Among the many reproductive methods available
in the U.S., one that is growing in popularity is surrogate motherhood.
Surrogacy is an attractive option for couples when the wife is infertile,
cannot risk during pregnancy, or simply does not wish to be pregnant (Recht). The
typical process “involves an agreement, usually by contract, for the surrogate
to be artificially inseminated with the sperm of the husband… to carry the
fetus to term, and to relinquish parental rights upon birth” (Recht 1019). The
main advantage of this method is convenience—it allows professional women to
have a child that is “biologically related to her husband” without the burden
of a nine-month pregnancy (Recht 1019). However,
surrogate motherhood raises complex legal and ethical issues. In particular, the
question of whether surrogates should be paid for their work in gestating the
children of others is highly controversial. In some states in the U.S., paid surrogacy is legal.
Other states only allow the surrogate mother to be compensated for medical and
legal expenses, not for the actual service.
To
some, the issue is that compensation devalues gestation by labeling it as
“work”. Carrying a child in the womb should be a “function of love and
relationship”, not monetary gain (Apel). Another serious ethical concern
is treating children as commodities. Joseph Backholm, a lawyer who fought
against allowing paid surrogacy in Washington state, argues that tying financial
incentive into protecting a child’s welfare is morally wrong (Barton). However,
neither of these arguments presents a valid reason not to compensate
surrogates. Arguably, the job of rearing one’s own child is also crucial to the
bond between a mother and child, yet some women choose to delegate this role to
someone else. However, there is no dispute over whether mothers should pay child
care providers. Surrogacy should be viewed the same way. On the practical side,
compensation would also provide incentive for surrogates to adhere to standards
of behavior during the term such as taking prenatal vitamins and giving up
alcohol. Regarding the issue of commoditization, it is the contractual nature
of surrogacy—rather than the money involved—that is the more dehumanizing
aspect. Compensating the surrogate rewards the woman for her service, but does not
compromise the value of the child. Whether the surrogate is paid or not, the
fact remains that she is under contract to produce a product (Recht). If this
is the morally troubling aspect of paid surrogacy, then the entire business is
at fault, not just the matter of compensation.
The
rights of the surrogate mother are also central to this debate. Many see
compensating surrogate mothers as a form of exploitation, especially for poor
women (Recht). Women with limited prospects in life could be enticed into
commercializing their bodies for financial gain. The greatest evidence for this
argument can be seen in the enormous surrogacy industry in India, where young
women are housed and paid for gestating infants for wealthy couples overseas
(Barton).
But
while exploitation of poor women is a matter of concern, the situation in India
is an extreme and does not directly apply to the U.S. Steven Snyder, a
Minnesota lawyer and chair of the American Bar Association's Assisted
Reproductive Technologies Committee, states that poor women usually cannot
become paid surrogates “without jeopardizing their welfare benefits” (Barton).
According to Snyder, “in this country, most surrogates have careers or are
stay-at-home moms who want to supplement their husbands' salaries” (Barton). On
the other hand, one must not overlook the benefits of paid surrogacy for women
in poverty. With the money
acquired through surrogacy, poor Indian women have been able to buy homes, send
their children to school, and accomplish much more in life that they could have
otherwise. Surrogacy, while not the ideal way to make a living, may prevent
destitute women to resorting to illegal activities or prostitution. Paid or
unpaid, surrogacy will continue. It seems justifiable, even beneficial, for surrogate
mothers to receive compensation for the important service they provide.
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=5149&blogid=140
http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/surrogacy-business-raises-issue-of-ethics-3c67d96-165480456.html
http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/37/recht.pdf
3 comments:
The question is not so much of whether or not surrogate mothers should be compensated but rather would surrogate mothers even be available if they were not compensated. In an ideal world perhaps healthy women would offer their surrogacy services out of the goodness of their hearts and not request any form of payment. However, as we know contemporary society is far from perfect. Thus arguing over whether or not surrogate mothers should be compensated is futile since few women would offer to be surrogate mothers without compensation.
While bearing a child in the womb may be a “function of love,” it is also hard work. Of course mothers pregnant with their own children do not expect monetary compensation, but then again stay-at-home moms are not paid either. On the other hand, a nanny does have a salary because carrying for another’s offspring is time consuming and can be challenging. Neither nannies nor general childcare providers work out of pure affection. They would not offer their services if the position was not paid. Similarly, maternal surrogacy can be considered an occupation, and thus these mothers expect compensation for their work.
It may be true that paying women to carry others’ children is a form of exploitation. But this case is just one of countless examples of unavoidable exploitation including paid medical studies, plasma donations, and even prostitution. While none of these methods of acquiring money are favorable, the individuals who choose to participate generally do so because they see no other way to survive. Fortunately, maternal surrogacy is relatively safe and may also be a means for poor women to receive much needed medical care in addition to the monetary compensation. While it may be regrettable that young Indian women have entered the surrogacy industry, there are without a doubt worse alternatives. Ironically, the demand for foreign surrogate mothers likely comes from couples living in states within the U.S. that have banned surrogacy.
Because couples are willing to pay surrogate mothers to carry their children, the practice will in all likelihood continue. Laws of supply and demand necessitate some form of monetary compensation for the surrogacy industry to continue at all. Furthermore, if surrogate mothers were not paid, it is likely that their poverty would be augmented, and they would have to find some other way to make a living. Compensating surrogate mothers seems a much more ethical way to address the issue than abolishing payment for surrogacy and facing even more detrimental consequences.
The original poster’s point that paid surrogacy can easily lead to exploitation of poor women is valid. As Clara stated, though, this possibility will never preclude surrogacy from being compensated. Still, the issue of exploitation remains prominent. This topic made headlines recently when pregnancy tests revealed that the baby a surrogate was carrying had very serious defects (cyst in the brain, serious heart problems and no visible stomach or spleen). The parents, distraught because they did not want to bring a baby into the world to suffer, wanted the surrogate, Crystal Kelley, to abort the fetus. Although Kelley had originally signed a contract agreeing to abort in such a situation, she felt that the child inside her deserved a chance and that it was her job to protect the child. Kelley, a single mother of two whose income came only from the surrogacy payments (which would end soon since the parents no longer wanted the child) and some child support, was tempted, though, when the parents offered her $10,000 to abort. She even requested that the payment be raised to $15,000. However, as soon as she made this request, before even hearing the parents’ response, Kelley realized she could not go through with terminating the pregnancy. She was attached to the child inside her, she was morally against abortion and she was going to fight for the baby. Kelley then received the frightening news that if she did not abort, the parents would sue her for the fees they had already paid her and for the medical expenses, totaling over $8000. Both sides now had lawyers, and the parents also soon notified Kelley that if she did not abort, then they would take custody of their child upon her birth and immediately surrender her to the state. Not willing to abort and not wanting the child to go into foster care, Kelley moved with her two daughters to a different state, where, due to different laws, she would be able to claim custody of the baby upon birth. Kelley knew she was not the right person to care for the child, so she found a couple who was willing to adopt the severely disabled baby. This story highlights how easily relatively wealthy parents can exploit financially vulnerable surrogates. Before the baby’s disabilities came to light, Kelley was grateful for the surrogacy payments as they allowed her to give her daughters a better life. Kelley probably did not view surrogacy as exploitation so much as an opportunity for her to improve the lives of her daughters in a way with which she felt comfortable. However, she was eventually asked to compromise her morals for much needed monetary payment, which arguably constitutes exploitation. This kind of situation could arise in other surrogacy situations. For example, due to medical issues, carrying the baby to full term could risk the surrogate’s life, while giving birth early for the surrogate’s sake could risk the child’s life. The surrogate would be extremely vulnerable since regardless of what a contract might say, the parents could offer the surrogate an enormous amount of money to carry the baby as long as possible, despite the risk to the surrogate. Due to financial need, surrogates could easily be manipulated out of making this decision of their own volition. Overall, surrogacy is generally a wonderful thing, as it helps the parents to have a family and helps the surrogate to avoid resorting to worse means (i.e. illegal activities/prostitution) to improve her family’s life. However, because surrogates are so vulnerable to monetary exploitation, doctors, surrogacy agencies and the government must be especially cautious that the surrogate is not exploited. For example, this could involve making contracts extremely explicit to all parties and providing free lawyer services to all surrogates so that they know their rights and are less likely to be coerced throughout the process of surrogacy. http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle
I do not see why it would be inappropriate to compensate women who choose to become surrogate mothers. As long as the women are not coerced or forced into the practice, and they choose to do so on their own free will, I do not see why they cannot be offered compensation for not only the medical and incidental expenses but also the time, effort, and hardship that comes along with pregnancy.
No one would argue that these women should have to pay for any of the medical expense that they insure from the pregnancy but why is paying the surrogate mothers for their time and hardship any different. The pregnancy will put a huge burden on the individual carrying the child and will affect her entire life for nine months. Why should the mother not receive a benefit for this work.
The argument that this would exploit surrogacy is not at all sufficient. First off all there are already practices like this in the medical community that have been commercialized to an extent. Individuals can be compensated for partaking in drug trials, sometimes with huge risks involved. If people can be compensated for this why cant surrogate mothers. I do not see a huge difference between becoming a surrogate mother and partaking in risky drug trials, so why is it common practice to compensate for one and not the other. The argument that women in poverty will turn to surrogacy to make money also is sufficient. These women actually will make money, and get themselves out of poverty through the money they can make becoming surrogate mothers. While it is unsettling to think of women resorting to becoming surrogate mothers to get themselves out of poverty, it is still better than them remaining in poverty and struggling the rest of their lives.
Overall I do not see why women who choose, on their own free will, should not be allowed to become surrogate mothers and receive some sort of compensation for it.
Post a Comment