Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:36:02.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There Anything Wrong with Surrogate Motherhood? An Ethical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Ruth Macklin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Is there anything ethically wrong with surrogate motherhood? Many people confess their inability to articulate their opposition in rational terms, yet they feel uneasy. The practice arouses negative emotions ranging from mild distaste to revulsion. Others say there is nothing wrong, in principle, with surrogate motherhood. It is a way of helping infertile women fulfill a fundamental human longing and, therefore, should be permitted and even facilitated. Many who are not fundamentally opposed to surrogacy nonetheless maintain that the practice ought to be regulated, in order to prevent abuses and to provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts that may develop in particular cases.

Surrogacy arrangements have been condemned by Roman Catholic spokesmen, in a legal brief by a conference of bishops in New Jersey, and by the Vatican in a statement issued by the Pope in March 1987. Feminists have denounced the practice, using rhetoric rather than argument, with the slogan woman as vessel. A group of wormen who agreed to bear children under surrogacy contracts has convened to speak out against such arrangements.

Type
Ethics
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 16 , Issue 1-2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 57 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sullivan, Joseph, “Bishops File Brief Against Surrogate Motherhood,” New York Times, July 19, 1987, 28.Google Scholar
Schneider, Keith, “Mothers Urge Ban on Surrogacy as Form of ‘Slavery,’” New York Times, Sept. 1, 1987.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Quoted in “Who's Who in the Fight for Baby M,” New York Times, April 1, 1987, sec. B2.Google Scholar
Quoted in Schneider, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Hanley, Robert, “Seven-Week Trial Touched Many Basic Emotions,” New York Times, April 1, 1987, sec. B2.Google Scholar
Feron, James, “Testimony Is Given on Surrogate Bill,” New York Times, April 11, 1987.Google Scholar
Walters, LeRoy, “Ethics and New Reproductive Technologies: An International Review of Committee Statements,” Hastings Center Report, 17 (June 1987, Special Supplement): 3–9.Google Scholar
Macklin, Ruth, “Personhood in the Bioethics Literature,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 61 (1983): 35–37.Google Scholar
Walters, , supra note 8.Google Scholar
Sullivan, , supra note 1, at 28.Google Scholar
Brahams, Diana, “The Hasty British Ban on Commercial Surrogacy,” Hastings Center Report, 17 (Feb. 1987): 16–19.Google Scholar
Sullivan, , supra note 1, at 28.Google Scholar
Callahan, Sidney, “No Child Wants to Live in a Womb for Hire,” National Catholic Reporter, Oct. 11, 1985.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Callahan, Sidney, as quoted in Iver Peterson, “Baby M Trial Splits Ranks of Feminists,” New York Times, Feb. 24, 1987, sec B1.Google Scholar
Annas, George, “Baby M: Babies (and Justice) for Sale,” Hastings Center Report, 17 (June 1987): 13–15, at 14.Google Scholar
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc. (Oct. 26, 1983), Kentucky Circuit Court, Franklin County.Google Scholar
Andrews, Lori, “The Aftermath of Baby M: Proposed State Laws on Surrogate Motherhood,” Hastings Center Report, 17 (Oct./Nov. 1987): 31–40, at 35.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Macklin, Ruth, “‘Due’ and ‘Undue’ Inducements: On Paying Money to Research Subjects,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 3 (May 1981): 1–6. The arguments in this section are excerpted from the article.Google Scholar
See Kass, Leon, “‘Making Babies’ Revisited,” The Public Interest, 54 (Winter 1979): 32–60.Google Scholar
National Organ Transplant Act of 1984, 42 U.S.C. Para. 274(e) (1982).Google Scholar
See, gen., Radin, Margaret, “Market Inalienability,” Harvard Law Review, 100 (June 1987): 1849–1937.Google Scholar