This picks up from the previous post, comparing altruistic surrogacy to commercial surrogacy. At a minimum, you’ll need to remember what the difference between altruistic surrogacy and commercial surrogacy is.
As I said, it seems to me from the point of view of a surrogate, the altruistic surrogacy system is clearly preferable. I then turned to the point of view of those using surrogacy. And of course, this is where it gets more complicated.
Some people will only choose surrogacy if there is a commercial surrogacy regime. I suppose it depends on whether people are willing to bear the risk that the surrogate will change her mind. People who are not willing to bear that risk will reject surrogacy entirely if only altruistic surrogacy is offered. But in fact, many couples do use surrogacy even in an altruistic system (the UK) and that system has its advantages. I’m thinking here particularly of the qualitative relationship between the surrogate and the intending parents. And, as I suggested yesterday, surrogacy might be more widely available under an altruistic system. (I’ll come back to this in a moment.)
So perhaps the first thing I’d offer is that under an altruistic system there might actually be more surrogacy, but it would be a slightly different group of users. Some people would choose not to use surrogacy who would otherwise have used it. Some people would be able to use surrogacy who cannot currently afford (or perhaps obtain) it.
That’s really looking at it from the wider perspective of groups. You could also look at it from the individual perspective of particular individuals. I don’t think I’d make a sweeping statement like it would be better for those wanting to use surrogacy to use commercial instead of altruistic surrogacy. But you could disagree with me on this and say it is always better for the contracting couple or individual to use commercial surrogacy.
Very likely the most seriously effected party in a switch to altruistic from commercial surrogacy would be the for-profit surrogacy centers. It’s not that there would be no role for them. I think you might still need a bundled array of legal and medical services that could be provided. It would no doubt be convenient to find those packaged together somewhere. And there would still be a need to match surrogates with people who wanted children and so on. But it seems to me very likely that the potential for significant profits would be seriously diminished. I think most people simply wouldn’t pay as much for a program that didn’t come with the guarantee commercial surrogacy offers.
Indeed, this is why I think surrogacy might become more affordable. I’d want to look more closely at the itemized prices of US surrogacy providers to be sure. But I would expect that prices would lower (with a higher proportion of the money going to the surrogate). That would, of course, make surrogacy available to a wider array of people.
3 responses so far ↓
Bill Singer // April 21, 2008 at 12:35 pm |
Are you sure that in a commercial surrogacy, the surrogate forfeits her right to be the mother?
If that were true, why are lawyers doing termination hearing after the child is born or obtaining pre-birth orders?
julieshapiro // April 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm |
I have perhaps been sloppy with my language and it may obscure the margins of what I know. Let me try to be more careful.
I think (I do not know, but now I’ll figure out how to check) that all of the main for-profit surrogacy centers in the US are in states where the woman who gives birth is not a mother. At the very least, they are states where there her claim to be a mother would be unsupported. I don’t think it is coincidence. If the surrogate is is a mother, then she has a right to keep the child. That is an outcome the larger surrogacy centers want to eliminate.
If the surrogate is not a mother then you can easily pay her–and it’s just fee for service. If the surrogate is a mother you have to be much more careful about payment. You cannot purchase her parental rights. (That’s baby-selling.) So the only places you get what I have called commercial surrogacy (where the surrogate is directly paid) is in states where the surrogate is not a mother.
I’m not sure about why lawyers are doing what they are doing. The fact that the surrogate is not a mother won’t guarantee that the intended people are parents. So that might be part of it. Also, if you want something that will travel across state lines, you’d do better with an order. Finally, there’s always the possibility it is a “belt-and-suspenders” model.
bumpfairy // April 18, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
I know this is old news, but just ran accross this article and thought I’d put in my .02!
In MOST states, the surrogate actually is the “mother” first. It is the contents of her contract with the intended parents that allow her status change. Air tight contracts in even the most surro-friendly state still have the pre or post adoption clause where the surrogate legally surrenders her rights to mother that child via pre-birth order or post birth adoption. Legally, at the time of birth the surrogate is the mother. Morally, ethicaly, and post-birth legally that is not the case. I also want to add my “hell yes” to the end of large surrogacy agencies. Having worked with one and now working without one, I am shamed at parts of my first journey. If there were ever a case of someone profiting off of the misery of another, it’s Surrogacy agencies.