Surrogacy might be good for adults - but not children
|
|
Thread rating:  |
kippa - 30 Jun 2009 16:18 GMT http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0627/1224249655503.html
Saturday, June 27, 2009 Surrogacy might be good for adults - but not children
No legislation applies to surrogate motherhood in Ireland – the only regulation is by Medical Council guidelines, writes BREDA O'BRIEN .
SARAH JESSICA Parker, star of Sex and the City , is in the news because she and her husband commissioned a surrogate mother who gave birth this week to twins. Surrogacy is not exactly a modern phenomenon. It is even found in the Book of Genesis, when another Sarah, frustrated by her inability to have children, instructed her husband Abraham to have sex with her slave girl, Hagar. A son, Ishmael was born.
However, the account in Genesis is more of a cautionary tale than a ringing endorsement of complicated conceptions. When biblical Sarah miraculously gave birth to Isaac, she demanded that Hagar and Ishmael be cast out into the desert. Happily, Hagar and her son survived. Things have become much more complex since biblical times.
Unsurprisingly, the Abrahamic method of conception fails to find favour with wives. Modern-day surrogacy relies heavily on IVF.
There has been a lot of speculation as to whether Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick used a donor egg, or their own embryos from previous IVF cycles. If the twins did not result from their own embryos, it is extremely unlikely that they used the surrogate’s own eggs. The infamous Baby M case in the 1980s concerned a surrogate who had used her own eggs and who refused to hand over her baby to the commissioning parents. After two years, the birth mother lost custody, but retained visitation rights. Since then, American couples have been very wary of using a surrogate’s own eggs.
If a couple uses a donor egg, or donor egg and donor sperm, the child has an even more complex set of parents. Children conceived by anonymous donation often suffer genetic bewilderment, deliberately cut off from family history, and from other siblings and family members. There are now numerous websites and organisations, mostly set up by children conceived through anonymous donation, campaigning against the practice on the grounds that it is deeply unjust to children.
When we see how important it was for survivors of industrial schools to locate siblings, or the anger of Maori children taken away and raised by white people, it should give us pause about the wisdom of ignoring the importance of genetic kinship.
Due to a court case taken by a woman called Joanna Rose in the 1990s, herself conceived by donor insemination, it is now illegal to donate sperm anonymously in Britain, and all children conceived since then are entitled to basic information. However, anonymous donation is legal in many US states. Surrogacy and gamete donation have become thriving industries there.
Officially, surrogates are only to receive expenses, but in reality, it can cost $20,000 to $100,000 (€14,200-€71,000) by the time you pay for eggs, sperm, surrogate, agency, and medical and legal costs. Like it or not, there is an aspect of “buying a baby”.
As Prof Margaret Little of Georgetown University has said: “You are selling use of the body, and historically, when that has happened, it has not been good for women.”
In her book Everything Conceivable , Lisa Mundy quotes Gail Taylor, who manages Growing Generations, a Los Angeles agency facilitating gay men in finding surrogates and egg donors. Egg donors, Taylor says, should be selected on looks, brains, youth, health and psychological soundness. Surrogates should be selected on how well they gestate babies and how well they work with others.
Perhaps that is why Europeans and Americans are flocking to India, where use of a woman’s womb comes cheap.
When the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR) was appointed by the Government to make recommendations on the Irish situation, only one member objected to surrogacy, stating that the risks of exploitation and commodification outweighed any possible benefits.
There is absolutely no Irish legislation in this area, and the only regulation is by Medical Council guidelines. Most European countries (including Ireland) and US states declare that surrogacy contracts are unenforceable, particularly since a woman post-partum is considered to be exceptionally vulnerable. Indeed, a 2008 Newsweek magazine feature reported that some surrogates are left desolate by having to give up the child. It is also extremely confusing for the surrogate’s own children, if she has any. Astonishingly, CAHR recommended legalising surrogacy, and automatically recognising the commissioning couple as parents.
Only a heartless person could fail to understand the longing for a child. No doubt many women who carry a child for someone else do so for the highest motives. However, being conceived in this way can be utterly confusing for children, although the full implications may not hit them until they become adults and have children of their own.
Carrying a child for nine months is just about the greatest act of intimacy possible between human beings. Children conceived through surrogacy often wonder how someone could bear to part with a child. It is not like adoption – a primarily child-centred process designed to find parents for a child in need. Surrogacy, especially involving donation of eggs and sperm, is designed to create a child to fill an adult need for children.
Recently, an Irish radio show ran an appeal for a woman to act as a surrogate for an Irish couple. (The item was sparked by seeing the couple’s advertisement for a surrogate in this newspaper.) Although well-meaning, the radio show risked landing all involved in an emotional and legal minefield. Although it has not been contested, it is most likely that an Irish court would consider the birth mother as the legal mother of the child. The only way to become the legal parents would be through adoption – an arduous process.
Any child, no matter what the means of conception, should be cherished. One can only wish the Parker-Broderick twins long life and happiness. And indeed, hope that the late Michael Jackson’s children, one of whom was born through a surrogate and the others almost certainly through donor sperm, will find stability and peace. However, if and when Irish legislators tackle assisted human reproduction, if they are genuinely concerned with children’s rights, the only option will be to ban surrogacy and anonymous donation.
rkb - 01 Jul 2009 03:54 GMT You know, I'm always a little puzzled by people who speak for unborn and unconceived children, and use phrases like "genetic bewilderment."
How do they *know* it's bad for the kids? When the first test-tube baby was conceived, people said similar things. But I don't think there' been any research to indicate that they found their unusual birth circumstances bewildering or problematic or that they have any emotional issues as a result.
I think it's all too easy to graft one's own feelings on a subject on to people who can't speak for themselves... because they don't exist.
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0627/1224249655503.html <snip>
> If a couple uses a donor egg, or donor egg and donor sperm, the child > has an even more complex set of parents. Children conceived by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > children conceived through anonymous donation, campaigning against the > practice on the grounds that it is deeply unjust to children. kippa - 01 Jul 2009 16:11 GMT > How do they *know* it's bad for the kids? There's plenty of evidence that many people don't like having been conceived through the use of anonymous donor sperm - I happen to particularly like this essay http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/02/childrensservices.humanrights - so I don't think it's a far cry to suppose they might not much like having been gestated in a hired womb, *especially* if conceived by anonymous egg and sperm. I can well imagine they might feel commodified.
> When the first test-tube baby was conceived, people said similar > things. But I don't think there' been any research to indicate that > they found their unusual birth circumstances bewildering or > problematic or that they have any emotional issues as a result. I know, Rupa, but it's not the test-tube or petri dish aspect that bothers me. Being deliberately created without known parents doesn't come into the same category as, say, the experience of the original 'test tube baby', Louise Brown, who was conceived from her mother's egg and father's sperm and grew up within her natural family. With ART it's the always thin line. Which is why I agree with you that it's important not to shy away from the subject.
> I think it's all too easy to graft one's own feelings on a subject on > to people who can't speak for themselves... because they don't exist. Indeed, but I don't think that's a very good reason not to consider what people who don't (yet) exist might feel should they come into being.
rkb - 01 Jul 2009 21:56 GMT > > How do they *know* it's bad for the kids? > > There's plenty of evidence that many people don't like having been > conceived through the use of anonymous donor sperm - I happen to > particularly like this essay http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/aug/02/childrensservices.human... That's a good essay. Thanks.
> Being deliberately created without known parents doesn't come into the > same category as, say, the experience of the original 'test tube [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what people who don't (yet) exist might feel should they come into > being. Hmm. Definitely something to consider and think about. Let's give it a try.
I think what people believe and feel is very strongly influenced by the society they're in. While I can see the point of being interested in your bio-origin, I don't think it's necessarily a universal feeling, or that it is necessarily a fundamental one. I am a little bit chary of that whole trope, because it easily leads into valuing people by their origins. This may be influenced by my coming from a society which took it for granted that lineage was destiny.
Clearly, being interested in knowing who one's bio-parents were is not the same as insisting that therefore you follow in their footsteps. But it's only the next trope over.
On the other hand, I don't know that there's any reason not to list the genetic parents, the birth-parents, and the legal parents all on the birth certificate. In that case, I think there should also be a short-form birth certificate listing only the legal parents so the individual can reveal or not reveal as much as he/ she wants.
That brings me to my next thought: Once the information is published, it's public. It then becomes something the individual has to choose to reveal or not, something that various authorities can demand access to. I haven't quite worked through the ramifications in my mind.
Finally: I think we're quickly moving into an era where these questions will become an artifact of an outdated technology, just as establishing paternity is. With more extensive DNA databases, and better Information Technology, my guess is that within a generation or less, you'll be able to send a DNA sample and get a complete readout of who you genetically are.
Then we'll get into other privacy issues. If the "who" has other names attached, who gets to reveal them? Maybe the rule will have to be Nothing Is Secret. Your genetic profile and family tree will be attached to your Facebook profile....
(Okay, joking about the last bit. Almost.)
kippa - 03 Jul 2009 18:03 GMT > I think what people believe and feel is very strongly influenced by > the society they're in. I'm sure. And it's social familiarity that is primarily responsible for changing public perception about whether a practice is ethically acceptable or not.
> While I can see the point of being interested in your bio-origin, I don't think it's necessarily a universal feeling, or that it is necessarily a fundamental one. I agree, but OTOH it's not necessarily not. Many people do seem to feel that way, and ancestry stories are common to all cultures. I think it's something that will always depend on the individual, and that deserves to be taken into account. It is after all part of human nature to be curious, especially about things that pertain to oneself.
> I am a little > bit chary of that whole trope, because it easily leads into valuing > people by their origins. This may be influenced by my coming from a > society which took it for granted that lineage was destiny. I fully understand what you're saying, and I think you have an important perspective and make a good point. We know that happens, and that the consequences can range from bad to horrifying. However, I do believe that having a sense of personal history within a wider context is grounding. Connectedness is not something that can be just pulled out of the ether.
Personally, I'm not particulalry gene-centric and I think specific knowledge of bloodline can be over-emphasized as a sine qua non for being able to live a 'good' (as in fulfilling) life. Of course I can afford the luxury of feeling this way since I have a pretty fair idea of my ancestry --- though my interest wanes the further back the generations go. As far as I'm concerned they were all a bunch of Welsh sheep rustlers raiding the Seisnig herds for their best livestock.
> Clearly, being interested in knowing who one's bio-parents were is not > the same as insisting that therefore you follow in their footsteps. > But it's only the next trope over. I'm not so sure about that. That sounds as if it's getting rather close to biology being destiny. Which I don't think think it is - and certainly not need be.
> On the other hand, I don't know that there's any reason not to list > the genetic parents, the birth-parents, and the legal parents all on > the birth certificate. In that case, I think there should also be a > short-form birth certificate listing only the legal parents so the > individual can reveal or not reveal as much as he/ she wants. Good ideas all. I'll second them.
> That brings me to my next thought: Once the information is published, > it's public. It then becomes something the individual has to choose to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nothing Is Secret. Your genetic profile and family tree will be > attached to your Facebook profile.... This is where the genetic data base concept gets really tricky. It's one thing choosing to be 'confessional' and transparent - quite another having it mandated.
> (Okay, joking about the last bit. Almost.) I'm *almost* laughing. Like in response to the joke with the punch-line, "Only when it hurts"
|
|
|