Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

EMPLOYER SPONSORED FERTILITY PRESERVATION: DEBATING INSTITUTIONAL PROMOTION OF REPRODUCTIVE PROCRASTINATION OR CHOICE

EMPLOYER SPONSORED FERTILITY PRESERVATION: DEBATING INSTITUTIONAL PROMOTION OF REPRODUCTIVE... Increased interest in fertility preservation, informally called “social freezing,” prompted high profile US technology companies in 2014 to add coverage for the retrieval, freezing and storage of sex cells of eligible employees electing to delay family building. Although an extension of the generous family and health care benefits routinely awarded to tech sector workers, fears of hidden gender inequity and coercion now foreground sponsorship debates. Statistics on the negative effects of population infertility and the limited rate of preservation success by aging females are used to verify concerns. These considerations obscure realities of widespread ART use by US females and ethical recommendations for providing early counseling on preservation options to young oncology patients. To reconcile facts with perceptions, this paper considers dynamics of institutional change to evaluate corporate decisions to expand coverage. This review on preservation additionally examines challenges to employer support for women seeking access to similarly intended fertility control processes that alter the timing and spacing of births. Ultimately, it argues that aspects of isomorphism reframe reservations on corporate motives and expose the potential for tech worker fluencies to materially expand reproductive options through processes of organizational change. Keywords: fertility preservation; employer coercion; neoinstitutionalism; bioethics http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Research in Gender Studies Addleton Academic Publishers

EMPLOYER SPONSORED FERTILITY PRESERVATION: DEBATING INSTITUTIONAL PROMOTION OF REPRODUCTIVE PROCRASTINATION OR CHOICE

SHELLEY GRANT
The Journal of Research in Gender Studies , Volume 6 (2): 26 – Jan 1, 2016
Download PDF
26 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/addleton-academic-publishers/employer-sponsored-fertility-preservation-debating-institutional-pu48FlDK0r

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Addleton Academic Publishers
Copyright
© 2009 Addleton Academic Publishers
ISSN
2164-0262
eISSN
2378-3524
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Increased interest in fertility preservation, informally called “social freezing,” prompted high profile US technology companies in 2014 to add coverage for the retrieval, freezing and storage of sex cells of eligible employees electing to delay family building. Although an extension of the generous family and health care benefits routinely awarded to tech sector workers, fears of hidden gender inequity and coercion now foreground sponsorship debates. Statistics on the negative effects of population infertility and the limited rate of preservation success by aging females are used to verify concerns. These considerations obscure realities of widespread ART use by US females and ethical recommendations for providing early counseling on preservation options to young oncology patients. To reconcile facts with perceptions, this paper considers dynamics of institutional change to evaluate corporate decisions to expand coverage. This review on preservation additionally examines challenges to employer support for women seeking access to similarly intended fertility control processes that alter the timing and spacing of births. Ultimately, it argues that aspects of isomorphism reframe reservations on corporate motives and expose the potential for tech worker fluencies to materially expand reproductive options through processes of organizational change. Keywords: fertility preservation; employer coercion; neoinstitutionalism; bioethics

Journal

The Journal of Research in Gender Studies – Addleton Academic Publishers

Published: Jan 1, 2016

There are no references for this article.