Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

5.

THW ban surrogate mother in the


case of in vitro fertilization
1.

The ever-rising prevalence of infertility world over has lead to advancement of assisted reproductive
techniques (ART). Herein, surrogacy comes as an alternative when the infertile woman or couple is
not able to reproduce. Surrogacy is an arrangement where a surrogate mother bears and delivers a
child for another couple or person. In gestational surrogacy, an embryo, which is fertilized by in
vitro fertilization, is implanted into the uterus of the surrogate mother who carries and delivers the
baby. In traditional surrogacy, the surrogate mother is impregnated with the sperms of the intended
father artificially, thus making her both genetic and gestational mother. Surrogacy may be
commercial or altruistic, depending upon whether the surrogate receives financial reward for her
pregnancy.

2.

Commercial surrogacy is legal in India,(1) Ukraine, and California while it is illegal in England,
many states of United States, and in Australia, which recognize only altruistic surrogacy. In contrast,
countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, and Italy do not recognize any surrogacy agreements.
India has become a favorite destination of fertility tourism. Each year, couples from abroad are
attracted to India by so-called surrogacy agencies because cost of the whole procedure in India is as
less as one third of what it is in United States and United Kingdom (10-20 lakhs)

Surrogate motherhood is one of many currently available forms of Assisted Reproductive


Technologies (ARTs) that have developed in response to the increasing number of
individuals/couples who find themselves unable to conceive a child on their own. Surrogate
motherhood involves the services of a woman who agrees to carry/gestate a child for the express
purpose of surrendering that child to the intending/commissioning couple upon the birth of the
child. The demand for surrogate motherhood is created by a diagnosis of female infertility,
although a woman need not be infertile in order to employ the services of a surrogate. Factors
that have contributed to the popularization of surrogate motherhood and other reproductive
technologies are both medical and social in nature. In the United States there are reportedly two
to three million infertile couples (Office of Technology Assessment 1988). A diagnosis of infertility
is defined as the inability of a heterosexual couple to produce a pregnancy after one year of
regular intercourse, that is, unprotected intercourse (Stangel 1979). The social factors that have
contributed to the rise in the rates of infertility and that have resulted in an increase in the
demand for reproductive technologies are the trend toward later marriages and the tendency for
growing numbers of women to delay having children until later in their reproductive years. With
advances in reproductive medicine, couples who would not have been able to reproduce in the
past are now able to have children who are completely or partially genetically related to them.
Approximately 35 percent of couples who choose surrogacy have either attempted or considered
adoption (Ragon 1994). The majority of those who eventually choose surrogacy view the
adoption process as one that is riddled with problems and that has been, in most cases, unable
to provide them with a suitable child (Ragon 2000). For example, in 1983, 50,000 adoptions
were completed in the United States, but an estimated two million couples were still seeking to
adopt (Office of Technology Assessment 1988).

Some of the features of proposed bill are that an authority at


national and state level should be constituted to register and
regulate the I.V.F. clinics and A.R.T centers, and a forum should be
created to file complaints for grievances against clinics and ART
centers. The age of the surrogate mother should be 21-35 years,
and she should not have delivered more than 5 times including her
own children. Surrogate mother would not be allowed to undergo
embryo transfer more than 3 times for the same couple. If the
surrogate is a married woman, the consent of her spouse would be
required before she may act as surrogate to prevent any legal or
marital dispute. A surrogate should be screened for STD,
communicable diseases and should not have received blood
transfusion in last 6 month as these may have an adverse bearing
on the pregnancy outcome. All the expenses including insurance of
surrogate medical bill and other reasonable expenses related to
pregnancy and childbirth should be borne by intended parents. A
surrogacy contract should include life insurance cover for surrogate
mother. The surrogate mother may also receive monetary
compensation from the couple or individual as the case may be for
agreeing to act as such surrogate. It is felt that to save poor
surrogate mothers from exploitation, banks should directly deal
with surrogate mother, and minimal remuneration to be paid to the
surrogate mother should be fixed by law.
The surrogacy arrangement should also provide for financial support for the surrogate
child in case the commissioning couple dies before delivery of the child, or divorce
between the intended parents and subsequent willingness of none to take delivery of the
child so as to avoid injustice to the child. A surrogate mother should not have any parental
rights over the child, and the birth certificate of the baby should bear the names of
intended parents as parents in order to avoid any legal complications. Guidelines dealing
with legitimacy of the child born through ART state that the child shall be presumed to be
the legitimate child of the married/unmarried couple/single parent with all the attendant
rights of parentage, support, and inheritance.

I think it is not the right thing to do


There is way to have a baby by IVF; with tube (e.G Louise Brown) apart of surrogate process. Surrogate
is not the right thing to do because vulnerable, poor, people have been used as a commodity for the
wealthy. The reasons why host mother agreed to do this process is poverty. Selling/giving birth to a body
for money doesn't sound right at all no matter if the baby is genetically linked to the host mother. In the
end, how the host mother lives, eats, behaves are all link to a child which they develop linkage between
mom and child. I think surrogate should not be legal

It would not be legal.


I am convinced that a surrogacy is really very controversial issue. On the one hand, it could bring new
faith and hope for the people who can not have children the biological way. On the other hand, it is a
matter of morality. Moreover, there are many question available. Although, there could be an legal
agreement between both sides, you never know the reaction of surrogate mother after the birth of baby
Thai surrogate mother Pattaramon Chanbua holds her baby Gammy, born with Down Syndrome, in
hospital on Aug 4. The Australian biological parents have been accused of abandoning the baby after
learning of its condition
Thai government moves to ban commercial surrogacy in the Southeast Asian countryWhile
commercial surrogacy is illegal in Australia
In Western and South Australia, altruistic surrogacy is legal only for heterosexual couples
but illegal for single people and same-sex couples
The Northern Territory has no law on surrogacy while New South Wales, Queensland and
the Australian Capital Territory have made it an offense for residents to go overseas in
search of a commercial surrogate, with penalties of up to two years in jail.

Under the ethical guidelines laid down by the National Health and Medical Research Council, a
surrogate or donor cannot be paid.
Chapman says most surrogates in Australia tend to be close friends or family members.
He admits that one of the problems with surrogacy is that there is always the possibility of the surrogate
not wanting to hand over the baby once it is born.
As the biological mother, she does have that right unless that right is signed away under a surrogacy
agreement, he says.
While there has been no case in Australia where the surrogate has not given up the child, he adds, it does
happen quite a bit in those states in the United States where surrogacy is legal.
These have ended up in very expensive court cases with the genetic parents the winners, Chapman
says.
But there is a valid case for surrogacy.
There are many women who cannot have babies for one reason or another, he says. Some are either
born without a uterus or have had it removed due to cancer, and there are couples for whom IVF
treatment has not worked, he explains.
Surrogacy then becomes an option, but here in Australia it is fraught with difficulties so people turn
towards Asia or those states in the US where it is legal, says Chapman.
Around 350 Australians have surrogate babies annually and that demand is growing, he adds.
Because state laws have made it difficult, especially for same-sex couples, to have babies through
surrogates, most go overseas.
The Jean Hailes Research Unit at Monash University and Surrogacy Australia found that only 8 percent
of the 259 respondents used surrogacy in Australia.
India and the US were the most common destinations for those who traveled overseas to access
surrogacy.
Study co-author Karin Hammarberg, senior research fellow in the Jean Hailes Research Unit, said there
were multiple reasons Australians were going overseas for surrogacy.
These reasons included not being able to find a surrogate in Australia, concerns that asking a surrogate
to carry a child for no reward is unfair, and concern that the surrogate might keep the child, she said.
Pattaramon was promised 300,000 baht ($9,300) by a surrogacy agency in Bangkok, Thailands capital,
to be a surrogate for the Australian couple, but she has not been fully paid since the children were born
last December.
She said the agency knew about Gammys condition four to five months after she became pregnant but
did not tell her. It wasnt until the seventh month of her pregnancy when the doctors and the agency told
her that one of the twin babies had Down syndrome and suggested that she have an abortion just for
him.
Anti-Surrogacy
Womens reproductive rights have enjoyed a half-century or so of well-defined proponents and
opponents, but the recently flourishing fertility industry, from egg harvesting to surrogacy, has produced
fresh and surprising alliances among former foes.
Feminists, traditionalists, Catholics, evangelicals, ethicists and atheists alike have united to combat what
many convincingly view as the exploitation and commodification of women and the violation of human
rights even as perfect babies and happy families are formed.
Speaking of quagmires.
Latest to the arena is Louisiana, where a pro-surrogacy bill creating a regulatory structure for surrogate
parenting passed both legislative houses with few dissenting votes and now faces a possible veto by
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). A thumbs-down from Jindal would constitute an act of principled courage, given
widespread public support and lobbying efforts that have included the prominent display of two
beautiful, surrogate-produced children born of the bills chief author, state Sen. Gary Smith.
During his push for the bill, Smith brought his children to the statehouse and circulated photographs of
the two.
Whatever one may feel about Smiths happy family, feel being the operative term, one should also be
aware that not all surrogacy stories are so pretty. There is a dark underbelly to the surrogacy industry
and it is a business including a burgeoning industry that preys on vulnerable women, commodifying
them as ovens, a term Smith himself used. Never mind repercussions for the children themselves, who
may have as many as five parents, from the egg and sperm donors, to the woman who carries them to
the couple or single parent who adopts them.
It isnt necessary to demonize anyone here. It is only fair to assume that people who want a child this
much are good people with the wherewithal to make dreams come true. The women who carry others
babies to term may be acting out of a sense of service or altruism, but the financial incentive cant be

ignored. Surrogacy brokers are wise to their marketplace and specifically target populations that are
likely to be attracted to surrogacy. Almost half the surrogates in this country are military wives,
according to Kathy Sloan, a National Organization for Women board member and surrogacy opponent.
Though laws, where they exist, vary from state to state, advertising in military periodicals and elsewhere
lists requirements that the woman must already be a mom and thus know the ropes, as well as be a
proven breeder. She must be willing to stay in place until the baby is born and, of course, surrender
rights to the child. Although the woman is paid between $25,000 and $50,000 for her surrogacy, the
language of most legislation speaks only to living expenses and coverage of medical bills. Most allow
for termination of pregnancy should some abnormality be discovered pre-term.
In one such case in Connecticut where a fetus was shown to have abnormalities, the surrogate was
offered $10,000 to abort. She declined. Because state law clearly identified the purchasers as the
parents, the surrogate moved to another state, had the baby and placed her in an adoptive home.
The simplicity of the human desire for children notwithstanding, theres nothing simple about the
surrogacy business and we havent scraped the surface of the metaphysical, spiritual, emotional and
psychological issues with which a brief flirtation evokes mind-twisting complexities. Physical concerns,
meanwhile, are plentiful.
This obviously is rich territory for pro-life crusaders for whom compromise on embryos is impossible,
but NOWs Sloan, a pro-choice activist, shares no such concerns. She sees surrogacy only as the
exploitation of vulnerable women. She also sees a variety of class and race issues at play. The rich take
advantage of the poor for designer babies, Caucasian features for carrier preferred.
The United States is second only to India in providing surrogates, according to Sloan, who also works
with the United Nations on human rights. But even India, where some women are warehoused for nine
months and forbidden to leave during the pregnancy, recently has set limits on surrogacy. Here in
America, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) recently vetoed a bill similar to Louisianas upon learning
the darker details behind the family portraits.
While no one wishes to cause pain to people who, for whatever reason, cant have a child on their own,
there are more compelling principles and consequences in play. Human babies are not things; their
mothers are not ovens. But bartering and selling babies-to-order sure make them seem that way. By
turning the miracle of life into a profit-driven, state-regulated industry, the stork begins to resemble a
vulture.

Is Surrogacy Profitable for All?


If we look upon the problem of surrogate mothers, things are even
worse and unethical. The poor, illiterate women of rural background
are often persuaded in such deals by their spouse or middlemen for
earning easy money. These women have no right on decision
regarding their own body and life. In India, there is no provision of
psychological screening or legal counseling, which is mandatory in
USA. After recruitment by commercial agencies, these women are
shifted into hostels for the whole duration of pregnancy on the
pretext of taking antenatal care. The real motive is to guard them
and to avoid any social stigma of being outcast by their community.
These women spend the whole tenure of pregnancy worrying about
their household and children. They are allowed to go out only for
antenatal visits and are allowed to meet their family only on
Sundays. The worst part is that in case of unfavorable outcome of
pregnancy, they are unlikely to be paid, and there is no provision of
insurance or post-pregnancy medical and psychiatric support for
them. Rich career women who do not want to take the trouble of
carrying their own pregnancy are resorting to hiring surrogate
mothers. There are a number of moral and ethical issues regarding
surrogacy, which has become more of a commercial racket, and
there is an urgent need for framing and implementation of laws for
the parents and the surrogate mother.(4)

Surrogacy refers to a contract in which a woman carries a


pregnancy for another couple
Surrogacy leads to a entire minefield of issues
Firstly, surrogacy affirms the argument that children are made commodities by artificial means. No one
can deny the pains of infertility, but surrogacy makes having a child seem as like picking a product. By
bearing a child, one develops obvious emotional connection to it, and this early love for a child cannot
be easily substituted. I believe that if one is to take into account the child's well being, surrogacy can
ensure a lack of early intimacy between mother and child. Legally also surrogacy complicates rights
over the child, which also affirms the view of child commodification. A child is not something that
should ever be fought over, but brought up in a loving and nurturing environment. I don't deny however
the reality that one does not have to give birth to or show any relation to a child to be a great parent. It is
the room for complication that steers me from surrogacy

The reason is Love


If I was the child of a surrogate mother, I would feel sad that my life began as a result of my mother
accepting money rather than a loving act between committed partners. Life should begin as an act of
love not greed or need for money.
I support adopting, through adoption a loving couple can give love to a child who may have otherwise
never experienced that in their childhood.

It is bad emotionally.
The surrogate mother will be attracted to the baby, so she would not in many cases want to give the baby
back to the real mother. Also it costs a lot. It will be bad for the babies of the surrogate mother because
they will be jealous and she won't have enough time to take care of them.

Pro-Surrogacy
I was dismayed by the paternalistic assumptions Kathleen Parker presented in her May 26 op-ed
column, Wombs for rent. It was disappointing to see the women are being exploited arguments
surfacing again, decades after they were first used by anti-surrogacy groups against developments in
assisted-reproduction technology.
Contained in that misconception is the notion that women are too ignorant, ill-informed or otherwise
unable to make rational decisions to be surrogates and to use their minds and bodies to help those who
cannot carry a fetus to term, such as, for example, women who have been struck by cancer or other
disease. The truth is that the vast majority of women who choose to serve as surrogates are intelligent,
well-educated and financially secure; they are caring individuals who want to help others in a unique
and meaningful way.
Most surrogacy arrangements conclude happily with the birth of a healthy child and with all the
participants feeling satisfied with the process and the outcome. Ms. Parkers implication is nonsensical
surrogacy should not be banned; it should be regulated with reasonable medical and legal oversight.
Judith Sperling-Newton, Washington
The writer is director of the American Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

Surrogacy is a way to bring the happiness of parenthood to a


couple who would otherwise not have bee...
Surrogacy is a way to bring the happiness of parenthood to a couple who would otherwise not have been
able to enjoy it, either due to biological circumstances ( for example infertile or same-sex couples ), or
the unavailability of a child for adoption. The joy of parenthood is something that every couple should
be able to experience.
Contrary to the assumptions that underlie the proposition case, parenthood is not a fundamental human
right. Besides, surrogacy is so controversial, and so traumatic for all concerned, that more conventional
methods such as adoption should be used instead. Parents should not put their own desire to be parents
over the possible damage it might cause to the baby.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation.


Even if commercialisation does occur...
There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation. Even if commercialisation does occur,
it would be controlled by strict laws and regulated by independent bodies, as is currently the case in the
US. If standard charges were fixed there would simply be no room for a market to develop, thus
ensuring that all had access to a surrogate if they wanted.
Surrogacy will eventually and inevitably become commercialised, with mothers hiring out their wombs
to the highest bidder. Even if charges are standardised, the high level of such a fee will still ena that the
rich are more likely to benefit than the poor, as they are more likely to be able to afford the cost. No case
of parenthood should simply be decided by financial factors.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made nonfinancial by allowing a friend of the famil...
However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made non-financial by allowing a friend of the family
to be the surrogate, hence avoiding any legal wrangling after the birth, which can often happen when
strangers are involved. It would also avoid the situation where a child has a stranger as their natural
mother, which has been known to cause them problems.
This arrangement would in fact create more problems than it solved, as such an unofficial arrangement
would be a legal nightmare if the surrogate decided ( as has often happened ) to keep the baby, as she
would of course be the childs legal mother. Important links are formed between mother and baby in the
first nine months, and to forcibly sever these links would be devastating for all concerned. Also, it would
be far more confusing and damaging for the child if their biological mother was someone who from an
early age they had known as a friend of their parents.

Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...

On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced


properly, but would merely lead to t...
On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced properly, but would merely lead to the
physical impregnation of the surrogate by the would-be father, rather than a clean surgical procedure
that avoided the emotional problems caused by an actual sexual act between the surrogate and the
would-be father.
Even if there would be problems in enforcing a ban, we should still lay down the law; such an argument
used against, say, growing cannabis at home would not invalidate a ban on drugs. Surrogacy is bad for
both the mother and the child, and is beset by emotional problems for all concerned. Parents should not
put their own interests above their childs.

Surrogate motherhood is a valuable option for parents who cannot


bear children, and a good source of income.
The world is full of couples who want desperately to be parents, but cannot, for physical health reasons,
as well as women who are healthy and capable of childbearing, but in need of some extra income.
Surrogate motherhood is a great way to solve both problems at once. Especially in a time of high
unemployment, it could be a life-saver for some people