Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical, Moral and Human Rights Considerations in Surrogate Motherhood

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surrogate Motherhood Families

  • 694 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, ethical and moral principles and issues of human rights are explored in the context of surrogate motherhood arrangements. It draws upon different conceptualisations of surrogacy as a social, legal or medical contract. The ethical problems associated with contracting pregnancies are discussed as they apply to accountability, moral obligations, social and psychological aspects of parenting and in relation to maintaining optimum human rights principles for the commissioned children, surrogate mothers and commissioning parents. The commodification and exploitation known to be practised in the twenty-first century is likely to come to haunt the offspring in later years. The complications arising from national guidelines which clarify local, but obfuscate international, surrogate motherhood arrangements are also explored.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander, L. A., & O’Driscoll, L. H. (1980). Stork markets: An analysis of “baby selling”. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 4(2), 173–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, L. B. (1987). The aftermath of Baby M: Proposed state laws on surrogate motherhood. Hastings Center Report, 17(5), 31–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, L. B., & Elster, N. (2000). Regulating reproductive technologies. Journal of Legal Medicine, 21, 35–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aramesh, K. (2009). Iran’s experience with surrogate motherhood: An Islamic view and ethical concerns. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 320–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ASRM. (2009). Practice Committee, guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertility & Sterility, 95(5), 1518–1519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96, 231–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baier, A. (1994). Moral prejudices: Essays on ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banjerjee, S., & Basu, S. (2009). Rent a womb: Surrogate selection, investment incentives and contracting. Journal of Economic & Behavioural Organisation, 69(3), 260–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baykal, B., Korkmaz, C., Ceyhan, S., Goktolga, U., & Baser, I. (2008). Opinions of infertile Turkish women on gamete donation and gestational surrogacy. Fertility & Sterility, 89(4), 817–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., & Childless, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielawska-batorowicz, E. (1994). Artificial insemination by donor – An investigation of recipient couples’ viewpoints. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 12(2), 123–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, M., Campbell, A., & Golombok, S. (1998). Surrogacy review for health ministers of current arrangements for payments and regulation. Report of the review team. Cm 4068. London: Department of Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brezina, P. R., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Review article: The ethical, legal and social issues impacted by modern assisted reproductive technologies. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2012, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • British Association of Social Workers (BASW). (2016). Code of practice, 11–18. http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_112315-7.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • British Medical Association (BMA). (1996). Changing conceptions of motherhood. The practice of surrogacy in Britain. London: BMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromfield, N., & Rotabi, K. (2014). Global surrogacy, exploitation, human rights and international private law: A pragmatic stance and policy recommendations. Global Social Welfare, 1(3), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, C., Dudkiewicz-Sibony, C., Berthaut, I., Weil, E., Brunet, L., Fortier, C., Pfeffer, J., Ravel, C., Fauque, P., Mathieu, E., Antoine, J. M., Kotti, S., & Mandelbaum, J. (2016). Survey of 243 ART patients having made a final disposition decision about their surplus cryopreserved embryos: The crucial role of symbolic embryo representation. Human Reproduction, 31(7), 1508–1514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, C., & Endozien, L. C. (2014). Surrogacy in modern obstetric practice. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 19, 272–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, S. (2010). Mother Jones: Inside India’s rent-a-womb business. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/surrogacy-tourism-india-nayna-patel. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • Charo, R. A. (1988). Legislative approaches to surrogate motherhood. Law, Medicine and Health Care, 16(1–2), 96–112.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J., & Cook, J. (2010). Cross border reproductive care: Now and into the future. Fertility & Sterility, 94(1), e25–e26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). (1979). United Nations entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

  • Crawshaw, M. (2016). 13th programme consultation – PROGAR RESPONSE – 30th September 2016. http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/basw_40000-5.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • Crawshaw, M., Blyth, E., & van den Akker, O. (2012). The changing profile of surrogacy in the UK – Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 34, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuthbert, D., & Fronek, P. (2014). Perfecting adoption? Reflections on the rise of commercial offshore surrogacy and family formation in Australia. In D. Higgins (Ed.), Children and families in Australia: Selected policy, legal and practical issues. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damelio, J., & Sorensen, K. (2008). Enhancing autonomy in paid surrogacy. Bioethics, 22(5), 269–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daniluk, J. (1988). Infertility: Intrapersonal and interpersonal impact. Fertility & Sterility, 49(6), 982–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lacey, S. (2005). Parent identity and “virtual” children: Why patients discard rather than donate unused embryos. Human Reproduction, 20, 1661–1669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, A. (2010). Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice. Bioethics, 24(7), 323–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egliston, K. A., McMahon, C., & Austin, M. (2007). Stress in pregnancy and infant HPA axis function: Conceptual and methodological issues relating to the use of salivary cortisol as an outcome measure. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, S., & Annas, G. J. (1986). Social policy considerations in non-coital reproduction. Journal of the American Medical Association, 255, 62–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erin, C. A., & Harris, J. (1991). Surrogacy. Bailliere’s Best Practice in Research & Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 5(3), 611–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlen, J. A., & Holzman, I. R. (1990). Evolving issues in surrogate motherhood. Health Care for Women International, 11, 319–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fasouliotis, S., & Schenker, J. (1999). Social aspects of assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction Update, 5(1), 26–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, K. (2015). Theoretical approaches to human dignity, human rights and surrogacy. In P. Gerber & K. O’Byrne (Eds.), Surrogacy, law and human rights (pp. 13–29). Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, N. (2009). Crossing the line: The legal and ethical problems of foreign surrogacy. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 19(2), 151–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, L., Gannon, K., Sherr, L., & Abel, P. (1996). Distress in sub-fertile men: A longitudinal study. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 14, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (2015). Socio-emotional development in changing families. In M. E. Lamb (Vol. Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed, Vol. 3, pp. 419–463), Social, emotional and personality development. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grodin, M. A. (1991). Ethical issues in surrogate motherhood. Statement. Women’s Health Institute, 1(3), 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, G. (1995). The dilemma of choice: A feminist perspective on the limits of freedom of contract. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 33, 337–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • HCCH. (1993). 33: Convention of 29 May 1993 on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=69. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • HCCH. (2016). Hague conference on private international law. The parentage/surrogacy project. The private international law issues surrounding the status of children, including issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements. https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • HCCH Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2012). Overview on the world organisation for cross-border co-operation in civil and commercial matters. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.pho?act=text.displaye&tid=26. (Not working????) Accessed 22 May 2016.

  • Healy, J. M. (1984). Legal regulation of artificial insemination and the new reproductive techniques – The search for clarification continues. In A. Milunsky & G. J. Annas (Eds.), Genetics and the law III (pp. 139–145). Boston: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, V. (1993). Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society and politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HFEA. (2003). Code of practice, 6th edn. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Code_of_Practice_Sixth_Edition.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2016.

  • HFEA. (2008). HFEA Act, Section 54. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2232/made. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • HFEA. (2010). HFEA regulations. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/501.html. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • HFEA. (2014). HFEA releases third report on fertility trends. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/8828.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2016.

  • HFEA ‘One at a Time’. (2006). Report. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/Multiple-births-after-IVF.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2016.

  • Hochschild, A. (2009). Childbirth at the global crossroads. The American prospect. http://prospect.org/article/childbirth-global-crossroads-0. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • Holtmaat, R., & Naber, J. (2011). Women’s human rights and culture: From deadlock to dialogue. Leiden: Intersentia. ISBN 978-94-000-0137-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, T., Savulescu, J., & Hendrick, J. (2003). Medical ethics and law: The core curriculum. London: Livingstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, E. G., & DeJean, D. (2010). Cross border fertility services in North America: A survey of Canadian and American providers. Fertility & Sterility, 94(1), e16–e19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. (1990). Legislation.Gov.UK. National Archives. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/37/contents

  • Humbyrd, C. (2009). Fair trade international surrogacy. Developing World Bioethics, 9(3), 111–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, X., Wang, G., Liu, S., Liu, M., Zhang, J. And Shi, Y. (2013) Patients’ attitudes toward the surplus frozen embryos in China. Biomedical Research International, 934567, 8 pages. doi:10.1155/2013/934567.

  • Johnson, I. (1999). Regulation of assisted reproductive technology: The Australian experience. In P. R. Brinsden (Ed.), A textbook of in vitro fertilization and assisted reproduction (pp. 424–427). Carnforth/New York: Parthenon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, H. W., Cooke, I., Kempers, R., Brinsden, P., & Saunders, D. (2011). International Federation of Fertility Societies surveillance. Fertility & Sterility, 95(2), 491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karandikar, S., et al. (2014). Economic necessity or Noble cause? A qualitative study exploring motivations for gestational surrogacy in Gujarat, India. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 165, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimmel, H. T. (1983). The case against surrogate parenting. Hastings Center Report, 13(5), 35–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ledger, W. L., Anumba, D., Marlow, N., Thomas, C. M., & Wilson, E. C. (2006). The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 113(1), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeton, J. (1991). The current status of IVF surrogacy in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 31, 260–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lycett, E. (2009). Surrogacy. In G. Bentley & R. Mace (Eds.), Substitute parents: Biological and social perspectives on alloparenting in human societies. New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyerly, A. D., Steinhauser, K., Namey, E., Tulsky, J., Cook-Deegan, R., Sugarman, J., Walmer, D., Faden, R., & Wallach, E. (2006). Factors that affect infertility patients’ decisions about disposition of frozen embryos. Fertility & Sterility, 85, 1623–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. A. (1998). The modern American stepfamily: Problems and possibilities. In M. A. Mason, A. Skolnick, & S. D. Sugarman (Eds.), All our families (pp. 95–116). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. A. (1987). Surrogate motherhood: A stillborn idea. Second Opinion, 5, 128–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLernon, D. J., Harrild, K., Bergh, C., et al. (2010). Clinical effectiveness of single versus double embryo transfer: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 341, c6954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohler-Kuo, M., Zellweger, U., Duran, A., Hohl, M. K., Gutzwiller, F., & Mutsch, M. (2009). Attitudes of couples towards the destination of surplus embryos: Results among couples with cryopreserved embryos in Switzerland. Human Reproduction, 24, 1930–1938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mounce, G. (2006). Assisted reproduction: What do midwives need to know? The Royal College of Midwives. https://www.rcm.org.uk/learning-and-career/learning-and-research/in-depth-papers/assisted-reproduction-what-do-midwives

  • MR & Anor v An Chlaraitheoir and Others (2013) IEHC. http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2013/H91.html. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • Nachtigall, R. D., MacDougall, K., Harrington, J., Duff, J., Lee, M., & Becker, G. (2009). How couples who have undergone in-vitro-fertilization decide what to do with surplus frozen embryos. Fertility and Sterility, 92, 2094–2096.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ombelet, W., De Sutter, P., Van der Elst, J., & Martens, G. (2005). Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: Registration, reflection and reaction – The Belgian project. Human Reproduction Update, 11, 3–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oxman, R. B. (1993). California’s experiment in surrogacy. Lancet, 341, 1468–1469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palattiyil, G., Blyth, E., Sidhva, D., & Balakrishnan, G. (2010). Globalization and cross-border reproductive services: Ethical implications of surrogacy in India for social work. International Social Work, 53(5), 686–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pande, A. (2009). ‘Not an angel’ not ‘a whore’: Surrogates as ‘dirty workers’ in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16, 141–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, P. J. (1984). Surrogate motherhood, psychiatric screening and informed consent, baby selling, and public policy. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 12(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (1988). The sexual contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provoost, V., Pennings, G., DeSutter, P., van de Velde, A., De Lissnyder, E., & Dhont, M. (2009). Infertility patients’ beliefs about their embryos and their disposition preferences. Human Reproduction, 24, 896–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Provoost, V., Pennings, G., DeSutter, P., van de Velde, A., & Dhont, M. (2012). Trends in embryo disposition decisions: Patients’ responses to a 15-year mailing program. Human Reproduction, 27, 506–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Purewal, S., & van den Akker, O. B. A. (2007). The socio-cultural and biological meaning of parenthood. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 28(3), 79–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, M. J. (1987). Market-inalienability. Harvard Law Review, 100(8), 1849–1937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramskold, L. H., & Posner, M. P. (2013). Commercial surrogacy: How provisions of monetary remuneration and powers of international law can prevent exploitation of gestational surrogates. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 397–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, D. R. (2007). Surrogate pregnancy: A guide for Canadian prenatal health care providers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(4), 483–485.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rimm, J. (2009). Booming baby business: Regulating commercial surrogacy in India. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1429–1462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, G., & Hunter, J. (2005). The law of assisted human reproduction. Markham: LexisNexis Canada, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, K. H. (1988). Baby M, the surrogacy contract, and the health care professional: Unanswered questions. Law Medicine & Health Care, 16, 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAMA Resource Group for Women and Health. (2012). Birthing a market: A study on commercial surrogacy. http://www.samawomenshealth.org/research/inter-and-intra-south-dialogues-capacity-building-and-advocacy-assisted-reproductive

  • Samorinha, C., Pereira, M., Machado, H., Figueiredo, B., & Silba, S. (2014). Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of embryos for research: A systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 20, 641–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saravanan, S. (2013). An ethnomethodological approach to examine exploitation in the context of capacity, trust and experience of commercial surrogacy in India. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities, 8(10), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schieve, L. A., Peterson, H. B., Meilke, S. F., et al. (1999). Live birth rates and multiple birth risk using in vitro fertilization. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282(19), 1832–1838.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Setti, P. E. L., Albani, E., Cesana, A., et al. (2011). Italian constitutional court modifications of a restrictive assisted reproduction technology law significantly improve pregnancy rate. Human Reproduction, 26(2), 376–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, P., Raval, H., Buck, P., & Lieberman, B. (2007). A 3-year follow-up of emotional, marital and sexual functioning in couples who were infertile. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 10(4), 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, B. (2012). Transnational surrogacy and international human rights law. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 18(2). http://ssrn.corn/abstract=2118077

  • Surrogacy Arrangements Act. (1985). Legislation.Gov.UK. The National archives. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/49

  • Tallandini, M. A., Zanchettin, L., Gronchi, G., & Morsan, V. (2016). Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1275–1287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-dfs/UNCRC_PRESS200910web.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) Article 16.1. http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/udhr_article_16.html. Accessed 19 Oct 2016.

  • The US Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act. (1992). (FCSRCA) Pub. L. no −102 493.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly. (1948, December 10). Universal declaration of human rights. 217A (III). http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html. Accessed 9 May 2016.

  • UNESCO. (2006). Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2016.

  • van den Akker, O. B. A. (1993). Prophylactic benefits of antenatal screening: Helpful or harmful? British Journal of Midwifery, 1(5), 220–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, O. B. A. (2003). Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers’ experience of surrogacy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 21(2), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, O. (2012). Chapter 10: Overcoming involuntary childlessness and assisted conception. In Reproductive health psychology (pp. 162–165). Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, O. (2016). Reproductive health matters. The Psychologist, 29(1), 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, O. B. A., Crawshaw, M. C., Blyth, E. D., & Frith, L. J. (2015). Expectations and experiences of gamete donors and donor-conceived adults searching for genetic relatives using DNA linking through a voluntary register. Human Reproduction, 30(1), 111–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, O., Postavaru, G., & Purewal, S. (2016). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosocial consequences of twins and multiple births following medically assisted reproduction. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 33(1), 1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl, L., & van Niekerk, A. (2000). Interpretations, perspectives and intentions in surrogate motherhood. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 404–409.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J., Duchesne, C., Sabourin, S., et al. (1991). Psychosocial distress and infertility: Men and women respond differently in vitro fertilization. Fertility & Sterility, 55, 100–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK

    Olga B. A. van den Akker

Authors
  1. Olga B. A. van den Akker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van den Akker, O.B.A. (2017). Ethical, Moral and Human Rights Considerations in Surrogate Motherhood. In: Surrogate Motherhood Families. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60453-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation