This qualitative study discusses issues related to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment, the everyday experiences of and the reasons why women approach infertility clinics. I have attempted to show that ART imposes a double burden on women, namely, the burden of a social system that restricts women’s role to child bearing and the burden of what might be described as the medicalisation of their problems. There is an obvious gap between the ‘created’ desire for a biological child and the inability to produce one. Though the sample size is small and the results cannot be generalised, the study does point to certain trends.
Archard, D. (2002). Selling yourself: Titmuss’s argument against a market in blood. The Journal of Ethics, 6(1), 87–103.
2.
Bharadwaj, A. (2000). How some Indian baby makers are made: Media narratives and assisted conception in India. Journal of Anthropology and Medicine, 7(1), 63–78.
3.
Bryson, V. (1999). Feminist debates, issues of theory and political practice. London: McMillan Press.
4.
Chadwick, R. (1987). Having Children. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Ethics, reproduction and genetic control (pp. 3–43). New York: British Library of Congress Cataloguing.
5.
Doyal, L. (1995). What makes woman sick, gender and political economy of health. London: McMillan Press.
6.
Gupta, J.A. (2007). Globalisation and reproductive technologies—Global and local articulations. Paper presented at the National Consultation on New Reproductive Technologies held in New Delhi at Jawaharlal Nehru University, 3–5 January.
7.
Inhorn, M., & Balen, V. (2002). The uses of a “Disease”: Infertility as a rhetoric vehicle. In M. Inhorn and V. Balen (Eds), Infertility around the globe: New thinking on childlessness, gender, and reproductive technologies (pp. 33–51). London: University of California Press.
8.
Kimbrell, A. (1993). The human body shop. New York: Harper Collins.
9.
O’Brien, M. (1981). The politics of reproduction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
10.
Pfeffer, N. (1987). Artificial Insemination, In-Vitro Fertilisation and stigma of infertility. In M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive technology: Gender, motherhood and medicine (pp. 81–138). London: SAGE.
11.
Ranjan, Priya. (2007). Setting the agenda for neo eugenics: An exploration. Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation submitted to CSMCH, New Delhi: JNU.
12.
Raymond, J. (1993). Women as wombs: Reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom. San Francisco: Harper.
13.
Rowland, R. (1987). Technology and motherhood: Reproductive choice recon-sidered. Signs, 12(3), 512–528.
14.
SAMA (2007a). Assisted reproductive technologies in India: Implications for women. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(23), 2184–2189.
15.
SAMA. (2007b). ART and subjugation. Paper Presented at the National Consultation on New Reproductive Technologies, New Delhi, at JNU, 3–5 January.
16.
Srinivasan, S. (2004). Selling the parenthood dream. In M. Rao (Ed.), The un-heard scream: Reproductive health and women’s lives in India (pp. 45–66). New Delhi: Zubaan Publications.
17.
Stanworth, M. (1987). Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood and medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
Strathern, M. (1992). The meaning of assisted kinship. In M. Stacey (Ed.), Changing human reproduction: Social science perspectives (pp. 148–169). London: SAGE.
19.
Sutcliffe, A.G., & Ludwig, M. (2007). Outcome of assisted reproduction. Lancet, 370(9584), 351–359.
20.
Widge, A. (2001). Sociocultural attitudes towards infertility and assisted re-production in India. In WHO’s Current Practices and Controversies in Assisted Reproduction, Report of a meeting on Medical, Ethical and Social Aspects of Assisted Reproduction, held at WHO Headquarters in Geneva, 17–21 September.
