is prohibited by law. This is why gamete donation is one of the main causes of pursuing CBRC in a foreign country, with Russia holding leading positions in this industry. Current stage of healthcare development makes Russia a major surrogate tourism destination, due to its common European culture and improved public health standards. Besides, Russia, as a multiethnic state where all religions are represented, has the most liberal legislation concerning infertility treatment. Fertility tourists have the same rights as Russian citizens in terms of assisted reproduction procedures, including obtaining the birth certificate regardless of biological relation to the child.
 Annas, G. J. 1984. Redefining parenthood and protecting embryos: why we need new laws. Hastings Cent Rep, 14(5): 50-52.
 Ber, R. 2000. Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy. Theor Med Bioeth, 21(2): 153-169. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009956218800
 Berend, Z. 2014. The social context for surrogates’ motivations and satisfaction. Reprod Biomed Online, 29(4): 399-401. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbmo.2014.07.001
 Berend, Z. 2018. The Online World of Surrogacy. Berghahn.
 Berend, Z. and Guerzoni, C. S. 2019. Reshaping Relatedness? The case of US Surrogacy. Antropologia, 6(2 N.S.): 83-100. DOI: http://doi.org/0.14672/ada2019158083-100
 Bergmann, S. 2011. Fertility tourism: circumventive routes that enable access to reproductive technologies and substances. Signs, 36(2):280-288. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1086/655978
 Bhatia, R. 2018. Gender before Birth: Sex Selection in a Transnational Context. University of Washington Press.
 Boele-Woelki, K., Curry-Sumner, I., Schrama, W. and Vonk, M. 2011. Draagmoederschap en Illegale Opneming van Kinderen. Utrecht. Available at: https://repository.wodc.nl/handle/20.500.12832/1868
 Boris, E. and Parreñas, R. 2010. Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
 Bridger, S., Kay, R. and Pinnick, K. 1995. No More Heroines?: Russia, Women and the Market. Routledge.
 Carone, N., Baiocco, R. and Lingiardi, V. 2017. Italian gay fathers’ experiences of transnational surrogacy and their relationship with the surrogate pre- and post-birth. Reprod Biomed Online, 34(2):181-190. DOI:http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbmo.2016.10.010
 Casella, C. et al. 2018. Ethical and legal issues in gestational surrogacy. Open Medicine. 13(1):119-121. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1515/med-2018-0019
 Chang, C. L. 2004. Surrogate motherhood. Taiwan Yi Xue Ren Wen Xue Kan, 5(12):48-62.
 Cheung, H. 2021. Surrogate babies: Where can you have them, and is it legal? BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-28679020
 Cooper, M. and Waldby, C. 2014. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Duke University Press Books.
 Couture V. et al. 2015. Cross-border reprogenetic services. Clin Genet, 87(1): 1-10. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12418
 Crabb, J. H. 1983. The Constitution of Belgium and the Belgian Civil Code. Springer.
 Cromer, R. 2019. Making the Ethnic Embryo: Enacting Race in US Embryo Adoption. Med Anthropol, 38(7): 603-619. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2019.1591394
 Cyranoski, D. 2017. China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions. Nature, 548(7667): 272-274. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/548272a
 Deomampo, D. 2016. Transnational Reproduction. New York University Press.
 Deonandan, R. 2015. Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy, 8: 111-119. DOI:http://doi.org/0.2147/RMHP.S63862
 Deonandan, R. 2020. Thoughts on the ethics of gestational surrogacy: perspectives from religions, Western liberalism, and comparisons with adoption. J Assist Reprod Genet, 37(2): 269-279. DOI:http://doi.org/0.1007/s10815-019-01647-y
 Det Etiske Rad. 2015. Foster mothers. Available at: https://www.etiskraad.dk/etiske-temaer/assisteret-reproduktion/undervisning-til-grundskolen/oenskebarn/tekster/rugemoedre
 England, P. 2005. Emerging Theories of Care Work. Annu Rev Sociol, 31(1): 381-399. DOI:http://doi.org/0.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122317
 Fallesen, P., Emanuel, N. and Wildeman, C. 2014. Cumulative Risks of Foster Care Placement for Danish Children. PLOS ONE, 9(10): e109207. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1371/journal.pone.0109207
 Folbre, N. 2001. The invisible heart: economics and family values. The New Press.
 Frati, P. et al. 2015. Surrogate motherhood: Where Italy is now and where Europe is going. Can the genetic mother be considered the legal mother? J Forensic Leg Med, 30: 4-8. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.jflm.2014.12.005
 Frith, L. 2001. Gamete donation and anonymity: The ethical and legal debate. Human Reproduction, 16(5): 818-824. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1093/humrep/16.5.818
 Gunnarsson, P. J, Korolczuk, E, and Mezinska, S. 2020. Surrogacy relationships: a critical interpretative review. Ups J Med Sci, 125(2): 183-191. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1080/03009734.2020.1725935
 Haas, J. M. 1998. Begotten not made: a Catholic view of reproductive technology. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available at: https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology
 Hochschild, A. R. 2000. Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value. Jonathan Cape.
 Homanen, R. 2018. Reproducing whiteness and enacting kin in the Nordic context of transnational egg donation: Matching donors with cross-border traveller recipients in Finland. Soc Sci Med, 203: 28-34. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.socscimed.2018.03.012
 Imrie, S. and Jadva, V. 2014. The long-term experiences of surrogates: relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reprod Biomed Online, 29(4): 424-435. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.004
 Inhorn, M. C. and Patrizio, P. 2015. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update, 21(4): 411-426. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv016
 Issupova, O. 2000. From duty to pleasure? Motherhood in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Routledge.
 Jacobson, H. et al. 2016. Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies. Rutgers University Press.
 Jadva, V., Imrie, S. and Golombok, S. 2015. Surrogate mothers 10 years on: a longitudinal study of psychological well-being and relationships with the parents and child. Hum Reprod, 30(2):373-379. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1093/humrep/deu339
 Karandikar S., Gezinski L. B, Carter J. R., and Kaloga M. 2014. Economic Necessity or Noble Cause? A Qualitative Study Exploring Motivations for Gestational Surrogacy in Gujarat, India. Affilia, 29(2): 224-236. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1177/0886109913516455
 Kholwadia, M. A. 2010. The Islamic ruling on surrogate motherhood. Digital Archive of Islamic Knowledge. Available at: https://www.ilmgate.org/the-islamic-ruling-on-surrogate-motherhood/
 Kornegay R. J. 1990. Is Commercial Surrogacy Baby-selling? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 7(1): 45-50. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1111/j.1468-5930.1990.tb00252.x
 Korsak, V. S. et al. 1996. The First Experience in Russia of Conducting of a Programme of Surrogate Motherhood. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction, (2): 45-46.
 Krolokke, C. H. 2014. West is best: Affective assemblages and Spanish oocytes. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 21(1): 57-71. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1177/1350506813510422
 Latham, S. R. 2020. The United Kingdom Revisits Its Surrogacy Law. Hastings Cent Rep, 50(1): 6-7. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1002/hast.1076
 Mak, A. K. Y. 2007. Advertising Whiteness: An assessment of skin color preferences among urban Chinese. Visual Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 144-157. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1080/15551390701670768
 Marinelli, S. 2020. No more only one mom? European Court of Human Rights and Italian jurisprudences’ ongoing evolution. Clin Ter, 170(1): e36-e43. DOI: http://doi.org/0.7417/CT.2020.2186
 Marway, H. 2018. Should We Genetically Select for the Beauty Norm of Fair Skin? Health Care Anal, 26(3): 246-268. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1007/s10728-017-0341-y
 Moll, T. 2019. Making a Match: Curating Race in South African Gamete Donation. Med Anthropol, 38(7): 588-602. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2019.1643853
 Montanari V. G., et al. 2017. How the legislation on medically assisted procreation has evolved in Italy. Medicine and Law, 36: 5-28.
 Nahman, M. 2013. Extractions: An Ethnography of Reproductive Tourism. Palgrave McMilllan.
 Nahman, M. 2018. Migrant extractability: Centring the voices of egg providers in cross-border reproduction. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 7: 82-90. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.020
 Pande, A. 2010. Commercial Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a Perfect Mother‐Worker. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(4): 969-992. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1086/651043
 Pande, A. 2014. Wombs in Labor: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. Columbia University Press.
 Pande, A. and Moll, T. 2018. Gendered bio-responsibilities and travelling egg providers from South Africa. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 6: 23-33. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbms.2018.08.002
 Panitch, V. 2013. Surrogate Tourism and Reproductive Rights. Hypatia, 28(2): 274-289. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1111/hypa.12005
 Parker Herring Law Group. 2021. The history of surrogacy: 4 important eras to know. Available at: https://parkerherringlawgroup.com/surrogacy-lawyer-attorney-raleigh-nc/surrogacy-information/history-of-surrogacy/
 Parks, J. A. and Murphy, T. F. 2018. So not mothers: responsibility for surrogate orphans. Journal Med Ethics, 44(8): 551-554. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1136/medethics-2017-104331
 Peters, H. E., et al. 2018. Gestational surrogacy: results of 10 years of experience in the Netherlands. Reprod Biomed Online, 37(6): 725-731. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbmo.2018.09.017
 Piersanti V., et al. 2021. Surrogacy and “Procreative Tourism”. What Does the Future Hold from the Ethical and Legal Perspectives? Medicina (Kaunas), 57(1): 47. DOI: http://doi.org/0.3390/medicina57010047
 Raposo, V. L. 2020. Rise and fall of surrogacy arrangements in Portugal (in the aftermath of decision n. 465/2019 of the Portuguese Constitutional Court). BioLaw Journal, 20(1): 339-354. DOI: http://doi.org/0.15168/2284-4503-531
 Ray, S. 2018. India bans commercial surrogacy to stop ‘rent a womb’ exploitation of vulnerable women. The Telegraph. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/20/india-bans-commercial-surrogacy-stop-rent-womb-exploitation/
 Rich, C. G. 2018. Contracting our way to inequality: Race, reproductive freedom, and the quest for the perfect child. Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3364641
 Rotabi K. S., et al. 2017. Regulating Commercial Global Surrogacy: The Best Interests of the Child. Journal Hum Rights Soc Work, 2(3): 64-73. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1007/s41134-017-0034-3
 Rudrappa, S. 2015. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New York University Press.
 Rudrappa, S. 2016. What to Expect When You’re Expecting: The Affective Economies of Consuming Surrogacy in India. positions: asia critique, 24(1): 281-302. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1215/10679847-3320149
 Ruiu, G. and Gonano, G. 2020. Religious Barriers to the Diffusion of Same-sex Civil Unions in Italy. Popul Res Policy Rev, 39(6): 1185-1203. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1007/s11113-020-09613-8
 Rumpik, D., et al. 2019. Gestational surrogacy in the Czech Republic. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub, 163(2): 155-160. DOI: http://doi.org/0.5507/bp.2018.040
 Russell, C. 2018. Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice? Reprod Biomed Soc Online, 7: 131-140. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbms.2018.07.001
 Salama, M. et al. 2018. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). Journal Assist Reprod Genet, 35(7): 1277-1288. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1007/s10815-018-1181-x
 Sallam, H. N. and Sallam, N.H. 2016. Religious aspects of assisted reproduction. Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 8(1): 33-48.
 Schenker, J. G. 2013. Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol, 29(11): 945-948. DOI: http://doi.org/0.3109/09513590.2013.825715
 Schurr, C. 2017. From biopolitics to bioeconomies: The ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico’s surrogacy market. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(2): 241-262. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1177/0263775816638851
 Serour, G.I. 2013. Ethical issues in human reproduction: Islamic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol, 29(11): 949-952. DOI: http://doi.org/0.3109/09513590.2013.825714
 Sharma, B. R. 2006. Forensic considerations of surrogacy -- an overview. Journal Clin Forensic Med, 13(2): 80-85. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcfm.2005.08.002
 Shellnutt, K. 2018. America’s surrogacy bump: is fertility a blessing to be shared? Christianity Today. Available at: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/march/surrogacy-surge-us-christians-bioethics-ivf-reproduction.html
 Smerdon, U. R. 2008. Crossing Bodies, Crossing Borders: International Surrogacy between the United States and India. Cumb L Rev, 39(1): 15-85.
 Smietana, M., Rudrappa, S., and Weis, C. 2021. Moral frameworks of commercial surrogacy within the US, India and Russia. Sex Reprod Health Matters, 29(1): 1-17. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1080/26410397.2021.1878674
 Speier, A. 2016. Fertility Holidays: IVF Tourism and the Reproduction of Whiteness. New York University Press.
 Stuvoy, I. 2018. Accounting for the money-made parenthood of transnational surrogacy. Anthropol Med, 25(3): 280-295. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1080/13648470.2017.1392100
 Svitnev, K. 2010. Legal regulation of assisted reproduction treatment in Russia. Reprod Biomed Online, 20(7): 892-894. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1016/j.rbmo.2010.03.023
 Thompson, C. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. MIT Press.
 Thompson, C. and Sofio, S. 2014.Three Times a Woman: Voting, Egg Donation, Cosmetics, and the Punctuated Gendering of Stem Cell Innovation in California. Cahiers du Genre, 56(1): 105-138. DOI: http://doi.org/0.3917/cdge.056.0105
 Utrata, J. 2015. Women without Men: Single Mothers and Family Change in the New Russia. New York University Press.
 Vertommen, S. 2015. Assisted Reproductive Technologies at the Frontier: Towards a Decolonial Approach. Science as Culture, 24(4): 532-537. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2015.1102218
 Wasserman, D. and Wachbroit, R. 1992. The technology, law, and ethics of in vitro fertilization, gamete donation, and surrogate motherhood. Clin Lab Med, 12(3): 429-448.
 Weis, C. 2017. Reproductive Migrations: Surrogacy workers and stratified reproduction in St Petersburg. PhD diss., De Montfort University. Available at: https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2086/15036/PhD%20Thesis.%20Weis.%20Reproductive%20Migrations.%20Final%20Version.Dec%202017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 Weis, C. 2019. Situational ethics in a feminist ethnography on commercial surrogacy in Russia: Negotiating access and authority when recruiting participants through institutional gatekeepers. Methodological Innovations, 12(1): 1-10. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1177/2059799119831853
 Weis, C. 2021. Changing Fertility Landscapes: Exploring the Reproductive Routes and Choices of Fertility Patients from China for Assisted Reproduction in Russia. Asian Bioeth Rev, 13(1): 7–22. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1007/s41649-020-00156-w
 Whittaker, A. M. 2011. Reproduction opportunists in the new global sex trade: PGD and non-medical sex selection. Reprod Biomed Online, 23(5): 609-617. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.06.017
 Wilkinson, S. 2003. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics, 17(2): 169-187. DOI: http://doi.org/0.1111/1467-8519.00331
 Code Civil des Français. 2020. Civil Code of the French Republic. Last Amended by Law 2019-222 on 1 September 2020. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006070721/
 Code Pénal. 1992. Adopted on 22 July 1992, Took Effect 1 March 1994. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/texte_lc/LEGITEXT000006070721/
 Council of Europe. 1989. Principles Set Out in the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts in the Biomedical Science (CAHBI, 1989) Kuznetsova I.M., editor. Commentary to the Family Code of the Russian Federation. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/texts_and_documents/default_en.asp
 Council of Europe. 2020. Surrogacy. Addendum to the Replies to Questionnaire on Access to Medically Assisted Procreation (MAP), on Right to Know about Their Origin for Children Born after MAP. Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO). Available at: https://rm.coe.int/inf-2016-4-addendum-update-june-2021-e/1680a3229f
 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. 2016. Cross-border reproductive care: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 106(7): 1627-1633. DOI:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.038
 Embryo Protection Act of 13 December 1990. Available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/eschg/
 Family Code of Ukraine. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2947-14#Text
 Law 19 February 2004, N. 40. Norme in Materia di Procreazione Medicalmente Assistita. 2004. Available at: https://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/04040l.htm
 Ley 14/2006, de 26 de Mayo, Sobre Teécnicas de Reproduccioén Humana Asistida. Available at: https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/05/27/pdfs/A19947-19956.pdf
 Library Service of the Chamber of Deputies—XV Legislature—Documentation Dossier, the New Laws on Assisted Procreation in Spain and Portugal. Brief Information Notes No. 5. Available at: http://documenti.camera.it/leg15/dossier/testi/NIS005.htm
 Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. 2011. Federal Law of November 21, 2011 No. 323-FZ “On the Fundamentals of Health Protection of Citizens in the Russian Federation.” Available at: https://minzdrav.gov.ru/documents/7025
 Ministry of Health of Ukrainian. 2013. About the statement of the Order of application of auxiliary reproductive technologies in Ukraine. Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1697-13?lang=uk#Text
 Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2018. Fundamentals of the Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. Fundamentals of the Teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church on Dignity, Freedom and Human Rights. House of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church.
 New Civil Code No. 89/2012 Coll. Available at: https://www.kurzy.cz/zakony/89-2012-obcansky-zakonik/
 Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. 2002. No. 327 Published on 23 December 2002. Available at: http://www.et.gr/
 Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. 2005. No. 17 Published on 27 January 2005. Available at: http://www.et.gr/
 Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. 2014. No. 145 Published on 11 July 2014. Available at: http://www.et.gr/
 Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy. European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber. Application No. 25358/12. 2017 Jan 24. Available at: http://eidhr.wiki.huji.ac.il/images/Paradiso.pdf
 Psalter. Translation by Ambrose (Timrot). 2017. Nicaea.
 Regulamentar Decree 6-A / 2017, 2017-07-31 de Julho. Diário da República No. 146/2017, Series I of 2017-07-31. Available at: https://dre.pt/home/-/dre/107787667/details/maximized
 Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. Published 1985. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/49
 Surrogacy.com. 2021. About surrogacy. From the Bible to today: the history of surrogacy. Available at: https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/surrogacy-101/history-of-surrogacy/
 The Parliament passed this Act of the Czech Republic. Available at: https://www.epravo.cz/top/zakony/sbirka-zakonu/zakon-ze-dne-3-unora-2012-obcansky-zakonik-18840.html
 Vatican Archive. 1987. Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation: replies to certain questions of the day. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
 Wetboek van Strafrecht Geldend van 01-01-2020 t/m 30-06-2020. Available at: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854/2020-01-01/#BoekTweede_TiteldeelV_Artikel151b
 World Health Organization. 2010. To become a mother by all means: the pangs of sterility. WHO Bulletin. 12(88): 881-882. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.10.011210
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.