Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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)
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.
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...
Surrogate Mothers
Yes because... No because...
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...