Having written for some time now about different ways to organize surrogacy (you could start here, which is most recent or here, which is a longer way back) I want to try to tie things together and sum up. I’m thinking here about the difference between an altruistic surrogacy system (as in the UK) and a commercial surrogacy system (as in the US). I am increasingly inclined to conclude that altruistic surrogacy is a better choice.
It does seem to me that these names are ill chosen (and I suppose I’m the one who chose to use them here, so maybe I need to go back and revise that choice.) Remember that in both altruistic and commercial surrogacy the surrogate receives money (and in fact, it seems to be roughly the same amount of money). The main difference between them has to do with the legal status of the surrogate. In altruistic surrogacy she is a mother. In commercial surrogacy, she is not. And what follows from that is that after the birth of the child, in an altruistic surrogacy system she has the right to change her mind. In a commercial surrogacy system, she does not. With that core difference in mind, I’ll consider various perspectives. And I suppose I’ll be using a bit of a rational choice model–looking at the relative costs and benefits of the options.
Considered from the point of view of the surrogate, altruistic surrogacy certainly seems to be the preferable system. The surrogate in altruistic surrogacy gets money and she gets the status of mother. It is up to her whether to give up the child after birth. Thus, you could say she gets money and she gets power. I’ve argued previously that along with that power might well come greater respect. Thus, from the surrogate’s point of view, what I’ve called an altruistic surrogacy system is essentially a commercial surrogacy system plus more. I cannot see any reasons why (from the surrogate’s perspective) it wouldn’t be a better choice.
The perspective of those utilizing surrogacy is more complicated. There’s one totally obvious drawback to altruistic surrogacy–they are not assured of the outcome. The question, I think, is what weight to give that. I’m sure for some people it would be a deal-breaker. They simply would not proceed with surrogacy in the absence of a guarantee of performance. The guarantee is, of course, slightly illusory. There are no real guarantees in having children–no guarantees that a living and healthy child will in fact be delivered. But a guarantee that the surrogate cannot change her mind removes at least one source of uncertainty. Thus, I have no doubt that the absence of such a guarantee will cause some to reconsider surrogacy.
On the other hand, surrogacy might well be a more viable option for more people. Why? Well, for one thing I would imagine that more women would be willing to be surrogates under an altruistic surrogacy model. It’s a more attractive proposition (more benefits to the surrogate) so all other things being equal, more women should choose to do it. (I don’t really know whether the availability of surrogates is a limiting factor under commercial surrogacy regimes, I suppose.)
More importantly, as I will get to tomorrow, it seems to me altruistic surrogacy could well lower the cost of surrogacy. I suspect cost is a hugely important limiting factor today. That’s why outsourcing is attractive in some instances. So reducing cost would clearly increase availability.
I’ll pick this up here tomorrow.
2 responses so far ↓
Rayven, 2x gestational surrogate // April 21, 2008 at 4:39 am |
I just don’t understand why you would want to encourage women to steal each other’s children.
It simply makes no sense to me.
My sister is a live-in nanny in the United States. Your description of surrogacy, to me, would be the same as her deciding after staying a year with the family that she would be a better mommy to their children, so she would have the legal right to keep them if she so desired.
Then, if we opened that can of worms, I suppose the biological parents should pay her child support as well. After all, she is raising THEIR children for them.
It simply does not make sense. A surrogate carrier is NOT the mother of the child….she is simply a pre-natal babysitter.
Not everyone is able to become a surrogate….that is fine…but to say “well, TRY to be a surrogate and if you find that you get too attached to the baby, well, you can just keep it” is lunacy.
It would cause so much more harm than good and would attract the wrong sort of women to this role.
I have enjoyed reading your posts.
julieshapiro // April 21, 2008 at 10:35 am |
Here’s where I think Rayven and I disagree. Paragraph five of her post–it says, in all caps, the surrogate is not a mother. I think she is a mother. That’s a pretty fundamental disagreement and it leads to very different views on this.
I’ll agree that IF she were not a mother THEN what Rayven says might follow. But I won’t agree that she is not a mother. (And I could equally say, I think, that IF she is a mother THEN what I say might follow?)
So the critical question really is whether the surrogate is a mother. Perhaps I haven’t written about this is a bit, but I think being pregnant/giving birth makes one a parent. http://julieshapiro.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/and-about-the-woman-from-the-one-night-stand/
That said, I wonder why a surrogate would object to being recognized as a parent. She’s free to place her child for adoption after birth (to follow through with her agreement, that is). And it doesn’t make her actions any less creditable, I don’t think.