Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surrogacy, Compensation, and Legal Parentage: Against the Adoption Model

  • Critical Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surrogate motherhood is treated as a form of adoption in many countries: the birth mother and her partner are presumed to be the parents of the child, while the intended parents have to adopt the baby once it is born. Other than compensation for expenses related to the pregnancy, payment to surrogates is not permitted. We believe that the failure to compensate surrogate mothers for their labour as well as the significant risks they undertake is both unfair and exploitative. We accept that introducing payment for surrogates would create a significant tension in the adoption model. However, we recommend rejecting the adoption model altogether rather than continuing to prohibit compensation to surrogates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Raymond (1990) and Narayan (1995), who argue that altruistic surrogacy can also involve the exploitation of women and objectification of children.

  2. This view is supported by a recent survey of Australian intended parents via surrogacy, which found that laws banning compensated surrogacy do not appear to deter those seeking surrogacy arrangements—most Australian intended parents consider or use overseas compensated arrangements. See Everingham, Stafford-Bell, and Hammarberg (2014).

  3. In New Zealand, the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART) accepts that the major risk involved in surrogacy for the surrogate, the intended parents, as well as the resulting child is that one of the parties may change their mind about relinquishing or adopting the child. See ACART (2013) and Henderson (2013) for discussion of the New Zealand legal framework.

References

  • Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ACART). 2013. Guidelines on surrogacy involving assisted reproductive procedures. http://acart.health.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/guidelines-and-advice-issued-ecart/guidelines-surrogacy-arrangements.

  • Everingham, S.G., M.A. Stafford-Bell, and K. Hammarberg. 2014. Australians’ use of surrogacy. The Medical Journal of Australia 201(5): 270–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Family Law Council. 2013. Report on parentage and the Family Law Act. Barton: Commercial and Administrative Law Branch. https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/FamilyLawCouncil/Documents/family-law-council-report-on-parentage-and-the-family-law-act-december2013.pdf.

  • Henderson, K. 2013. Who’s bringing up baby: Developing a framework for the transfer of legal parenthood in surrogacy arrangements. LLM Research Paper, Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington. http://hdl.handle.net/10063/3339.

  • Imrie, S., and V. Jadva. 2014. The long-term experiences of surrogates: Relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 29(4): 424–435.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M.B. 2006–2007. Procreation through art: Why the adoption process should not apply. The Capital University Law Review 35: 399–411.

  • Jadva, V., S. Imrie, and S. Golombok. 2015. Surrogate mothers 10 years on: A longitudinal study of psychological well-being and relationships with the parents and child. Human Reproduction 30(2): 373–379.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, Y. 2014. In defense of surrogacy agreements: A modern contract law perspective. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law 20: 423–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millbank, J. 2011. The new surrogacy parentage laws in Australia: Cautious regulation or “25 brick walls”? Melbourne University Law Review 35(1): 165–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millbank, J. 2014. Rethinking “commercial” surrogacy in Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. doi:10.1007/s11673-014-9557-9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, U. 1995. The “gift” of a child: Commercial surrogacy, gift surrogacy and motherhood. In Expecting trouble: Surrogacy, fetal abuse and new reproductive technologies, ed. P. Boling, 177–202. Oxford: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J.G. 1990. Reproductive gifts and gift giving: The altruistic woman. The Hastings Centre Report 20(6): 7–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Akker, O.B. 2007. Psychological trait and state characteristics, social support and attitudes to the surrogate pregnancy and baby. Human Reproduction 22(8): 2287–2295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl, L., and R. Walker. 2013. Beyond altruistic and commercial contract motherhood: The professional model. Bioethics 27(7): 373–381.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R., and L. van Zyl. 2015. Surrogate motherhood and abortion for fetal abnormality. Bioethics. doi:10.1111/bioe.12157.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, 3240, New Zealand

    Liezl van Zyl & Ruth Walker

Authors
  1. Liezl van Zyl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liezl van Zyl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Zyl, L., Walker, R. Surrogacy, Compensation, and Legal Parentage: Against the Adoption Model. Bioethical Inquiry 12, 383–387 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9646-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9646-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation