The debate surrounding the real parent of a created child is far from over. With myriad of court cases on the custody of surrogate children, there is seemingly growing worry and uncertainty over parenthood of children obtained from reproductive technology.
As a matter of fact, some states are quite silent in terms of legislations governing gestational surrogacy while others have limited and unclear guidelines on the same. Needless to say, the simmering controversy regarding this form of alternative reproduction and parenthood needs to be resolved by enacting relevant pieces of legislations.
Up to date, it is still not vivid on who among the following is the authenticated parent; the egg and sperm donors, the adoptive parents who have paid for the egg and sperm or the surrogate who has carried and given birth to the child. Nonetheless, this essay argues that the egg and sperm donors ought to be the true parents of the manufactured child.
While some of the most recent court cases on parenthood of such children have been determined based on how weighty the arguments are on both sides of the plaintiff and defendants, it is worth noting that genetic make-up of the born child is far much important and supersedes any other local arrangement that may have been made between or among parties (Stephanie 1).
It is profound to note that there are some states which have already laid down basic requirements for gestational surrogacy in the sense that the born child must at least share genetic features with one of the parties under agreement. In other words, the child must have genetic relationship with one of the custodians (Denise 1).
Perhaps, the most important reason why such a legal provision should be enforced is that a sperm or egg donor is highly likely to develop a close and more intimate relationship with the child born out of such an arrangement more than in the case whereby there is total absence of genetic sharing.
At this point, it is prudent to note that intimate parenting is directly proportional to well being of children during the whole cycle of growth. It is also definite that latter may be absent or completely unguaranteed in the event whereby none of the parents is a sperm or egg donor (Stephanie 1).
In the case of adoptive parents who went through the process of buying the egg and sperm, catered for legal fees or medical costs for the surrogate, it is imperative to reiterate that such an action may only warrant partial custody of the child but not true parenthood.
In nay case, incurring financial costs on the general upkeep of the surrogate may be undertaken by any other well wisher (Denise 1). For instance, it would be quite misleading to argue that should the state take care of medical and other associated costs of children whose parents are unknown then it implies the latter assumes the parent position.
For the surrogate who has carried the child and eventually given birth to him or her, she has only acted as a vessel or channel through the child has been born and lacks the parenting touch. As already mentioned, a created child largely takes after the genetic characteristics of the original genes. While the environment of embryo growth is pertinent in the initial stages of life, it does not rule out the fact that the intrinsic emotional and character relationship has the greatest bearing on a child and depicts who the true parent is.
To recap it all, it is vital to reiterate that both the sperm and egg donors play immense role in determining both the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of a child. The available legislations on gestational surrogacy are either silent or unclear on true parenthood of a created child. Nonetheless, it is conclusive that genetic make-up of a child should be used as the sole determinant of a parent regardless of who undergoes medical/legal costs or carries the fetus until the time of birth.
Surrogacy is a multidimensional and controversial issue. In essence, it is another case of modern science, improving the lives of people and helping them to solve problems that seemed to be unmanageable only several decades ago. It is another triumph of the human mind over the cruel circumstances, and, in theory, the idea appears to be rather noble. In practice, however, numerous issues and implications arise, complicating the whole process, and occasionally degrading it. Let us not dwell on the obvious delusions of the less literate people who believe that surrogate pregnancy involves having sex and is connected to prostitution. This problem, even though it does exist, can be easily solved by spreading accurate information. Other issues related to surrogacy can be much more difficult to address.
One of the most complicated controversies connected to the topic is that of parenthood. Who is to be considered the actual mother of the child? The number of people who are involved in the process (the intended parents, the donor, the gestational surrogate mother) makes the definition of parenthood rather difficult. It can be regulated with the help of the laws, but the legislation connected to the issue differs from country to country. For example, while in India, the gestational parent has no right of motherhood, in the UK, only the woman who gives birth can be considered the legal mother (Saxena, Mishra & Malik, 2012).
However, while the legal procedures may help to determine the names in the childs birth certificate, both intended and surrogate mothers have reported pondering on the issue of parenthood. The former, as had been shown in the story by Kuczynski (2008), find it difficult to convince themselves that they can be called a mother; the latter may find it difficult to part with their children. As a result, for example, in some states of the USA, a surrogate has a small window of time after birth to stake her claim to parental rights (Haworth, 2007, para. 23). The law, therefore, makes an attempt at taking into account all the intricacies of the issue and aims at preserving the rights and the human dignity of all the parties concerned, but it is not fit to help them deal with their mental conflicts.
These conflicts are aggravated by the commercialized nature of modern surrogacy. Those who believe that this is disturbing use phrases like selling babies and renting wombs to describe the situation. While donating blood is regarded as a heroic deed, donating (or rather renting) a womb is not similarly respected by society. Apart from that, the way surrogate mothers are treated has also raised concerns. The commercialization of the process presupposes that surrogate mothers and the women become supply, stocks and are supposedly treated like robots (Conan & Frank, 2010, para. 18). Finally, an idea has been expressed that money can become the factor that forces low-income females to use their bodies as incubators without actually being ready for it.
While it is obvious that these problems will not necessarily arise during a surrogate pregnancy, and that a self-respecting agency will do its best to provide parties concerned with the necessary psychological help, the public concern is reflected in legislation all over the world. As such, while any kind of surrogacy is illegal in a number of countries (for example, in Italy), only the commercial type is banned in other states (for example, in the UK). At the same time, there are countries that allow commercial surrogacy; for instance, Ukraine, India, and certain states of the US (Armour, 2012, p. 232-233). As a result, a phenomenon that may be called surrogacy tourism has developed.
Another reason for the development of this phenomenon lies in the fact that surrogacy can be differently arranged in different countries. In the US, for example, surrogacy is a rather expensive procedure, even though the price is justified. After all, bearing in mind all the possible implications, agencies thoroughly examine the physical and psychological state of the potential surrogate mothers and dont accept poor women as surrogates for a number of reasons (Kuczynski, 2008, para. 47). All of this is done to avoid the issues that have been mentioned above, including the money issues. However, in other countries, particularly in India, the situation can be different. The conditions in which Indian surrogate mothers have to live are being assessed differently. For example, according to Ms. Frank, who had researched the issue carefully, the Indian clinics are in a very good condition, I would say, very Western standards (Conan & Frank, 2010, para. 15).
At the same time, the conditions described by Haworth (2007) appear to be less acceptable: a room with three beds, an ancient ceiling fan, and wall paint that has bubbled in the heat like a nasty rash (para. 35). Given the economic situation in India, Indian surrogate mothers are paid much less than American ones, which attracts customers but also makes one wonder if the Indian agencies are as careful and responsible as those in the US and if the poor Indian women are being exploited.
In this respect, it should be mentioned that surrogacy is not a luxury. It involves legal difficulties, numerous medical procedures, and, as has been mentioned, ethical dilemmas. Surrogacy is a difficult step to make, and people who agree to it are very often in despair.
A couple may not be able to have a baby for numerous reasons. Occasionally infertility can be treated. Kuczynski (2008) writes about the way people tend to grasp at straws while trying to treat infertility:
You just need to relax. Did you try acupuncture? Soy milk makes you infertile. Youre in front of your computer too much. Whats the problem with all your career girls? Did this cycle work? Are you pregnant this time? How many shots? Where? A low whistle: Boy, you must really want a child. You must really want a child. As if that were a bad thing. (para. 11-12)
And those straws maybe not enough. Apart from that, there are untreatable cases or cases with indefinable causes. With the help of surrogacy, modern medical science offers these people a chance, a way out, and they cannot be blamed for trying. The people who want the child are definitely not exploiting anyone; instead, they are the ones at the risk of being exploited along with the surrogate mothers. At the same time, in theory, the process is supposed to be beneficial for all parties: the business receives the profit and the reputation, the intended parents get the baby they want so much, the surrogate mother accepts their eternal gratitude and the paycheck. It should be mentioned that money can become a true salvation for women in India. As one of the surrogate mothers mentioned, bearing a child is not exploitation. Crushing glass for 15 hours a day is exploitation (Haworth, 2007, para. 36).
It is obvious that it can be unfair to offer poor women such a controversial way out. At the same time, they are all adults who have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and they are aware of all the possible implications.
At least, they are supposed to be aware and informed about all the possible implications of surrogacy. Surrogacy agencies are expected to see to it; if they pay enough attention to their duties is another question. For example, according to Saxena et al. (2012), women in India are still often coerced or forced into the business (occasionally not by the agencies, but by their own relatives) and are ill-informed about the process. This may be true, and yet the deficient literacy of these females cannot be regarded as the disadvantage of the idea of surrogacy itself. Instead, it is the flaw of the system, and the way surrogacy is implemented in the area. This problem can and most certainly needs to be fixed since surrogacy is in demand nowadays, with India being one of the most popular surrogacy tourism destinations (Jaiswal, 2012, p. 1).
It cannot be denied that surrogacy is an extremely controversial issue that causes public disapproval and may result in great distress for all the parties involved. It is considered illegal or only partially legal in many countries, while the countries that allow it to become the destination of surrogacy tourism. Surrogacy business has become extremely profitable; however, it is imperative that the businessmen pay attention to the relevant ethical issues. In its essence, the idea of surrogacy is rather noble, and it is its implementation that causes most of the controversies. Therefore, sound legislation and management are what appear to be necessary for addressing these issues.
For the time being, there is no sound alternative that could provide people with the same advantages without causing the above-mentioned problems. Therefore, surrogacy needs to be taken under governmental control; its methods should be improved, and, as a result, the general public may eventually become more accepting of the concept.
References
Armour, K. (2012). An Overview of Surrogacy Around the World. Nursing For Womens Health, 16(3), 231-236. Web.
Conan, N. (Host), & Frank, Z. B. (Guest). (2010). Google Baby Follows Birth Outsourced To India [Radio Program]. In L. Bishop (Executive Producer), Talk of the Nation. Web.
Haworth, A. (2007). Womb for Rent: Surrogate Mothers in India. WebMD Feature from Marie Claire Magazine. Web.
Jaiswal, S. (2012). Commercial Surrogacy in India: An Ethical Assessment of Existing Legal Scenario from the Perspective of Womens Autonomy and Reproductive Rights. Gender, Technology and Development, 16(1), 1-28. Web.
Thousands of women in the United States face difficulties with fertility. They suffer from numerous health problems, because infertility always leads to a huge moral pain. Society often views women, who cannot have children, as men-like and incomplete. Even the most expensive reproductive technologies do not help to solve female infertility problems. In this context, biological surrogacy and egg donation represent the two easy ways to help a woman become a mother.
Every year, the number of children born through surrogacy in the United States grows. However, the legal, ethical, and moral limitations of biological surrogacy should not be ignored. Women who agree to become surrogate mothers must prepare themselves for the moral and physical pains of separation with the child. Women who choose surrogate mothers to carry their babies must be ready to accept the child, regardless of his (her) physical state at birth.
At present, biological surrogacy resembles the act of trade, when the childs genetic parents manipulate the surrogate mother, using their power and finances. Biological surrogacy can give some hope to the women, who have fertility problems, but only when effective legislation is developed to govern the relationships between biological parents and surrogate mothers.
Biological Surrogacy: The Case of Tiffany Burke and Crystal Kelley
Biological surrogacy has become so common in the United States, that it is no longer shameful for a woman to say that she is carrying someone elses child. It is a source of childbearing hopes for many infertile women, as well as a good moneymaking opportunity for the women, who can bear and give birth to a child.
Tiffany Burke, 31, is currently pregnant with the twins she is carrying for her brother and sister-in-law (Hudson, 2012). She is monitoring her health and calls herself as 60% organic (Hudson, 2012). Tiffany says that the babies she is carrying were formed with her brothers sperm and her sisters egg (Hudson, 2012).
She already has a child of her own, and she knows what it feels like being pregnant. It is interesting that Tiffany was the initiator of this pregnancy, after her sisters uterus was removed as a result of uncontrolled bleeding (Hudson, 2012). She eats organic foods and uses vinegar instead of traditional shampoo. What she does not know is whether her pregnancy will go well for her, the babies, and the biological parents. She does not know what she will do, in case anything goes wrong.
This is the question Crystal Kelley might have been asking herself, when a nice couple she met at the playground decided she could be their surrogate (Chapin, 2013). By the time Kelley agreed to become a surrogate, she already had two daughters and a tragic experience of two miscarriages (Chapin, 2013).
She was fascinated with the amount of attention she was getting from the biological parents. However when, at 21 weeks, an ultrasound revealed considerable health abnormalities, the genetic parents offered $10,000 for Kelley to make an abortion (Caplan, 2013). Kelley refused and moved to Michigan, where she was free to control her body. She gave birth to a girl, who was adopted by the family that has enough financial means to raise her and meet her health needs (Caplan, 2013; Chapin, 2013).
Biological Surrogacy: The Why and How of the Problem
Why Women Do It
Biological surrogacy raises numerous ethical and legal issues, one of them being the right to autonomy, privacy, and self-control. Still, the number of families which apply to biological surrogacy continues to increase each year. The basic question is why, despite so many ethical challenges, families choose biological surrogacy.
The answer is simple: everyone wants to have a child of their own. The fact is that egg donation and biological surrogacy greatly increase womens chances to become mothers. According to Steinbock (2004), a woman who is infertile and uses her own eggs for in vitro fertilization has a 15 percent chance to become pregnant, compared to a 40 percent chance for a woman, who uses donated eggs.
The situation with biological surrogacy is quite similar: for many women who cannot get pregnant naturally, surrogacy provides the only real opportunity to have a child (Steinbock, 2004). Tiffany Burke, who is carrying the twins for her brother- and sister-in-law, understands how difficult it is not to have a child, and this is probably why she decided to sacrifice her body for the sake of pregnancy. However, Burkes case is a rare example of nobility, unlike other cases, when surrogacy is just a matter of money and control.
Biological Surrogacy as a Commodity
With the absence of effective regulations, biological surrogacy resembles the act of trade, where the child is exchanged for a considerable sum of money, and the surrogate mother is just a physical means for having a baby. Commodification is one of the biggest ethical problems in the context of egg donation and surrogacy.
Women who donate their eggs are paid between $2,500 and $5,000 (Steinbock, 2004). Chrystal Kelley was paid $22,000 for her pregnancy and could receive another $10,000, if she agreed to make an abortion (Caplan, 2013). Thus, surrogacy for money is about money not love, or help, or altruism or doing good. Money is most attractive to those who need it most (Caplan, 2013). Biological surrogacy is very much like renting the surrogate mothers womb for a good sum of money.
Certainly, it is possible to say that everything in this world is bought and sold. Scientists sell their minds; lawyers sell their knowledge of the legal procedures; and athletes sell their physical abilities and bodies to cope with their daily needs (Steinbock, 2004).
At times, individuals agree to sell their body parts and organs, when they have no other way to earn for living. However, they do not sell their souls or votes, because it is morally unacceptable. No one wants to be treated as property. Nevertheless, in most cases, this is what happens to the women, who have agreed to become surrogate mothers.
No one says that biological surrogacy is absolutely wrong and should not be allowed. Rather, surrogacy cannot be permitted in its present-day form. It should be thoroughly regulated by the state, and it is state that should (or should not) compensate surrogate mothers for their noble decisions. Only then, biological surrogacy will become moral and acceptable, when no financial interests are involved.
Biological Surrogacy and Body Control
Another problem is that of biological surrogacy and body control. Women who agree to rent their wombs for money often have no voice in the medical and financial decisions regarding their body. Many of them understand that surrogacy is a huge responsibility (Hudson, 2012).
For many others, the lack of control over their bodies becomes an unpleasant surprise during pregnancy. Crystal Kelley, who was asked to abort her child because of the health problems revealed during an ultrasound, received a letter from an attorney who was telling her that, under the surrogacy contract, she had no legal right to keep the child (Caplan, 2013). Under the surrogacy contract, she was required to make an abortion in case any health problems were identified (Caplan, 2013).
However, no one can make a woman get rid of the unborn baby. Under no circumstances can this decision be regarded as legal (Caplan, 2013). Even if the surrogate mother signs a contract, its provisions have no legal power. The attorney who was pressuring Crystal Kelley to seek an abortion can lose his license, because his letter was a serious violation of law (Caplan, 2013). Still, biological surrogacy increases the risks of exploitation.
Even providing large monetary rewards for surrogacy can become a form of coercion. Many women cannot resist the temptation to earn some money for being pregnant. As a result, they turn themselves into a commodity. The money they receive for carrying and giving birth to a child may not be worth the risks of exploitation, which these women are facing.
Kelley was threatened that, in case she refused an abortion, she would have to pay back the money she had received from the genetic parents (Caplan, 2013). She was manipulated to become a murderer of the child, which is equal to a serious crime. However, she was strong enough to withstand the pressure and give birth to a child.
She had even more power and strength to find a family that would care for the sick girl. Looking back at Kelleys case, it is possible to say that any surrogate agency which conveyed an offer of money to encourage an abortion is guilty of at best bribery and an attempt to crassly manipulate a vulnerable woman (Caplan, 2013).
Now, What Happens Next?
Now that the surrogate child is born, what happens to him (her) and how are his (her) relations with the genetic parents develop? This is the question, which matters a lot but does not receive enough professional attention. Biological surrogacy is often described as a process that starts with egg and sperm donation and ends, when the baby is born.
Yet, it is clear that children who are born through surrogacy lack a physical and psychological link with their genetic parents (Golombok, Readings, Blake, Caset, Marks & Jadva, 2011). Unfortunately, Tiffany Burke does not think of how the babies she is carrying will build their relations with the genetic parents.
Crystal Kelley sounds quite confident that the foster parents she has found for her newborn girl will be able to meet her most serious health needs. Today, the children born through surrogacy do not differ much from their peers, who were born through natural conception (Golombok et al., 2011). Families that used surrogacy do not seem to be different from the families, which never experienced any fertility problems.
Getting back to the ethics of biological surrogacy, what will the children born from surrogate mothers say to their biological parents, when they learn about their origins? How will they react to the fact that they were carried and born by a different woman? Will they experience confusion in terms of their mother-and-child roles? Will they treat the surrogate mother as a womb rented to give them life? These questions do not have any answers, as well as the questions related to the morality of biological surrogacy in the modern world.
Many societies and communities feel that surrogacy is just another step towards a cyborg society, where robots and humans live side by side. Many others treat surrogacy as a huge hope for those women, who cannot have children. Many issues related to surrogacy remain unresolved. Meanwhile, many women do not even know what it takes to be a surrogate mother.
Much of the current confusion regarding biological surrogacy is because of the lack of knowledge, information, and openness in relations between genetic parents and surrogate mothers. Those, who agree to become a surrogate, do not even imagine the difficulties associated with this role (Steinbock, 2004).
With so many women having fertility problems, surrogacy should remain an accessible and affordable way to have a baby, but only when new regulations are developed to help surrogate mothers avoid exploitation, commodification, coercion, and harm. This is the only way biological surrogacy can save the society from the risks of a demographic crisis and help infertile women become mothers.
Conclusion
When it comes to biological surrogacy, one of the central questions is whether it is justified. The results of this analysis show that surrogate mothers can provide thousands of women with a chance to become mothers.
Surrogacy is a good alternative to more traditional adoption, since the child born through surrogacy carries the essential genetic features of his (her) parents. However, as the number of surrogate mothers continues to grow, the United States needs better regulations to control and manage this sphere. The cases analyzed in this paper suggest that women, who agree to be surrogate mothers, face numerous risks.
First, they can be easily manipulated into becoming surrogates, because they are offered huge monetary rewards for being pregnant. Second, these women often do not know what it takes to be a surrogate and how it impacts their fundamental rights. Third, women who agree to be surrogates are subject to exploitation and coercion risks. For example, genetic parents can push them towards an abortion, if they learn that the baby has severe physical abnormalities.
This is why the United States needs a new set of laws and regulations to help surrogate mothers defend their rights to autonomy and decision making. The problem is not about biological surrogacy. Being pregnant with someone elses child is neither immoral nor illegal, but when pregnancy does not turn into an object of trade.
In the absence of a solid legal environment, surrogacy turns unborn babies into a commodity that can be bought and sold. New legislation will help protect the right of the unborn babies, while also making surrogate mothers less vulnerable to the risks of exploitation and abuse.
References
Caplan, A. (2013). $10,000 to abort? Surrogacy case reveals moral holes, bioethicist says. NBC News. Web.
Chapin, J. (2013). Surrogate gives birth against biological parents wishes. NBC News. Web.
Surrogacy is an arrangement, where a surrogate mother consents to deliver a child for a individual or couple who will become the parent of the child after delivery. Some think that surrogacy is a problem because it compromises the sanctity of marriage, where other think surrogacy is an issue because the surrogacy organizations that people may use have been known to exploit their surrogates. Surrogates are often wanted when maternity is difficult, when pregnancy dangers are too dangerous for the intended mother, or whilst a single guy or a same-sex couple wants a infant. Monetary reimbursement may additionally or won’t be covered in surrogacy. Considering that some countries believes that paying surrogates give drive for others to take advantage of that. Receiving money from the agreement is referred to as commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy has been seen for many many years, where depictions of another woman bears a child for a couple to raise, commonly where the male half of the couple becomes the genetic father, has been seen since ancient times. Often issues with surrogates that people are aware of take the form of surrogates refusing to surrender custody to the couple with they made the agreement with.
The benefits include that surrogacy facilitates to add a biological child to their family that they couldn’t do by themselves. It allows parents to create a relationship with their surrogate and their surrogate’s family to allow a more comfortable open relationship between the couple and the surrogate. There is less of a possibility for dangers for upcoming parents, by starting a surrogacy with an experienced surrogate and can even make the surrogacy process a easier one for those parents. Problems arise when couples start pursuing a surrogacy settlement in another country. Keeping in mind that in some international locations, surrogacy is only legal if there’s no exchange of money, in which commercial surrogacy is legal, couples might also use the aid of a third-party agencies to assist inside the surrogacy procedure by means of finding a surrogate and entering into a surrogacy contract with them.
Those who see surrogacy as a social justice problem argue it ends in the exploitation of girls in developing countries whose wombs are commodities to meet other peoples desires. Theses women being seen only as their womb comes with make issues. Where some will argue that surrogacy provides a much-needed supply of profits for ladies dealing with poverty in developing countries, although that maybe the case for some, I believe that banning commercial surrogacy is the best way to avoid the exploitation of women. By banning commercial surrogacy you are also getting rid of the primary drive to exploit women in these ways. Some agree that the lack of regulation in some countries often results in profit going to middlemen and commercial agencies, rather than to the surrogate mothers. This is often the case where women are held in specialized clinics to keep surrogates isolated and as guarantee that they will follow through with the pregnancy and will get the money the want.
This issue pops up when couples will enlist the services of surrogacy companies in other countries with less strict surrogacy laws. Human rights activists express problem over the situations where surrogate mothers are kept at clinics where they over power and manipulate the pregnancy. Since young mothers are confined from friends and family and required to stay in separate surrogacy hostels on the pretext of making sure they receive regular prenatal care, thought that surrogate mothers also face challenges that cannot be offset by the limited economic benefits.
In the article “Why Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help to Save Lives, End Violence” the author states “There are only about 20,000 kidneys every year for the approximately 80,000 patients on the waiting list. In 2008, nearly 5,000 died waiting (Gregory)”. These numbers are on the rise and we must pass sensible regulations to allow for the legal sale of kidneys or people will continue to die as a result of the shortage of available organs.
Many people find the idea of paying for an organ to be unsavory and worry such a system has the potential to exploit the poor. Capron and Danovitch express this fear in an article for Los Angeles Times, “Turning organs into a financial commodity would undermine the safety and efficacy of the system now in place and would not necessarily increase the supply. The United States has served as a model for ethical organ transplantation and abandoning our long-standing prohibition on buying organs would lead us into an ethical minefield with negative repercussions the world over” (“We Shouldn’t Treat Kidneys as Commodities”). Yet, it is this “ethical” model that has led to an underground market which does, in fact, prey on and exploit the poor and vulnerable populations of our world. A wealthy patient can buy their cure with little regard to the sacrifice of the person who made such a transaction possible. Indeed, the black market is responsible for people being coerced into giving up their kidneys and then enduring inhumane surgeries with potentially poor outcomes for the rest of the donors’ lives. Despite the prohibition against the procurement of organs in such ways, the black market thrives still.
By allowing incentivized donations, we could increase the number of available kidneys and reduce the impact of illicit organ trade. Not only would it save the lives of patients on the transplant list, but it would also save the lives of those victimized by the unregulated market. Iran has seen great success since they implemented such a model in 1988. It can be done, carefully and responsibly. According to National Kidney Foundation, “In this system, all potential donors are registered by the government and undergo a rigorous process of informed consent and donor evaluation. No brokers are involved in the state-run program, which offers a fixed amount to the donor, along with posttransplant care” (AJKD). They also do not allow anyone from outside of their country to benefit from this system or buy their way in; it is equitable, and everyone is given a fair chance, donors and patients alike. Additionally, because of the care Iran takes for its donors, medical outcomes match those of altruistic, or unpaid, donor outcomes here in the United States (AJKD). Iran has eliminated their kidney transplant waitlist. If other countries adopted a similarly regulated, fair, and transparent model, the demand for kidneys obtained by questionable and inhumane means would be greatly reduced.
As it stands here in the United States, patients on the transplant list must wait an average of three years and that wait time is expected to increase (AJKD). Kidney patients are not just “in waiting”, they are undergoing painful and costly dialysis treatments. Patients’ lengthy stays on waitlists, while undergoing dialysis, lead to poorer outcomes when they finally do get their kidney (AJKD). Yet, those patients are the lucky ones. Thousands more per year will lose their lives while desperately waiting. Patients must wait on a viable deceased donor or a matched living donor and there are not nearly enough available organs gained by using these sources.
Currently, for living donors in the U.S., immediate medical care is covered via the recipients’ insurance companies. However, they must pay their own way to get where they are needed, even if that means flying cross-country. Donors typically stay in the hospital for two days and then are required to stay in nearby lodging for an additional week so they can be monitored. Once home, they face a recovery period for an additional 4-5 weeks. None of their expenses are covered and they are not reimbursed for wages lost during the process of making this very generous donation. Those are just the monetary expenses. Let us not ignore that these kind-hearted people are risking their lives for someone else, not to mention the pain of surgery and recovery.
In our country, people are compensated for hair, blood, plasma, semen, and breast milk donations. Donations of regenerative tissues and fluids carry very little risk to the donor, yet donors are paid for them. People are also enticed into participating in medical research by receiving monetary compensation. Additionally, women are paid for egg donations as well as to host pregnancies, also known as surrogacy, for those who are unable to do so. The reproductive donations come with certain risks to the donor as they require hormone manipulation and invasive procedures. Pregnancy and childbirth are taxing and come with a potential range of medical complications to the women providing surrogacy services. There are responsible regulations in place so donors can be compensated for their time, expenses, and risks.
Even though mortality rates are low across the various donations and services, note the risk for live organ donation is greater than that of surrogate pregnancy. Yet these donors are not even compensated for their own expenses. Using fair, careful, and ethical regulations, which include stringent screening and informed consent practices, live organ donors can and should be compensated. Funding such a system would partly, if not wholly, come from the money saved by greatly reducing the amount of dialysis treatments needed as patients are receiving kidneys instead of waiting years on dialysis. Increased organ donations by incentivizing them would save the lives of more patients as well as the lives of those pulled into and abused by the underbelly of illegal and inhumane organ trafficking practices. It can be done; Iran is proof.
Works Cited
Capron, Alexander, and Gabriel Danovitch. “We Shouldn’t Treat Kidneys as Commodities.” Los Angeles Times, 30 June 2014, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0630-danovitch-and-20140630- story.html. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.
Friedman, Amy L. “Payment for Living Organ Donation Should Be Legalized.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) vol. 333,7571 (2006): 746-8. doi:10.1136/bmj.38961.475718.68, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592395/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.
Gregory, Anthony. “Why Legalizing Organ Sales Would Help Save Lives, End Violence.” The Atlantic, 9 Nov. 2014, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/11/why-legalizing-organ-sales- would-help-to-save-lives-end-violence/248114/. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.
Jafar, Tazeen H. “Organ Trafficking: Global Solutions for a Global Problem.” American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 2 Nov. 2009, https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272- 6386(09)01177-9/fulltext. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.
In The Handmaid’s Tale, Moira, the Commander, and Serena Joy’s resistance aligns with individual liberty, malevolence, and surrogacy of women in present-day society. In today’s world, we’ve feminist groups who advocate for women’s rights and gender equality, which demonstrates Moira’s rebellion within the novel. The Commander is a person who is in on the new arrangement of Gilead which should be his ideal society, especially since he added to the dispatch of Gilead. He has a craving sexual desire, and he damaged Gilead’s laws to share his lust toward Offred. Additionally, the Commander’s wife tries better half to inquire into Gilead’s protocols by arranging Offred and Nick up through an attempt to create a family. These disobedient demonstrations add a glimpse of weakness to their characters and to the oppressed world. Although The Republic of Gilead extremely restricts women from doing rebellious acts that may retrieve their freedom, Moira, The Commander, and Serena Joy show rebellion against The Republic of Gilead by fighting against oppressive conditions, sexual coercion, and arranging Nick to impregnate Offred.
First, Moira shows rebellion against Gilead as she attempts to escape, and attacks Aunt Lydia in her temporary successful escape attempt, she was brought onto Gilead thanks to gender treachery, since she was a lesbian. She resigned her role of a handmaid after two escape attempts to work at Jezebel’s, where the commanders move to mingle with prostitutes. Moira is the voice of reason, sense, and practice for the other handmaids in the center. Offred recognized that Moira was still more logical than her. “She said I was rationalizing, I said I was in love, she said that was no excuse; Moira was always more logical than I was (Atwood, 1985).” Moira slaps Janine into existence as brainwashing actually takes place, Offered thanks to confirming of others within the middle, and attempts to escape. In fact, she is the main individual that makes it out of the red community temporarily. In spite of the fact that she’s ruthlessly beaten after the primary getaway endeavor, this solitary energizes her longing to incite retreat. She destroys the bathroom and uses it as an arsenal for a moment. At that point, she feigns her way along the avenues of Gilead dressed somewhat like the foe. Upon her getaway, Moira offers some strategies for vision and fear to elective ladies. While they’re beginning to respect the Center’s mental programming and feel great there, Moira never does; she isn’t eager to surrender her opportunity, “Moira was like an elevator with open sides; she made us dizzy (Atwood, 1985).” Moira’s rebellious actions within the novel relate back to the 1950s during the civil rights movement and feminism. What’s equally significant as to the 1960s revolutions, was the young women’s disapproval of the masculine-oriented family and male dominance. Ladies began to oppose the ordinary qualities as a homemaker and they also demanded the equal acquisition of men and women who worked a synonymous occupation. Additionally, the sexual upheaval relates back inside the 1960s as women feminist grasped their sexuality more transparently. The recovered advancement of women’s rights at that point changed the occupations of sexual orientation within the decades that followed. Stormé DeLarverie who was a black/biracial lesbian is credited with inspiring New York’s Stonewall rebellion in 1969. Stonewall was a great defining moment inside the desire for gay freedom and the development of LGBTQ rights. We’ve had over 680 marches in the US throughout the United States opposing oppressive and dehumanizing actions against the gender of an individual. Moira demonstrates resistance in the Handmaid’s Tale by fighting against oppressive conditions, self-defense and resilience.
Second, by using his power advantage to seem for that deeper emotional bond in Offred, the Commander displays resistance, showing his attempt of seduction as he breaks the law of Gilead to support and take care of Offred to establish a deeper connection to one another. He sneaks Offred to Jezebel’s, which was a former hotel that’s extremely against Gilead’s guidelines for Handmaids: “ We go along the corridor and through another flat gray door and along another corridor, softly lit and carpeted now in an exceedingly mushroom color, browny pink, the doors open off it with numbers on them: 100 and one, 100 and two, the way you count during a thunderstorm, to determine how close you’re to being stuck. It’s a hotel then, from behind one in each of the doors comes laughter, a man’s and also a woman’s; it has been an extended time since I’ve heard that (Atwood, 1985, Chapter 37).” He speaks playfully along with her and provides her a skimpy outfit decorated with feathers and sequins that belonged to Serena Joy. He wants to spend the night out with her, she eventually agrees to the offer against her will, “I know without being told that what he was proposing is risky for him but especially for me; but I would like to travel anyway; I want anything that breaks the monotony subverts the perceived respectable order of things (Atwood, 1985, Chapter 36).” Even though these activities were risky business for him, but strictly for Offred, she has no choice but to accept the commander’s request because she shall obey his order since he is the man in power. Any disobedience can lead her to get sent to the colonies. Jezebel’s could be a club where guys just like the Commander, attend mingle with prostitutes and possibly have a go at it with them. These actions are strictly against Gilead’s restrictions, but the Commander goes around Gilead’s system for his own pleasure and needs for a relevance to a younger woman like Offred. Within the planet, it’s no secret that sex trafficking exists, but there was just the once in an exceeding society where there really was a secret sex ring utilized by bureaucracy. During the Nazi era in Germany, soldiers were allowed to visit secret brothels filled with women from conquered territories who were being forced into prostitution. “In the 1930s, prostitutes were legally forced into medical examinations to test for STDs before having sexual encounters with men (Historycollection.co).” Although Gilead doesn’t allow emotional and sexual relations with the handmaids, the Commander disobeyed the guidelines of Gilead for his desire for Offred. The Commander demonstrates rebellion in The Handmaid’s Tale by attending a secret prostitution ring, developing a deeper emotional relevance Offred, and breaking Gilead’s law by risking the night out with Offred.
Third, Serena Joy’s rebels against Gilead as she helps Offred get pregnant by Nick rather than the Commander; the Commander is seemingly sterile and Offred wasn’t pregnant yet. Usually, handmaids who don’t conceive in time they’re given would get sent to The Colonies, where life expectancy is short. Serena Joy is too old to have children. Furthermore, rather than letting Offred’s time run out, Serena Joy helps save Offred, by trying to urge around the structures of Gilead. Although Serena Joy was unaware of the criminal acts along with Offred and her husband, she sets Offred and Nick up in an endeavor to form a family: “ I was thinking Nick, he’s been with us for a long time, he’s loyal, I could fix it with him. So that’s who does her little black-market errands for her. Is this what he gets, in return? What about the Commander? I say. We just won’t tell him, will we? (Atwood, 1985, Chapter 31).” These rebellious acts make you think differently about the characters and to the dystopian theme of the novel as well. Even though the characters of Serena Joy and the Commander are seen to be bad people, the rebellion they demonstrate in the novel makes you see a softer side of their characters and see a glimpse of Utopia in the novel. Furthermore, the rebellion of Serena Joy within The Handmaid’s Tale relates to today’s world with sperm donors/sperm banks, and surrogacy. Today, issues with barrenness and same-sex couples, which is non-traditional have made surrogacy a well-liked theme; one frequently loved as a positive alternative for people that can’t bear children naturally. The Handmaid’s Tale shows the side of surrogacy significantly less discussed – however, it’s not the smallest amount. In reality, surrogacy isn’t simply a way to an end. The difference between surrogacy in The Handmaid’s Tale and in today’s world is that there’s freedom. In the novel, the handmaids don’t have a choice, nor does the male using his sperm to conceive the child. No one receives profits for participating in these activities. However, in today’s world, surrogates are paid for their service (male or female), and they have a choice to do so. Serena Joy demonstrates rebellion within The Handmaid’s Tale by risking Offred a deal to conceive with Nick, saving Offred from getting sent to the Colonies, and providing a glimpse of sympathy for Offred.
Finally, the Republic of Gilead still provided opportunities for rebellion and resistance despite the extremely strict rules implemented by Gilead. Each significant character in the novel undertakes disobedience against Gilead’s laws. Moira rebels against Gilead through feminist acts and standing up for herself despite what the consequences were. The Commander rebels by using his power advantage to attempt seduction to Offred, he reveals his lust by breaking Gilead’s law to assist and take care of Offred. Serena Joy rebels against Gilead, as she helps Offred get pregnant by Nick rather than the Commander, without his knowledge. Margaret Atwood’s purpose is to point out that trying to attune to a brand new society, one must face the problem to take care of their identity and stop it from vanishing away. Although these actions may result in serious penalties if caught, Moria, The Commander, and Serena Joy shows defiance to The Republic of Gilead by violating the system and assaulting a bureaucracy official, violating the laws of Gilead by becoming sexually and emotionally involved with a handmaid and disregarding the structures of Gilead by setting up an illegal intimate relationship for Offred with Nick to start a family.
Nature has bestowed the beautiful power to procreate a life within women, and every woman cherishes the motherhood experience. An individual’s right to reproduction is his inherent right. The desire for children is a common phenomenon among couples. Parenthood is a life-altering experience that is eternally rewarding. The pain and suffering of struggling to fulfill the parenthood vision are unmitigated. The science of care for infertility has advanced by leaps and bounds. The institution of family has been granted primary importance by every culture worldwide. When two people come together and enter into a marriage relationship, a new family is created and with the birth of children, this family becomes complete.
Children are considered from ancient times to be a requirement for the continuity of family lineage and a source of joy for the parents. Psychologists point out that a baby’s birth establishes a bond between the partners that can help maintain difficult relationships in the long term. However, a significant section of the population is unable to have their child due to different reasons. Research has shown that these problems occur in one in six couples. A child’s absence is viewed as a shame to the family. There are also cases where the incapacity to have a child contributed to the breakup of marriage. The inability to have a child known in medical terminology as infertility is a global issue. The incidence of infertility around the globe is about 10-15 percent according to the WHO survey.
Some types of infertility which in the past were deemed untreatable today have easy solutions. Until recently adoption was the only alternative for childless couples. The advancement in medical science, particularly in the field of artificial human reproductive technologies (ART), has come to rescue these individuals and has provided them with various options for the creation of a genetically related infant. There are different options in ART such as artificial insemination, In-Vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, etc. Surrogacy has become common among all methods.
Meaning and concept of surrogacy
Surrogacy has arisen with the use of a woman’s womb to reproduce children for another woman as a new stage of scientific development for reproduction. ‘Surrogacy’ is one of the most common approaches to address both biological and social infertility. Surrogacy has offered opportunities to provide a genetically related child for couples who cannot reproduce by artificial reproduction and in vitro fertilization. Surrogacy has become an appealing choice for pairs and individuals wishing to have a biologically related infant.
The idea of surrogacy has gained worldwide popularity. Surrogate motherhood is viewed by infertile couples as a blessing, as it is an innovative hope of having a child. The word ‘surrogate’ was derived from a Latin word ‘surrogates meaning a replacement, who is a person named to work on another’s behalf. Traditionally, surrogate motherhood is referred to as ‘an arrangement between a married couple who are unable to have a child due to the infertility of the wife, and a fertile woman who decides to conceive the child of the husband through artificial insemination, bring it to an end, and surrender all parental rights in the kid.’
Types of surrogacy
In Genetic / Partial Surrogacy, the woman’s egg is either fertilized by artificial insemination or less frequently by natural intercourse by the sperm of the couple’s male partner (commissioning father) who desires the fetus. Here the surrogate mother is the child’s genetic mother and the commissioning mother plays the social and legal mother role. This form of surrogacy is often named Partial Surrogacy or Traditional Surrogacy. Total surrogacy is when the egg of the surrogate is fertilized with the donor sperm or with the parent who commissions it.
The egg and semen are retrieved from the commissioning couple (or from anonymous donors) in Gustatory / Gestational Surrogacy, and the resulting embryo is then inserted into the surrogate or the carrying mother. Here, there is no genetic connection between the surrogate mother and the boy. Also, this form of surrogacy is called Full Surrogacy.
Surrogacy may also be classified into two forms that are based on financial compensation. The first is Altruistic Surrogacy and the second is Commercial Surrogate. Financial compensation for the surrogate mother is not provided in Altruistic Surrogacy, although the commissioning parent can provide the surrogate mother with fees and costs in bringing an embryo to maturity. This form of surrogacy is primarily popular among family or close friends. The usual explanation given why no financial compensation is required is because the decision to be a surrogate in this form of surrogacy stems from love, not from personal gain or even avarice. Whereas in the other form of surrogacy – commercial surrogacy – the language of kindness is often used, the surrogate is financially compensated beyond the costs associated with pregnancy. That is, it charges the mother for her gestational services
Moral and ethical issues which led to the ban of commercial surrogacy
Harm to Surrogate Mother- Most women served as surrogate mothers because of deprivation or other economic necessity. However, surrogacy technology can entail certain risks and can affect the health and life of the surrogate mother. This poses the essential question of responsibility for harm caused or sustained by a surrogate mother. Unless there is no medical error on the part of the doctors and other medical personnel, it will be impossible to resolve the liability and thereby account for the damage suffered by the surrogate mother;
The benefit of the Child- Surrogacy usually includes the cash payment to the surrogate mother for the conception and delivery of the infant to the commissioning parents. It is then criticized as being equal to buying and selling an infant. It is argued that this will lead to the selection of sex and features in an infant, i.e. the development of designer babies. As a consequence, surrogacy will lead to the infant being viewed as a commodity that is considered immoral and unethical;
Surrogacy Degrades the Dignity of Women-The right to dignity is one of the fundamental and valued rights of every human being. It is asserted that surrogacy violates the intrinsic integrity of a woman. Surrogacy requires the use of a woman’s body to deliver a child that is handed over to the commissioning parents. At the time of pregnancy, the pregnant mother must comply with the conditions laid down in the contract and has no right to make any decision involving her womb;
Surrogacy has been compared to prostitution-Many scholars have criticized the idea that surrogacy is like prostitution, as it entails the sale of the reproductive power of a woman and the use of her body in exchange for payment of money. It is further argued that it is equivalent to a prostitute who has no control and power over a customer who has purchased her favor and paid money;
This practice of outsourcing has been subjected to great criticism raising issues like the slavery of women, neocolonialism, and exploitation of poor women;
Affinity to the Gestational Parent – In a surrogate case, the gestational parent is the woman who bears the child. This can be a very challenging task, both physically and emotionally – and special in that, since a surrogate mother physically holds the baby during her pregnancy, she has to physically and emotionally separate herself from the infant once she is born.
Surrogacy, defined as the ‘process of giving birth as a surrogate mother or of arranging such a birth’1, is a controversial issue with a broad spectrum of ethical positions. Even more divisive is the rise of commercial surrogacy, by which in any surrogacy arrangement the birth mother is paid or reimbursed beyond medical expenses. Surrogacy is a treatment option for those who are infertile, or as an alternative to adoption. However commercial surrogacy it is not just about fulfilling a desire to be a parent- it surrounds more complex issues of exploitation, commodity, and product. In this paper, I contend that surrogacy is morally permissible and should be made commercially legal in Australia.
To begin to unpack this debate, we must first ask; what is a commodity? For this paper, we will refer to commodities as raw materials used to manufacture a finished good, where a product is the finished good itself which is sold to customers. Elizabeth Anderson2, who passionately argues in the favour of enforced bans on commercial surrogacy, defines the modern market as the norm by which ‘production, exchange, and enjoyment of commodities’ is governed. She contends that commercial surrogacy degrades women, as it treats their wombs as nothing more than a commodity, arguing that this can lead to a ‘consumer demand’, where the significance of commercial surrogacy lies within the idea of ‘selling infants’ and that the tie between the ‘natural’ mother is treated as though it is bound only by monetary incentives. She also asserts that while it is superficially similar to other methods of obtaining a child, such as adoption, sperm and egg donation, which we as a society accept with little controversy, that it must shown that these practices differ at their moral core from commercial surrogacy.
Anderson’s claim that the way the child is treated, as in being bought and sold as a commodity, is problematic. There are many examples that show that this theory does not have to be the case. Take art dealers for example. They take significant care of works that are in their possession, not only because damage to the work will result in a lower monetary value, but also because they know that the people willing to spend x amount of money on a piece of art are also those most likely to take care of it. The buying and selling of artworks does not make them common, or a mere product – they have a personal value to those who seek them.
Anderson also contends that by engaging in the transfer of a child through a monetary sale, all parties in the surrogacy contract agree that the ‘ties between a natural mother and her children [are] properly loosened by a monetary incentive’. I argue that this is not necessarily the case- we can look at this using the nonidentity problem. It is not as if the birth mother has an already established relationship with the child that she is giving away for monetary gain. Rather, all parties are co-working together to bring a life into this world that otherwise would not have been. Since, without surrogacy, the baby would not have otherwise existed, it cannot be argued that there was a relationship to harm or loosen in the first place.
Anderson may appear to have a leg to stand on by mentioning the relationship formed between mother and child during gestation, and that the loosening of this relationship for monetary gain could indeed be harmful to the natural mother. However, I believe that if it is permissible for a single, unemployed mother to give her child up for adoption it must also be permissible for a birth mother to trade her reproductive abilities for money. A woman who feels as though she is unable to look after a child without intolerably hindering her current lifestyle and gives up her child to adoption is equally guilty of loosening her bond with that child for a monetary incentive, whether it be by an external agent or circumstance. Presumably, neither we nor Anderson would object to adoption as a viable way of obtaining a child. Furthermore, if one of Anderson’s key contentions is to find the way in which commercial surrogacy is different to other methods of obtaining a child, such as adoption or sperm and egg donations, I argue that she has failed in doing so.
In conclusion, Anderson fails to establish, regarding her arguments concerning commodification, how commercial surrogacy is morally and ethically wrong, let alone how it garners enough virulence to be forcibly banned by the state. While it may be disconcerting that human life has the potential to become a marketplace agenda, when both science and society enter a new age it becomes necessary for the way in which we operate and think about things to shift also. Technology is a tool for expanding human potential and to allow for greater freedom, not to restrict it.
Since Australia’s federation, Christianity, rather than Buddhism has had a greater influence on how contemporary society responded to bio-medical issues. Despite this, the Australian law on surrogacy more closely aligns with the beliefs of Buddhism as a consequence of the Australian populace increasingly veering away from mainstream Christian ideologies into a secular world. To understand the extent to which World religions influence the Laws of Australia, this essay will examine the controversial issue of surrogacy, the negative perspective Christianity and the positive perspective Buddhism maintains and further any correlation these opposing ethics have had on Australia’s laws on surrogacy. This will be proven in the analysis of Buddhism, and Christianity; specifically the denominations, Catholic and Methodists, through their respective sacred texts and teachings that serve as an ethical guideline to bio-medical issues.
Denominations of Christianity each respond to bio-medical issues differently, with Methodists maintaining a more liberal viewpoint on surrogacy in comparison to the strictly anti-surrogacy stance of Catholics. The Catholic Church in its pro-life ideologies supports a married couples desire to have children, however, as long as it is within the lines God has provided humans the means to reproduce. (Camosy, 2012). Thus, the Catholic Church responds to this bio-medical issue with a supernaturalistic ethical framework. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference submitted in a report “…that surrogacy, both commercial and altruistic, is inherently flawed and offends human dignity,” (ACBC, 2016). Upon conception a child possess dignity and right to live, (CCC; 2378). To disrespect this goes against the generosity and divinity of God. Surrogacy may utilise the process; Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), which could include the possibility of human embryos being discarded. According to the Catholic Church of Australia, if respect is ‘not inherent in the manner’ by which a person ‘is conceived’ and if ‘conception is treated as a mechanical means of production’, then respect is denied to the child, (ACBC, 2016). In slight contrast, Methodists believe that embryos formed in the processes of ART and IVF can be frozen for later use of the couple, or they may consent the spare to research or destroyed after fourteen days, (BBC, 2019). In regards to whose gametes can be used in these processes, Catholics and Methodists agree that third party gametes are not acceptable. The Catholic, Donum vitae, regards the use of third party gametes as, ‘…a violation of the reciprocal commitment of the spouses and a grave lack in regard to that essential property of marriage which is its unity.” (Donum vitae, 2008). The United Methodist Church, in a report on Ethics of Embryonic Research urged couples alone to determine the amount of eggs to fertilize and implant on a case-by-case basis. (Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church, 2016). The Australian legislation is restrictive on commercial surrogacy, however, broadly speaking it is non-specific, where the Christian doctrine is specific in aspects of marriage, the dignity of a child and the moral dilemmas that may arise. Christianity recognises the legitimacy of the desire for a child and understands the suffering of couples struggling, however, depending on the denomination, there is an overall negative perspective towards surrogacy.
Surrogacy is accepted by Buddhism as the world religion addresses issues with a duty based ethical framework that is based on the Five Precepts, (Easwaran, 2017). In the Triratna Buddhism community, their faith in the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha finds everyday practical expression in their aspiration to live by ethical precepts, to the best of their ability. The first precept in both sets of precepts expresses the overarching Buddhist ethical value ahimsa (non-harming) to abstain from causing harm and to cultivate loving kindness. (Triratna, 2019). Therefore, surrogacy is acceptable as long as the primary purpose of being a surrogate mother is out of compassion instead of profit, as long as being one, or engaging the help of one does not break any precepts. The conditions of Buddhism on surrogacy include the killing of nothing at any point in observance of the first precept. No stealing such as stealing the child away from surrogate mother in observance of the second precept. No sexual misconduct such as extramarital sex in observance of the third precept. No lying about the child’s surrogate mother in observance of the fourth precept. (Frank, 2015). The Australian legislation on surrogacy may align with the more inclusive beliefs of Buddhism, however, there are no direct links between the two. Unlike Christianity that makes procreation a moral obligation, Buddhism supports surrogacy in the forms of technological enhancements and the use of a surrogate mother to ensure the suffering of another ends.
Christianity established a foothold in Australia sixty years before Buddhism, thus having a greater influence over Australian society during its Federation, regardless of this, world religions have had limited influence on the legislations formed on recent bio-medical issues. In Australia’s Federation, Christian ideology penetrates both the legal and governmental customs that were developed. Sir John Downer, a distinguished co-author of the Australian Constitution, declared, “The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.” In addition, Christianity, especially their missionaries were significant to European Colonial Powers in an establishment of a colony such as the one in Coffs Harbour in, (Australian Government, 2015). They were deemed as ‘…visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery,’ (Unknown, 1793). Christianity lacks the same significance in contemporary society as it once had in the past. According to the Australian census, between 2011 and 2016, the percentage of people who identified as a Catholic decreased by 2.7% from 25.3%. The percentage of people who identified with the United Methodist Church decreased by 1.3% from 5%. Other Christian denominations followed the same declining pattern. Buddhism only decreased by 0.1% from 2.5%. Australian society has become secular in its views, with 30.1% identifying as having no religion in 2016, which was 7.8% higher than 2011. The younger generation, aged 18-34, were more likely to be affiliated with no religion (39%). (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). Subsequently, world religions are not shaping the morals and attitudes of the youth and in turn struggle to influence societal attitudes around new biomedical issues. To coincide with this, according to the 2011 census, less than one in seven of the Australians who ticked “Christianity” on their census form regularly attended a church. Therefore, the influence of Christianity as a whole has continually decreased over time. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016). This declining influence is evident in the multiple amendments made to the legislation on surrogacy across states between 2004 and 2010; which have changed the rules on Australian surrogacy to become more lenient. Currently under Australian law, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory ban commercial surrogacy, whilst in all jurisdictions except the Northern territory, altruistic surrogacy is allowed. (Australian Government, 2015). The legislation may coincide with Buddhist and Methodists beliefs, however, the increased number of Australians identifying with no religion illustrates clearly the limited influence any World religion has on the politics surrounding bio-medical issues.
The negative perspective of Christianity and the positive perspective Buddhism maintains little influence over the Legislation of Australia on the bio-medical issue of surrogacy. This was proven in the analysis of Buddhism, and Christianity; specifically the denominations, Catholic and Methodists, through their respective sacred texts and teachings that serve as an ethical guideline to bio-medical issues. Since Australia’s federation, Christianity, rather than Buddhism has had a greater influence on how contemporary society responded to bio-medical issues. Despite this, the Australian law on surrogacy more closely aligns with the beliefs of Buddhism as a consequence of Australian populace increasingly veering away from mainstream Christian ideologies into a secular world.
Science and Jewish ethics have begun to occasionally conflict as new technologies increase. While science revolutionises our society, ethics ensures that we still have the right values. Jewish medical ethics uses traditional halacha as a basis. During biblical times, the technology that is available today did not exist and so most rabbinical commentaries do not specifically have as much guidance on medical ethics. Surrogacy is a new medical technology that has only been around for the last 40 years, and has become a very controversial topic among Jewish halacha.
Surrogacy is a legal agreement where a woman carries and gives birth to a child on behalf of another woman. This type of fertility treatment falls into two categories; Ovum surrogacy and gestational surrogacy. Ovum surrogacy is where the surrogate mother provides the egg and carries the baby for the couple. While, in gestational surrogacy the surrogate mother carries the fertilised egg of the couple and gives birth.
Opinions on the legality of surrogacy tend to vary within Orthodox Jewish law. Genesis 1:28 says, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”. The word ‘multiply’ reveals that it is a mitzvah for one to have many children. Some rabbis argue that since this truly is a direct commandment from G-d, one should do whatever it takes to have children. However, other rabbis disagree with this and explain that one of the biggest problems with surrogacy is determining who is the mother of the child. Since Judaism follows the maternal line, the identity of the mother is very important. These rabbis’ debate whether the surrogate mother or the genetic mother is the true mother, determining the religion of the child.
In the Talmudic passage (Brachot 60a), when Leah was pregnant, she had heard that Jacob was destined to have 12 sons. He already had 10 sons, none by Rachel, and Leah prayed to Hashem that her own foetus (which she believed was a boy) would be swapped with Rachel’s so she could instead give birth to a son. In Genesis 30:21, Yonatan Ben Uziel commented that Rachel was pregnant at the same time as Leah and the two foetuses were switched. This source implies that Rachel gave birth to Leah’s genetic son. Most Orthodox rabbis, against surrogacy, including the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, believe this proves that maternity is determined by who gives birth. Therefore, if the surrogate is not Jewish, neither is the child and so the child would need to be converted, despite its genetic mother being Jewish.
In contrast, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, senior chaplain to the Israel Defence Forces and also a Chief Rabbi of Israel, viewed the genetic mother as the real mother. His argument is based on Leviticus 12:2, “G-d spoke to Moses, telling him to speak to the Israelites, relating the following: When a woman conceives and gives birth to a boy”. He explained that the word ‘conceives’ shows that the mother who’s egg the baby comes from is the true mother.
Rabbi Sacks, the former Chief of England, mentions Talmud Yerushalmi Berkhot 9:3 to highlight the belief that Leah’s child was not switched into Rachel’s womb but the foetus was rather changed from boy to girl by a miracle. Therefore, this belief indicates that Rachel’s son was her genetic son (Joseph). The advances in science, specifically reproductive technologies, are compelling Jewish law to progress as it increasingly effects more Jewish families across the globe.