Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 357–363 | Cite as

The harm argument against surrogacy revisited: two versions not to forget

  • Marcus AgnaforsEmail author
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

It has been a common claim that surrogacy is morally problematic since it involves harm to the child or the surrogate—the harm argument. Due to a growing body of empirical research, the harm argument has seen a decrease in popularity, as there seems to be little evidence of harmful consequences of surrogacy. In this article, two revised versions of the harm argument are developed. It is argued that the two suggested versions of the harm argument survive the current criticism against the standard harm argument. The first version argues that the child is harmed by being separated from the gestational mother. The second version directs attention to the fact that surrogacy involves great incentives to keep the gestational mother’s level of maternal-fetal attachment low, which tend to increase the risk of harm to the child. While neither of the two arguments is conclusive regarding the moral status of surrogacy, both constitute important considerations that are often ignored.

Keywords

Attachment Ethics of motherhood Harm argument Maternal-fetal attachment Reproductive ethics Surrogacy 

References

  1. Allen, Anita. 1987. Privacy, surrogacy, and the Baby M case. Georgetown Law Journal 76(5): 1759–1792.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1990. Is women’s labor a commodity? Philosophy & Public Affairs 19: 71–92.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1993. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2000. Why commercial surrogate motherhood unethically commodifies women and children: Reply to McLachlan and Swales. Health Care Analysis 8: 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, Lori. 1995. Beyond doctrinal boundaries: A legal framework for surrogate motherhood. Virginia Law Review 81: 2343–2375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews, Lori, and Lisa Douglass. 1991–1992. Alternative reproduction. Southern California Law Review 65(1): 623–682.Google Scholar
  7. Appleton, Tim. 2001. Surrogacy. Current Obstetrics & Gynaecology 11(4): 256–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baykal, Baris, Cem Korkmaz, Seyit Temel Ceyhan, Umit Goktolga, and Iskender Baser. 2008. Opinions of infertile Turkish women on gamete donation and gestational surrogacy. Fertility and Sterility 89: 817–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowlby, John. 1969. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Brazier, Margaret, Alasdair Campbell, and Susan Golombok. 1998. Surrogacy. Review for health ministers of current arrangements for payments and regulation: Report of the review team. UK: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  11. Brinig, Margaret Friedlander. 1995. A maternalistic approach to surrogacy: Comment on Richard Epstein’s surrogacy: The case for full contract enforcement. Virginia Law Review 81: 2377–2399.Google Scholar
  12. Cassidy, Jude, and Phillip Shaver (eds.). 2010. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ciccarelli, Janice, and Linda Beckman. 2005. Navigating rough waters: An overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues 61(1): 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Constantinidis, Deborah, and Roger Cook. 2012. Australian perspectives on surrogacy: The influence of cognitions, psychological and demographic characteristics. Human Reproduction 27(4): 1080–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiPietro, Janet. 2010. Psychological and psychophysiological considerations regarding the maternal-fetal relationship. Infant and Child Development 19: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drabiak, Katherine, Carole Wegner, Valita Fredland, and Paul Helft. 2007. Ethics, law, and commercial surrogacy: A call for uniformity. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35: 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edelmann, Robert. 2004. Surrogacy: The psychological issues. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 22(2): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer, Susan, and Irene Gillman. 1991. Surrogate motherhood: Attachment, attitudes and social support. Psychiatry 54(1): 13–20.Google Scholar
  19. Goecke, T., F. Voigt, F. Faschingbauer, G. Spangler, M.W. Beckmann, and A. Beetz. 2012. The association of prenatal attachment and perinatal factors with pre- and post-partum depression in first-time mothers. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 286(2): 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Golombok, Susan, Jennifer Readings, Lucy Blake, Polly Casey, Alex Marks, and Vasanti Jadva. 2011. Families created through surrogacy: Mother-child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment at age 7. Development Psychology 47: 1579–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Growing Generations. http://www.growinggenerations.com. Accessed 16 July 2013.
  22. Gugucheva, Magdalina. 2010. Surrogacy in America. Cambridge, MA: Council for Responsible Genetics.Google Scholar
  23. Gupta, Divya. 2011. Inside India’s surrogacy industry. Guardian Weekly, December 6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/06/surrogate-mothers-india. Accessed 22 July 2013.
  24. Hepper, Peter. 1996. Fetal memory: Does it exist? What does it do? Acta Paediatrica Supplement 416: 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hofer, Myron. 2006. Psychobiological roots of early attachment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(2): 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hrubý, Radovan, Jozef Hašto, and Peter Minárik. 2011. Attachment in integrative neuroscientific perspective. Activitas Nervosa Superior Rediviva 53(2): 49–58.Google Scholar
  27. Humbyrd, Casey. 2009. Fair trade international surrogacy. Developing World Bioethics 9: 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. In Re Baby M. 1988. Family Court Review 26: 69–77.Google Scholar
  29. Jackson, Emily. 2001. Regulating reproduction: Law, technology and autonomy. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Jadva, Vasanti, and Susan Imrie. 2014. Children of surrogate mothers: Psychological well-being, family relationships and experiences of surrogacy. Human Reproduction 29(1): 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jadva, Vasanti, Clare Murray, Emma Lycett, Fiona MacCallum, and Susan Golombok. 2003. Surrogacy: The experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction 18(10): 2196–2204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kisilevsky, Barbara S., Sylvia M. J. Hains, Christine Ann Brown, Charlotte T. Lee, Bernadine Cowperthwaite, Sherri Schmidt Stutzman, Melissa L. Swansburg, Kang Lee, Xing Xie, Hefeng Huang, HaiHui Ye, Ke Zhang, and Zengping Wang. 2009. Fetal sensitivity to properties of maternal speech and language. Infant Behavior and Development 32(1):59–71.Google Scholar
  33. Kovacs, Gavor, Gary Morgan, Carl Wood, Catherine Forbes, and Donna Howlett. 2003. Community attitudes to assisted reproductive technology: A 20-year trend. Medical Journal of Australia 179: 536–538.Google Scholar
  34. Krishnan, Vijaya. 1994. Attitudes toward surrogate motherhood in Canada. Health Care for Women International 15(4): 333–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lasker, Judith, and Dawn Murray. 2001. Attitudes toward technologies for conception: A 15-year follow up. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31: 2165–2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laxton-Kane, Martha, and Pauline Slade. 2002. The role of maternal prenatal attachment in a woman’s experience of pregnancy and implications for the process of care. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 20(4): 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, Ruby. 2009. New trends in global outsourcing of commercial surrogacy: A call for regulation. Hastings Women’s Law Journal 20(2): 275–300.Google Scholar
  38. Lindgren, Kelly. 2001. Relationships among maternal-fetal attachment, prenatal depression, and health practices in pregnancy. Research in Nursing & Health 24: 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mampe, Birgit, Angela Friederici, Anne Christophe, and Kathleen Wermke. 2009. Newborns’ cry melody is shaped by their native language. Current Biology 19: 1994–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mennella, Julie, Coren Jagnow, and Gary Beauchamp. 2001. Prenatal and postnatal flavor learning by human infants. Pediatrics 107(6). http://www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/107/6/e88.short. Accessed 22 July 2013.
  41. Moriceau, Stephanie, and Regina Sullivan. 2005. Neurobiology of infant attachment. Development Psychobiology 47(3): 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nafee, Tamer, William Farrell, William Carroll, Anthony Fryer and Khaled Ismail. 2008. Epigenetic control of fetal gene expression. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 115(2): 158–168.Google Scholar
  43. Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Parks, Jennifer. 2010. Care ethics and the global practice of commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 24: 333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rimm, Jennifer. 2008–2009. Booming baby business: Regulating commercial surrogacy in India. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 30: 1429–1462.Google Scholar
  46. Satz, Debra. 2010. Why some things should not be for sale: The moral limits of markets. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schneider, Carl. 1990. Surrogate motherhood from the perspective of family law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13(1): 125–131.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, Elizabeth. 2009. Surrogacy and the politics of commodification. Law and Contemporary Problems 72: 109–146.Google Scholar
  49. Shetty, Priya. 2012. India’s unregulated surrogacy industry. The Lancet 380: 1633–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiffrin, Seana. 1999. Wrongful life, procreative responsibility and the significance of harm. Legal Theory 5(2): 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Suzuki, Kohta, Rintaro Sawa, Kaori Muto, Satoshi Kusuda, Kouji Banno, and Zentaro Yamagata. 2011. Risk perception of pregnancy promotes disapproval of gestational surrogacy: Analysis of a nationally representative opinion survey in japan. International Journal of Fertility & Sterility 5: 78–85.Google Scholar
  52. Tong, Rosemarie. 1990. The overdue death of a feminist chameleon: Taking a stand on surrogacy arrangements. Journal of Social Philosophy 21(2): 40–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van den Akker, Olga. 2007. Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood. Human Reproduction Update 13: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walsh, Judi. 2010. Definitions matter: If maternal-fetal relationships are not attachment, what are they? Archives of Women’s Mental Health 13: 449–451.Google Scholar
  55. Warnock, Mary. 1984. Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. Cmnd 9314. London, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar
  56. Wertheimer, Alan. 1992. Two questions about surrogacy and exploitation. Philosophy & Public Affairs 21: 211–239.Google Scholar
  57. Wertheimer, Alan. 1996. Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wilkinson, Stephen. 2003. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 17: 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Culture and Communication, PhilosophyLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations