 |
When a woman decides to be a surrogate mother, becoming pregnant and then giving her child to another couple in exchange for money, is this ethically right? Indeed, I believe it is an ethical issue of profound importance. Some say it is an act of love—giving a child to a couple who, for whatever reason, cannot (or willfully choose not to) have their own children. Others say it is merely a financial transaction, because in the US surrogacy agreements often involve payments of between $20,000 and $25,000. (In 1986, Mary Beth Whitehead entered into a surrogacy agreement but then decided to keep her child and a massive legal battle ensued, which she eventually lost.) There is no doubt that this is a profoundly important question, for it challenges our most fundamental ideas about motherhood and calls into question the bond between mother and child. For these reasons perhaps, much of Europe bans the practice, and 12 states, including New York, New Jersey and Michigan, refuse to recognize surrogacy contracts. However, more than a dozen states specifically legalize and regulate the practice.
- Why is there a growing acceptance of surrogacy? (1) In a recent issue of Newsweek, there is a report on the growth of surrogacy as a legitimate practice. “. . . Many of these women [who agree to be surrogates] are military wives who have taken on surrogacy to supplement the family income, some while their husbands are serving overseas. Several agencies reported a significant increase in the number of wives of soldiers and naval personnel applying to be surrogates since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At the high end, industry experts estimate there were about 1,000 surrogate births in the United States last year, while the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART)—the only organization that makes an effort to track surrogate births—counted about 260 in 2006, a 30% increase over three years.” However, this is too small of an estimate. Private agreements made outside an agency are not counted, and the figures do not factor in pregnancies in which one of the intended parents does not provide the egg. (2) Technology has made surrogacy safer and more likely to succeed. Some clinics, according to the Newsweek report, are boasting a 70% to 90% pregnancy success rate—up 40% over the past decade. Embryologists can now inject a single sperm into an egg. In addition, clinics can now test embryos for genetic diseases before implantation. (3) Because of the 1986 Whitehead case, many surrogacy contracts now stipulate that the woman who carries the baby cannot also donate the egg. The egg is donated by another woman, usually unknown, and the sperm can either be from the father or also an unknown donor. (4) The Newsweek article reports that there is a sense of empowerment and self-worth in surrogacy. One surrogate mother stated that she wanted “to do something substantial for someone else. I want to make a difference.” But money is also a major driver in the decision to be a surrogate. For example, military wives can earn more with one pregnancy that their husbands’ annual base pay, which ranges from $16,080 to $28,900. Also, because they are military wives, they benefit from one of the best health insurance programs in the country, most which cover surrogacy medical costs. For that reason, many clinics offer military wives an extra $5,000 in incentive pay for the surrogacy contract. But the prospective parents, who are paying for the surrogacy, often try to enforce all kinds of demands on the behavior of the woman carrying the child: governing alcohol consumption, smoking, pumping gas, prohibiting sex with her husband, etc. Such demands are often bizarre, and according to legal scholars, unenforceable.
- How then should we think about surrogacy? No matter how one examines this issue, despite its often altruistic motives, it is enhancing control of the birth process. With the selection of sperm and eggs, parents can be selective and manipulative in trying to control the kind of child they wish to raise. In vitro fertilization now enhances that control. Further, no matter how one looks at this, it is a woman selling her body for 9 months. Or to put it another way, it is selling the child that she carries. Further, it is difficult to not ultimately see this as degrading to women and to the entire miracle of life itself. With all the reproductive technologies currently being used in the US, surrogacy combines a natural process (pregnancy over the normal 9-month period) with tremendous control and manipulation. It is certainly not natural! Overall, it is difficult to view this as a positive in the development of civilization.
See the Newsweek story in the 7 April 2008 issue, pp. 45-51. |
