Abstract
Much of the focus in the new field of oncofertility has been on preserving cancer patients’ fertility prior to treatment that is likely to diminish their fertility or render them sterile. Less attention, however, has been paid to the logistics of using frozen eggs, embryos, or ovarian tissue following cancer treatment. It is usually assumed that, following some manipulation, the frozen eggs, embryos, or ovarian tissue will be transferred back into the women’s bodies via assisted reproductive technology (ART) so that they can become pregnant. Some women, however, cannot utilize this technology because their cancer treatment has left them unable to gestate. If these women desire biological children and have banked eggs, embryos, or ovarian tissue, then the only option available to them is surrogacy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is important to note that we are only dealing with the legal side of surrogacy. We are not making any normative claims about the morality of surrogacy.
- 2.
It is interesting to note that Marken’s theory – the way the local media framed surrogacy influenced state laws – may not be as relevant today as it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to the explosion in global media outlets, particularly the internet. If a controversial surrogacy case emerged today (perhaps one involving international surrogacy since the United States does not have laws to handle these arrangements), editorials, especially in the form of blogs, would probably be written by people all over the country, and perhaps the world, not just the local area. One can question how these presumably heterogeneous views would shape and change local laws.
- 3.
Some may argue that geography should not determine one’s ability to use surrogacy. They may claim that this raises various justice concerns. These concerns are outside the scope of our chapter.
References
Curado M, Edwards B, Shin H, et al. Cancer incidence in five continents (1998–2002). Vol. IX, No. 160. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications; 2007.
Uterine Cancer: Who’s at Risk? What You Need To Know About: Cancer of the Uterus [2002; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/uterus/page4]. Accessed August 24, 2009.
Treatment. What You Need To Know About: Cancer of the Cervix [2008; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cervix/page8]. Accessed August 24, 2009.
Milliken DA, Shepherd JH. Fertility preserving surgery for carcinoma of the cervix. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008; 20(5):575–80.
Wo JY, Viswanathan AN. Impact of radiotherapy on fertility, pregnancy, and neonatal outcomes in female cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 73(5):1304–12.
Tamoxifen: Questions and Answers. National Cancer Institute: Fact Sheet [2008; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/tamoxifen]. Accessed August 25, 2009.
Brinsden P. Clinical aspects of IVF surrogacy in Britain. In: Cook R, Sclater S, Kaganas F, Eds. Surrogate motherhood international perspectives. Portland: Hart Publishing; 2003: 99–112.
Goldfarb JM, Austin C, Peskin B, Lisbona H, Desai N, de Mola JR. Fifteen years experience with an in-vitro fertilization surrogate gestational pregnancy programme. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15(5):1075–8.
Stafford-Bell MA, Copeland CM. Surrogacy in Australia: implantation rates have implications for embryo quality and uterine receptivity. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2001; 13(1):99–104.
Surrogate motherhood. In: Lehman J, Phelps S, Eds. West’s encyclopedia of American law. Vol. 9, 2nd edn. Detroit: Gale; 2005:408–16.
Markens S. Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction. Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2007.
Baby M, In Re. In: Lehman J, Phelps S, Eds. West’s encyclopedia of American law. Vol. 9, 2nd edn. Detroit: Gale; 2005:431–3.
Andrews L. Between strangers: surrogate mothers, expectant fathers & brave new babies. New York: Harper & Row; 1989.
Bennett KA. Pregnancy and multiple sclerosis. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 2005; 48(1):38–47.
Kindregan C, McBrien M. Assisted reproductive technology: a lawyer’s guide to emerging law & science. Chicago: American Bar Association; 2006.
Chang M. Womb for rent: India’s commercial surrogacy. Harvard Int Rev. 2009 Spring:3111–2.
Gentleman A. India nurtures business of surrogate motherhood. New York Times. 2008.
Schuz R. Surrogacy in Israel: an analysis of the law in practice. In: Cook R, Sclater S, Kaganas F, Eds. Surrogate motherhood: international perspectives. Portland: Oxford; 2003:35–54.
Hunter-Henin M. Surrogacy: is there room for a new liberty between the French prohibitive position and the english ambivalence. In: Freeman M, Ed. Law and bioethics. New York: Oxford; 2008:329–57.
Surrogacy Orphan Trapped in Red Tape After Mothers Abandon Her. The Times; 2008. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4474231.ece.
Children born through Surrogacy Arrangements applying for Australian Citizenship by Descent. Australian High Commission: India. [http://www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_surrogacy.html]. Accessed September 17, 2009.
Rao R. Surrogacy law in the United States: the outcome of ambivalence. In: Cook R, Sclater SD, Kaganas F, Eds. Surrogate motherhood: international perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2003.
American Society for Reproductive Medicine. IFFS Surveillance 07. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87(4 Supp 1) S50–S51.
Daniels K. The policy and practice of surrogacy in New Zealand. In: Cook R, Sclater S, Kaganas F, Eds. Surrogate motherhood: international perspectives. Oxford: Portland; 2003:55–74.
Werb J. Gay man seeks perfect woman: surrogate mothers find a new market niche: single gay men. Macleans. May 21, 2007.
Bateman C. New Law will say no payment to surrogate mothers. CME: Your SA Journal of CPD. 2007; 25:343.
Keppler V, Bokelmann M. Surrogate Motherhood – The Legla Situation in Germany. The American Surrogacy Center; 2000. http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/germany.html
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sreenivas, K., Campo-Engelstein, L. (2010). Domestic and International Surrogacy Laws: Implications for Cancer Survivors. In: Woodruff, T., Zoloth, L., Campo-Engelstein, L., Rodriguez, S. (eds) Oncofertility. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 156. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6517-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6518-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)