Silent Subject: The Child in the Debate on Assisted Reproduction in Poland
Keywords:
IVF, assisted reproduction, children, PolandAbstract
This article explores the social construction of the “IVF child” in Poland. In this country where Catholicism is the dominant religion, attitudes towards in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and, more generally, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are clearly mirroring and reproducing the nation’s values. Based on official church teachings, the “IVF child” is a new subject of concern. Research conducted with children who were conceived in this manner proves that they are important actors, whose voices need to be included into the anthropological analysis of ARTs. The ways in which they articulate their understanding of ARTs shows both the pervasiveness of anti-IVF voices and the active roles children play in producing their own meanings.
Downloads
References
Aborcja zarodka to zabicie dziecka. Z posłem Jarosławem Gowinem rozmawia Paulina Nowosielska-Kucharska 2009. http://ekai.pl/wydarzenia/x17960/polska-aborcja-zarodka-to-zabicie-dziecka/. Access: 20.02.2015.
A l d e r s o n P. and Mo r r o w V. 2011. The Ethics of Research with Children and Young People. A Practical Handbook. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.
A r d e n e r E. 2007. The Words of Prophecy and Other Essays. New York, Oxford.
Ba n c h o f f T. 2011. Embryo Politics. Ethics and Policy in Atlantic Democracies. Ithaca, London.
B e c k e r G. 2000. The Elusive Embryo. How Women and Men Approach New Reproductive Technologies. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
C h r i s t e n s e n P. and J a m e s A. 2008. Childhood Diversity and Commonality. Some Methodological Insights. In P. Christensen and A. James (eds.), Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices. Abington, New York, 156–192.
Di a s i o N. 2013. Remembrance as Embodiment in Contemporary Polish Memories. Polish Sociological Review 3 (183), 389‒402.
Donum Vitae, The Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation 1987. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html. Access: 10.07.2014.
Du b o w S. 2011. Ourselves Unborn. A History of the Fetus in America. Oxford, New York.
Em o n d R. 2005. Ethnographic Research Methods with Children and Young People. In S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.), Researching Children’s Experience. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, 123–140.
G a l l a c h e r L.-A. and G a l l a g h e r M. 2008. Methodological Immaturity in Childhood Research? Thinking Through “Participatory Methods”. Childhood 15 (4), 499‒516.
G a r m a r o u d i Na e f S. 2012. Gestational Surrogacy in Iran: Uterine Kinship in Shia Thought and Practice. In M. C. Inhorn and S. Tremayne (eds.), Islam and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Shia and Sunni Perspectives. New York, Oxford, 157–193.
Życie religijne w Polsce. Wyniki badania spójności społecznej 2018. GUS. https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/inne-opracowania/wyznania-religijne/zycie-religijne-w-polsce-wyniki-badania-spojnoscispolecznej-2018,8,1.html. Access: 12.08.2019.
Ha l l D. 2012. Questioning Secularization? Church and Religion in Poland. In D. Pollack, O. Müller and G. Pickel (eds.), The Social Significance of Religion in the Enlarged Europe: Secularization, Individualization, and Pluralization. Aldershot, 121–142.
Ha r d m a n C. 2001. Can There Be an Anthropology of Children? Childhood 8 (4), 501–517.
He n n e s y E. and He a r y C. 2005. Exploring Children’s Views Through Focus Groups. In S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.), Researching Children’s Experience. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, 236–252.
Ho l c J. 2004. The Purest Democrat. Fetal Citizenship and Subjectivity in the Construction of Democracy in Poland. Signs. Journal of Women in Culture, Society 3 (29), 754–782.
Hu n l e t h J. 2011. Beyond On or With. Questioning Power Dynamics and Knowledge Production in “Child-Oriented” Research Methodology. Childhood 18 (1), 81–93.
J a m e s A. 2007. Giving Voice to Children’s Voices. Practices and Problems, Pitfalls and Potentials. American Anthropologist 109 (2), 261–272.
J a m e s A. and J a m e s A. 2008. Changing Childhood. Reconstructing Discourses of “Risk” and “Protection”. In A. James and A. James (eds.), European Childhoods: Culture, Politics and Childhood in the European Union. Basingstoke, 105–128.
J a m e s A., J e n k s C., P r o u t A. 1998. Theorizing Childhood. Oxford.
J a n s M. 2004. Children as Citizens. Towards a Contemporary Notion of Child Participation. Childhood 11 (27), 27–44.
K a h n S. M. 2000. Reproducing Jews. A Cultural Account on Assisted Reproduction in Israel. Durham.
K a y E. M. T., D a v i s J. M., H i l l M., P r o u t M. 2008. Children, Young People and Social Inclusion. Participation for What? Bristol.
K o r o l c z u k E. 2011. Rodzicielstwo i demokracja, czyli prywatne jest zawsze polityczne. Kultura Liberalna 154 (52), http://kulturaliberalna.pl/2011/12/20/leonowicz-soltysiak-ksieniewicz-korolczukkim-rozmnazanie-polakow/#3. Access: 10.08.2018.
K r a w c z a k A. 2014. Czego nie widać. Obszary przemilczeń w polskiej debacie o in vitro. In M. Radkowska-Walkowicz and H. Wierciński (eds.), Etnografie biomedycyny. Warszawa, 91–124.
L e d e r A. 2014. Prześniona rewolucja. Ćwiczenie z logiki historycznej. Warszawa.
L e e N. 2005. Childhood and Human Value: Development, Separation, and Separability. Maidenhead, Berkshire.
Ma c i e j e w s k a -Mr o c z e k E. and R e i m a n n M. 2017: Kodeks dobrych praktyk w badaniach z dziećmi: O potrzebie tworzenia zasad badań z udziałem dzieci. Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica 18:3, 11–23.
Ma r c u s G. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24, 95–117.
Ma r i a ń s k i J. 2010. Zmieniająca się przynależność do Kościoła katolickiego w Polsce wyzwaniem dla duszpasterstwa. In Baniak J. (ed.), Laikat i duchowieństwo w Kościele katolickim w Polsce: Problem dialogu i współistnienia. Poznań, 19‒46.
Ma y a l l B. 2008. Conversations with Children. Working with Generational Issues. In P. Christensen and A. James (eds.), Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices. Abington, New York, 109–124.
Me r i l l S q u i e r S. 2004. Liminal Lives. Imagining the Human at the Frontiers of Biomedicine. Durham, London.
Mi s h t a l J. 2015. The Politics of Morality. The Church, the State, and the Reproductive Rights in Postsocialist Poland. Athens.
Mo n k D. 2008. Childhood and the Law. In Whose “Best Interest?” In M. J. Kehily (ed.), Introduction to Childhood Studies. Berkshire, 177–197.
Mo r g a n M., G i b b s S., M a x w e l l K., B r i t t e n N. 2002. Hearing Children’s Voices. Methodological Issues in Conducting Focus Groups with Children Aged 7–11 years. Qualitative
Research 2, 5–20.
O’ K a n e C. 2008. The Development of Participatory Techniques. Facilitating Children’s Views about Decisions which Affect Them. In P. Christensen and A. James (eds.), Research with Children. Perspectives and Practices. Abington, New York, 125–155.
Opinie o dopuszczalności zapłodnienia in vitro 2015. CBOS, https://cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2015/K_096_15.PDF. Access: 9.07.2017.
Pashigian M. 2012. The Growth of Biomedical Infertility Services in Vietnam. Access and Opportunities. Facts, Views, Visions. Issues in Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Health. Monograph, 59‒63. http://www.fvvo.be/assets/270/09-Pashigian.pdf.
Pierwowzorem in vitro jest Frankenstein. Rozmowa z bp. Tadeuszem Pieronkiem 2009, http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/pierwowzorem-in-vitro-jest-frankenstein/7exbs. Access: 21.02.2015.
R a d k o w s k a -Wa l k o w i c z M. 2012. The Creation of “Monsters”. The Discourse of Opposition to In Vitro Fertilization in Poland. Reproductive Health Matters 20 (40), 30‒37.
R a d k o w s k a -Wa l k owi c z M. 2013. Doświadczenie in vitro. Niepłodność i nowe technologie reprodukcyjne w perspektywie antropologicznej. Warszawa.
R a d k o w s k a -Wa l k o w i c z M. 2014. Frozen Children and Despairing Embryos in the “New” Post-Communist State. Debate on IVF in the Context of Poland’s Transition. European Journal of Women’s Studies 21 (4), 1–16.
R e i n h a r z S. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York, Oxford.
S h e p h e r -Hu g h e s N. 2004. Parts Unknown. Undercover Ethnography of the Organs-Trafficking Underworld. Ethnography 5 (1), 29–73.
S t a i n t o n R o g e r s W. 2008. Promoting Better Childhoods. Constructions of Child Concern. In M. J. Kehily (ed.), Introduction to Childhood Studies. Berkshire, 141–160.
S t e i n b o c k B. 2011. Life Before Birth. The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses. Oxford, New York.
Tak dla leczenia niepłodności, NIE dla in vitro. 2014. CitizenGo, http://www.citizengo.org/pl/10988-takdla-leczenia-nieplodnosci-nie-dla-vitro. Access: 19.02.2015.
Te r l i k o w s k i T. 2014. Wstrząsające świadectwo dziecka z in vitro. Wolałabym się nie narodzić, http://www.fronda.pl/a/wstrzasajace-swiadectwo-dziecka-z-in-vitro-chcialabym-sie-nie-narodzic,39049.html. Access: 1.06.2014.
Va e l e A. 2005. Creative Methodologies in Participatory Research with Children. In S. Greene and D. Hogan (eds.), Researching Children’s Experience. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, 253‒72.
We i n e r A. B. 1980. Reproduction. A Replacement for Reciprocity, American Ethnologist 7 (1), 71–85.
Wo j a c z e k K. 2011. Model małżeństwa do lamusa? Kulturowe zagrożenia małżeństwa. Homo Dei. Przegląd Teologiczno-Duszpasterski 80 (3), http://www.katolik.pl/model-malzenstwa-do-lamusa-kulturowe-zagrozenia-dla-malzenstwa,22977,416,cz.html. Access: 12.12.2018.
Z a n i n i G. 2011. Abandoned by the State, Betrayed by the Church. Italian Experiences of Cross-BorderReproductive Care. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23, 565– 572.
