Political and Ethical Contexts of Surrogacy - Essay Example

The social, political and ethical contexts of Surrogacy Introduction An examination of bioethical issues in wider political, social and ethical contexts ensures a better understanding of the issue. These bioethical issues include surrogacy and IVF. Despite the legality of these practices in some states, it has been ethically contentious (Beauchamp et al, 2014, p.236). This involves addressing all the legal, social and ethical issues surrounding Surrogacy. Surrogacy involves bearing a child for another individual. There are two types of surrogacy, which include Altruistic and Commercial Surrogacy (Saxena, Mishra & Malik, 2012). The altruistic surrogacy comes about when a woman offers to bear a child for other people as a gift. In most cases, surrogate mothers and social mothers are relatives, for instance, one bearing a baby for one’s sister, daughter or daughter-in-law. The commercial surrogate motherhood, also known as contract parenting, is a practice whereby people pay women to bear children for them and once the child is born, belongs to the people who paid for it, hence the surrogate mother has no say to whatever happens to the baby (Anderson, 1993, p. 168). Allowing or even enforcing this practice of surrogacy is unethical and wrong as it treats children and women’s reproductive abilities as commodities and this is socially unacceptable. Section 2 describes the legality of surrogacy in different countries. Section 3 describes how international surrogacy exploits both the intended parents and surrogate mothers. Section 4 explains the commoditization of the surrogate mother and the child. Section 5 describes the exploitation of disadvantaged women and selfish women. Section 6 indicates the problems resulting from altruistic surrogacy. Section 7 indicates the doctors’ perspectives on Surrogacy. The last part is the conclusion, which is a summary of the essay and describes the evidence supporting the argument. Legality of surrogacy in different countries The commercial surrogacy is legal in states like India and Ukraine and the State of California. However, this norm is unlawful in numerous states like some US states, England and Australia. Nevertheless, these US states, England and Australia, recognize the altruistic surrogacy. There are states like Norway, Germany, Italy and Sweden that do not allow any surrogacy at all. India is an all-time favorite destination for surrogate motherhood agreements (Saxena, Mishra & Malik, 2012, p.211). In relation to reproductive technology generally, legislation has been slow in most states. The existence of public fears and moral panic has led to speedier legislations in some countries (Madden, 2011, p. 288). Most ethical, social and political issues come about because of the contractual agreements involved (Manion, 2014, p. 12). The fact that some countries do not allow any form of Surrogacy supports the theory that the practices are unethical and immoral thus not socially acceptable. How international surrogacy exploits both the intended parents and surrogate mothers. International surrogacy is an increasing phenomena and a challenge to the global health (Nelson, 2013, p. 240). Annually, thousands of couples end up visiting states that allow commercial surrogacy, especially India, by the surrogate agencies due to their costs, which are less than a third of costs in the UK and US. At a glance, surrogacy would seem like a profitable venture for all the parties involved. This is because the poor individual gets money by bearing a child for a couple that is unable to have a baby, the couple without a baby gets their long-desired biological baby and the country allowing commercial surrogacy earns foreign currency. However, a look at the real picture shows the bitter truth. Since proper legislation does not exist, intermediaries exploit both intended parents and surrogate mothers. All the profit goes to the intermediaries who act as surrogacy agencies India (Saxena, Mishra & Malik, 2012, p. 211). The surrogacy practice is not transparent in most countries and therefore should not be practiced. This is because there are high chances of being involved in legal problems due to unpredictable regulations that govern surrogacy in most of these states especially in the commoditization of the surrogate mother and the child. Commercial surrogacy ignores the nature of pregnancy and treats the ability of giving birth as a commodity that is up for sale. This is contrary to pregnancy that invests emotions and social significance but not merely just biological process. Commoditization process affects all the parties involved and their relationships. Philosophers argue strongly against the commercial surrogate motherhood because commoditization of mother and child has undesirable consequences. Children in this situation become purchasable commodities due to the payments involved. As such, children become property, which replaces the parenting relation norms of love and trust. Some scholars object to the fact that people treat women as less able to make promises when they fail to hold their end of the agreement (Callahan, 1995, p.10). However, this is not the case as some situations are special and the laws need a revision to be able to protect the rights of the surrogate mothers. According to Beauchamp et al (2014, p.237), there have been some concerns regarding the business practices associated with this type of surrogacy. Expecting women to treat their pregnancies as commercial processes is degrading and exploitative and if the practice were to become more established, then it would become a commercial business just like any other commercial business existing in the market. Exploitation of disadvantaged women and selfish women Commercial surrogacy has the potential of exploiting socio-economically disadvantaged women in society. (Callahan, 1995, p.10). Moreover, the childless mother seeking a woman to bear a child for her could use the whole surrogacy for purely selfish reasons. An example would be a case whereby a woman wishes to have a baby without having to give up her career or interfere with it by taking time off to give birth and take care of the baby (Mason, Laurie & McCall, 2013, p. 2102). Beauchamp et al (2014, p. 237) argue that the right to raise a child should be recognized only when the mother intends to raise the child. This should be the only justification of any woman bringing a child into this world. The practice is plain wrong as it raises ethical prospects of the poor and disadvantaged in society serving as rental wombs for the privileged. Problems with the altruistic surrogacy In altruistic surrogacy, problems arise in the case where the commissioned woman refuses to become surrogate, a surrogate mother decides to discontinue her pregnancy, a surrogate mother changes her mind about giving out her baby or the baby is born with disabilities. The woman asked to be a surrogate normally feels like she does not have a choice and feels obligated to give birth for her relatives. This is actually more exploitative than a commercial surrogacy. Both biologically and psychologically, losing a baby is an enormous burden and no individual should have to experience that. Commissioned mothers are in this same situation. There is no difference with suffering a stillbirth. The laws governing this type of surrogacy need a modification in order to protect the rights of the commissioned mothers better (Tonti-Filippini, 2014). This practice must end since most of the time it happens among relatives, and chances of it leading to exploitation amid the commissioning couple and the relative requested to be a surrogate is very high. Doctors’ perspectives on Surrogacy According to Lo (2013, p.5), in most situations, physicians feel uncomfortable following the law when it comes to surrogacy, but there is nothing they can do about it. The laws on surrogacy have also changed over time. Some doctors refusing to have anything to do with surrogacy brought out the recognition that as much as surrogacy is a medical issue, it is also a social one. This led to the British Medical Association accepting surrogacy as a last remedy in 1990 (English, Sommerville, Brannan & British Medical Association, 2012, p. 348). The fact that some doctors, people familiar with the human anatomy, have recognized that something is wrong with the practice, shows that the practice is unnatural and should be banned. Conclusions The law allowing commercial surrogacy is unethical and wrong because the payment involved in treats children born from surrogacy and women’s reproductive abilities as commodities, which is socially unacceptable. Law and morality attempt to answer questions regarding surrogacy. Questions are whether law should allow surrogacy and under what conditions or circumstances are they moral such that will favor the involved parties. Despite all the common concerns, the ethical and legal responses to surrogacy do not coincide. The contract parenting market norms express very disrespectful attitudes towards children. The contracts regard children as proper creations and alienate them for profit purposes. The contracts also undermine the mothers’ autonomy by the manipulation and exploitation of their feelings. The contracts further deny the mothers’ feelings in cases where they decide not to give away their children. It is an irony that people are engaging in this practice while there are very many orphaned children especially in countries like India that allow the commercial surrogacy. Even though some scholars contend altruistic surrogacy is better as it eliminates the concept of commercialization, it is equally as bad as the commissioned mothers are the one who suffers the most. This is because of their inability to refuse to carry the baby and the loss of the baby immediately after birth. The situation is made worse by the fact that the surrogate mothers will see the children all the time as the commissioned woman and the childless couples are related. No woman should give birth to a child with any intention of raising it. There is a very strong need for states to modify respective adoption procedures so that surrogacy rates can reduce. References Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Top of Form Bottom of Form Anderson, E. 1993. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press. Beauchamp, T. L. et al. 2014. Contemporary issues in bioethics. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Callahan, J. C. 1995. Reproduction, ethics, and the law: Feminist perspectives. Bloomington [u.a.: Indiana University. Press. English, V., Sommerville, A., Brannan, S., & British Medical Association. 2012. Medical ethics today: The BMAs handbook of ethics and law. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Lo, B. 2013. Resolving ethical dilemmas: A guide for clinicians. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Madden, D. 2011. Medicine, ethics and the law. Haywards Heath, West Sussex: Bloomsbury Professional. Bottom of FormManion, A. 2014. Topic Five: New Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy and Feminist Issues (Weeks 7& 8). Mason, J. K., Laurie, G. T., & McCall, S. A. 2013. Mason and McCall Smiths law and medical ethics. Nelson, E. 2013. Global Trade and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Regulatory Challenges in International Surrogacy. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(1), 240-253. doi:10.1111/jlme.12016 Saxena,P., Mishra, A. & Malik S. 2012. Surrogacy: Ethical and Legal Issues. Indian Journal of Community Medicine 2012 Oct-Dec; 37(4): 211–213. Tonti-Filippini, N. 2014. The Contradictions of Baby Gammy: Disability, Discrimination and the True Cost of Surrogacy, ABC (Aust) Religion and Ethics. [online] Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/08/07/4062429.htm [Accessed 4Th October 2014] Read More