Global and Russian Reproductive Care in the Context of Medical Tourism: Ethical, Social, Economic and Political Issues

  • Mikhail A. OSADCHUK Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation - Sechenov University, Russia
  • Alexey M. OSADCHUK Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Further Professional Education "Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education" of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russia
  • Ekaterina D. MIRONOVA Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation - Sechenov University, Russia
  • Karina S. SOLODENKOVA Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation - Sechenov University, Russia


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.


[1] Agarwal, A. 2017. Celebs who opted for surrogacy. Times of India. Available at:
[2] Annas, G. J. 1984. Redefining parenthood and protecting embryos: why we need new laws. Hastings Cent Rep, 14(5): 50-52.
[3] Ber, R. 2000. Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy. Theor Med Bioeth, 21(2): 153-169. DOI:
[4] Berend, Z. 2014. The social context for surrogates’ motivations and satisfaction. Reprod Biomed Online, 29(4): 399-401. DOI:
[5] Berend, Z. 2018. The Online World of Surrogacy. Berghahn.
[6] Berend, Z. and Guerzoni, C. S. 2019. Reshaping Relatedness? The case of US Surrogacy. Antropologia, 6(2 N.S.): 83-100. DOI:
[7] Bergmann, S. 2011. Fertility tourism: circumventive routes that enable access to reproductive technologies and substances. Signs, 36(2):280-288. DOI:
[8] Bhatia, R. 2018. Gender before Birth: Sex Selection in a Transnational Context. University of Washington Press.
[9] Boele-Woelki, K., Curry-Sumner, I., Schrama, W. and Vonk, M. 2011. Draagmoederschap en Illegale Opneming van Kinderen. Utrecht. Available at:
[10] Boris, E. and Parreñas, R. 2010. Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
[11] Bridger, S., Kay, R. and Pinnick, K. 1995. No More Heroines?: Russia, Women and the Market. Routledge.
[12] 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:
[13] Casella, C. et al. 2018. Ethical and legal issues in gestational surrogacy. Open Medicine. 13(1):119-121. DOI:
[14] Chang, C. L. 2004. Surrogate motherhood. Taiwan Yi Xue Ren Wen Xue Kan, 5(12):48-62.
[15] Cheung, H. 2021. Surrogate babies: Where can you have them, and is it legal? BBC News. Available at:
[16] Cooper, M. and Waldby, C. 2014. Clinical Labor: Tissue Donors and Research Subjects in the Global Bioeconomy. Duke University Press Books.
[17] Couture V. et al. 2015. Cross-border reprogenetic services. Clin Genet, 87(1): 1-10. DOI:
[18] Crabb, J. H. 1983. The Constitution of Belgium and the Belgian Civil Code. Springer.
[19] Cromer, R. 2019. Making the Ethnic Embryo: Enacting Race in US Embryo Adoption. Med Anthropol, 38(7): 603-619. DOI:
[20] Cyranoski, D. 2017. China’s embrace of embryo selection raises thorny questions. Nature, 548(7667): 272-274. DOI:
[21] Deomampo, D. 2016. Transnational Reproduction. New York University Press.
[22] 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:
[23] 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:
[24] Det Etiske Rad. 2015. Foster mothers. Available at:
[25] England, P. 2005. Emerging Theories of Care Work. Annu Rev Sociol, 31(1): 381-399. DOI:
[26] Fallesen, P., Emanuel, N. and Wildeman, C. 2014. Cumulative Risks of Foster Care Placement for Danish Children. PLOS ONE, 9(10): e109207. DOI:
[27] Folbre, N. 2001. The invisible heart: economics and family values. The New Press.
[28] 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:
[29] Frith, L. 2001. Gamete donation and anonymity: The ethical and legal debate. Human Reproduction, 16(5): 818-824. DOI:
[30] Gunnarsson, P. J, Korolczuk, E, and Mezinska, S. 2020. Surrogacy relationships: a critical interpretative review. Ups J Med Sci, 125(2): 183-191. DOI:
[31] Haas, J. M. 1998. Begotten not made: a Catholic view of reproductive technology. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available at:
[32] Hochschild, A. R. 2000. Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value. Jonathan Cape.
[33] 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:
[34] 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:
[35] 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:
[36] Issupova, O. 2000. From duty to pleasure? Motherhood in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Routledge.
[37] Jacobson, H. et al. 2016. Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies. Rutgers University Press.
[38] 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:
[39] 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:
[40] Kholwadia, M. A. 2010. The Islamic ruling on surrogate motherhood. Digital Archive of Islamic Knowledge. Available at:
[41] Kornegay R. J. 1990. Is Commercial Surrogacy Baby-selling? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 7(1): 45-50. DOI:
[42] 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.
[43] Krolokke, C. H. 2014. West is best: Affective assemblages and Spanish oocytes. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 21(1): 57-71. DOI:
[44] Latham, S. R. 2020. The United Kingdom Revisits Its Surrogacy Law. Hastings Cent Rep, 50(1): 6-7. DOI:
[45] Mak, A. K. Y. 2007. Advertising Whiteness: An assessment of skin color preferences among urban Chinese. Visual Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 144-157. DOI:
[46] 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:
[47] Marway, H. 2018. Should We Genetically Select for the Beauty Norm of Fair Skin? Health Care Anal, 26(3): 246-268. DOI:
[48] Moll, T. 2019. Making a Match: Curating Race in South African Gamete Donation. Med Anthropol, 38(7): 588-602. DOI:
[49] Montanari V. G., et al. 2017. How the legislation on medically assisted procreation has evolved in Italy. Medicine and Law, 36: 5-28.
[50] Nahman, M. 2013. Extractions: An Ethnography of Reproductive Tourism. Palgrave McMilllan.
[51] Nahman, M. 2018. Migrant extractability: Centring the voices of egg providers in cross-border reproduction. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 7: 82-90. DOI:
[52] 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:
[53] Pande, A. 2014. Wombs in Labor: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. Columbia University Press.
[54] Pande, A. and Moll, T. 2018. Gendered bio-responsibilities and travelling egg providers from South Africa. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 6: 23-33. DOI:
[55] Panitch, V. 2013. Surrogate Tourism and Reproductive Rights. Hypatia, 28(2): 274-289. DOI:
[56] Parker Herring Law Group. 2021. The history of surrogacy: 4 important eras to know. Available at:
[57] Parks, J. A. and Murphy, T. F. 2018. So not mothers: responsibility for surrogate orphans. Journal Med Ethics, 44(8): 551-554. DOI:
[58] 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:
[59] 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:
[60] 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:
[61] Ray, S. 2018. India bans commercial surrogacy to stop ‘rent a womb’ exploitation of vulnerable women. The Telegraph. Available at:
[62] 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:
[63] 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:
[64] Rudrappa, S. 2015. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New York University Press.
[65] 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:
[66] 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:
[67] 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:
[68] Russell, C. 2018. Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice? Reprod Biomed Soc Online, 7: 131-140. DOI:
[69] 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:
[70] Sallam, H. N. and Sallam, N.H. 2016. Religious aspects of assisted reproduction. Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 8(1): 33-48.
[71] Schenker, J. G. 2013. Human reproduction: Jewish perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol, 29(11): 945-948. DOI:
[72] 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:
[73] Serour, G.I. 2013. Ethical issues in human reproduction: Islamic perspectives. Gynecol Endocrinol, 29(11): 949-952. DOI:
[74] Sharma, B. R. 2006. Forensic considerations of surrogacy -- an overview. Journal Clin Forensic Med, 13(2): 80-85. DOI:
[75] Shellnutt, K. 2018. America’s surrogacy bump: is fertility a blessing to be shared? Christianity Today. Available at:
[76] Smerdon, U. R. 2008. Crossing Bodies, Crossing Borders: International Surrogacy between the United States and India. Cumb L Rev, 39(1): 15-85.
[77] 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:
[78] Speier, A. 2016. Fertility Holidays: IVF Tourism and the Reproduction of Whiteness. New York University Press.
[79] Stuvoy, I. 2018. Accounting for the money-made parenthood of transnational surrogacy. Anthropol Med, 25(3): 280-295. DOI:
[80] Svitnev, K. 2010. Legal regulation of assisted reproduction treatment in Russia. Reprod Biomed Online, 20(7): 892-894. DOI:
[81] Thompson, C. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. MIT Press.
[82] 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:
[83] Utrata, J. 2015. Women without Men: Single Mothers and Family Change in the New Russia. New York University Press.
[84] Vertommen, S. 2015. Assisted Reproductive Technologies at the Frontier: Towards a Decolonial Approach. Science as Culture, 24(4): 532-537. DOI:
[85] 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.
[86] Weis, C. 2017. Reproductive Migrations: Surrogacy workers and stratified reproduction in St Petersburg. PhD diss., De Montfort University. Available at:
[87] 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:
[88] 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:
[89] 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:
[90] Wilkinson, S. 2003. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics, 17(2): 169-187. DOI:
[91] Code Civil des Français. 2020. Civil Code of the French Republic. Last Amended by Law 2019-222 on 1 September 2020. Available at:
[92] Code Pénal. 1992. Adopted on 22 July 1992, Took Effect 1 March 1994. Available at:
[93] 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:
[94] 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:
[95] 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:
[96] Embryo Protection Act of 13 December 1990. Available at:
[97] Family Code of Ukraine. Available at:
[98] Law 19 February 2004, N. 40. Norme in Materia di Procreazione Medicalmente Assistita. 2004. Available at:
[99] Ley 14/2006, de 26 de Mayo, Sobre Teécnicas de Reproduccioén Humana Asistida. Available at:
[100] 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:
[101] 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:
[102] Ministry of Health of Ukrainian. 2013. About the statement of the Order of application of auxiliary reproductive technologies in Ukraine. Available at:
[103] 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.
[104] New Civil Code No. 89/2012 Coll. Available at:
[105] Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. 2002. No. 327 Published on 23 December 2002. Available at:
[106] Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. 2005. No. 17 Published on 27 January 2005. Available at:
[107] Official Gazette of the Hellenic Republic. 2014. No. 145 Published on 11 July 2014. Available at:
[108] Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy. European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber. Application No. 25358/12. 2017 Jan 24. Available at:
[109] Psalter. Translation by Ambrose (Timrot). 2017. Nicaea.
[110] Regulamentar Decree 6-A / 2017, 2017-07-31 de Julho. Diário da República No. 146/2017, Series I of 2017-07-31. Available at:
[111] Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. Published 1985. Available at:
[112] 2021. About surrogacy. From the Bible to today: the history of surrogacy. Available at:
[113] The Parliament passed this Act of the Czech Republic. Available at:
[114] 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:
[115] Wetboek van Strafrecht Geldend van 01-01-2020 t/m 30-06-2020. Available at:
[116] World Health Organization. 2010. To become a mother by all means: the pangs of sterility. WHO Bulletin. 12(88): 881-882. DOI:
How to Cite
OSADCHUK, Mikhail A. et al. Global and Russian Reproductive Care in the Context of Medical Tourism: Ethical, Social, Economic and Political Issues. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 6, p. 1537-1549, sep. 2021. ISSN 2068-7729. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 19 oct. 2021. doi: