Skip to main content
Log in

Why only the commissioning parents should undertake parental duties in surrogacy cases?

Warum sollten nur die beauftragenden Eltern in Leihmutterschaftsfällen Elternpflichten übernehmen?

  • Submitted Paper
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The introduction of in vitro fertilization (IVF) results in a separation of sex and reproduction which has generated enormous ethical debate (Lauritzen 1993). Surrogacy makes this situation more complicated by bringing a surrogate mother into reproduction. A surrogacy case may involve five individuals (in addition to the surrogate child). These are the commissioning couple, the gamete donors, and the surrogate mother. Hence, a surrogate child may have up to five parents, including biological parents, commissioning parents, and a gestational parent. The question is which of these people should undertake parental duty? In terms of the acquisition of parental duty, there are three accounts. They are the biological connection account, the causal account, and the consent account. In this article, I try to argue that only the commissioning parents should undertake the parental duty for the surrogate child based on the latter two accounts. I do not apply the biological connection account because the biological connection account fails to explain one’s parental duty, which I will show in the following sections.

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

Access this article

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. The natural procreation here indicates procreation without using assisted reproductive technology.

  2. For the comparison between ‘everyone has property in his own body’ and ‘everyone is entitled to the fruit of his labors’, please see Becker (1976,653-664). For discussion of Locke’s view on God’s ownership of a child, please see Blustein (1985, 74-138).

  3. Added by the author.

  4. Other similar accounts are given in Sidgwick (1907) and Blackstone (1830).

  5. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1987/2203/contents/made (Accessed on 5th July, 2017).

  6. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1987/2203/contents/made (Accessed on 5th July, 2017).

  7. Whether selling babies is morally permitted or not is not this paper’s topic. I use this example to show that in such cases, consent to have a child does not imply that the couple have consented to undertake parental obligations to their biological child.

  8. Alison and Jim are an infertile couple who want to have a baby by surrogacy. After signing the contract with a clinic, a physician implants gamete, which are from donator Beth and Alex respectively, into a surrogate mother Carrie’s womb. Ten months later, the baby, Ella, is born.

References

  • Archard, David. 2015. The obligations and responsibilities of parenthood. In Procreation and parenthood: The ethics of bearing and rearing children, ed. David Archard and David Benatar, 103-127. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M.W. 2013. Rights and Obligations of Parents. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M.W. 2016. Conceptions of parenthood: ethics and the family. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, T. and Kolers, A. 2003. Toward a pluralist account of parenthood. Bioethics, 17(3): 221-242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L.C. 1976. The Labor Theory of Property Acquisition. The Journal of Philosophy, 73(18): 653-664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone, W. 1830. Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. 2). London: Collins & Hannay, Book 1, Chapter 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blustein, Jeffrey. 1985. Parents and children: The ethics of the family. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blustein, Jeffrey. 1997. Procreation and parental responsibility. Journal of Social Philosophy, 28(2): 79-96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brake, E. and Millum, J. 2012. Parenthood and Procreation. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, S. and Noggle, R. 1997. The moral status of children: Children’s rights, parents’ rights, and family justice. Social Theory and Practice 23(1): 1‑26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuscaldo, Giuliana. 2006. Genetic ties: are they morally binding? Bioethics 20 (2): 64-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. 2003. Legal obligation and authority. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. 1999. The origin of parental rights. Public Affairs Quarterly 13(1): 73-82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, John Lawrence. 2017. What does it mean to be a “parent”? The claims of biology as the basis for parental rights. In Parental Rights and Responsibilities. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1987/2203/contents/made (Accessed on 5th July, 2017)

  • Hurd, H. M. 1996. The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory, 2(02): 12-146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, S. 1988. Causation and responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 25(4): 293-302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinig, J. 2010. The nature of consent. In The ethics of consent: Theory and practice, ed. Franklin G. Miller and Alan Wertheimer, 3‑24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropf, N. and Wilks S. 2003. Grandparents raising grandchildren. Social work and health care in an aging society: 177-200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauritzen, P. 1993. Pursuing Parenthood: Ethical Issues in Assisted Reproduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, David. 1974. Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 70 (17): 556-567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1988. Two Treatises of Government. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Millum, J. 2008. How do we acquire parental responsibilities? Social Theory and Practice, 34(1): 71-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. S. 1999. Causation and responsibility. Social Philosophy and Policy 16(02): 1‑51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narveson, J. 2001. The libertarian idea. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J.L. 1991. Parental obligations and the ethics of surrogacy: a causal perspective. Public Affairs Quarterly 5(1): 49-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Points, Kari. 2009. Commercial surrogacy and fertility tourism in India. In The Keenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University 1‑11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartorio, Carolina. 2007. Causation and responsibility. Philosophy Compass 2 (5): 749-765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick, H. 1907. The methods of ethics, 7th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, A. J. 1976. Tacit consent and political obligation. Philosophy & Public Affairs 5 (3): 274-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Peter. 2011. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanhui Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, H. Why only the commissioning parents should undertake parental duties in surrogacy cases?. ZEMO 2, 5–20 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-019-00030-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-019-00030-x

Keywords

Navigation