The harm argument against surrogacy revisited: two versions not to forget
- 1.5k Downloads
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.
KeywordsAttachment Ethics of motherhood Harm argument Maternal-fetal attachment Reproductive ethics Surrogacy
- Allen, Anita. 1987. Privacy, surrogacy, and the Baby M case. Georgetown Law Journal 76(5): 1759–1792.Google Scholar
- Anderson, Elizabeth. 1990. Is women’s labor a commodity? Philosophy & Public Affairs 19: 71–92.Google Scholar
- Anderson, Elizabeth. 1993. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Andrews, Lori, and Lisa Douglass. 1991–1992. Alternative reproduction. Southern California Law Review 65(1): 623–682.Google Scholar
- Bowlby, John. 1969. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Cassidy, Jude, and Phillip Shaver (eds.). 2010. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Fischer, Susan, and Irene Gillman. 1991. Surrogate motherhood: Attachment, attitudes and social support. Psychiatry 54(1): 13–20.Google Scholar
- Growing Generations. http://www.growinggenerations.com. Accessed 16 July 2013.
- Gugucheva, Magdalina. 2010. Surrogacy in America. Cambridge, MA: Council for Responsible Genetics.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Hrubý, Radovan, Jozef Hašto, and Peter Minárik. 2011. Attachment in integrative neuroscientific perspective. Activitas Nervosa Superior Rediviva 53(2): 49–58.Google Scholar
- In Re Baby M. 1988. Family Court Review 26: 69–77.Google Scholar
- Jackson, Emily. 2001. Regulating reproduction: Law, technology and autonomy. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Medical Tourism Corporation. http://www.medicaltourismco.com/assisted-reproduction-fertility/low-cost-surrogacy-india.php. Accessed 16 July 2013.
- 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.
- 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
- Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Rimm, Jennifer. 2008–2009. Booming baby business: Regulating commercial surrogacy in India. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 30: 1429–1462.Google Scholar
- Schneider, Carl. 1990. Surrogate motherhood from the perspective of family law. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13(1): 125–131.Google Scholar
- Scott, Elizabeth. 2009. Surrogacy and the politics of commodification. Law and Contemporary Problems 72: 109–146.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Warnock, Mary. 1984. Report of the committee of inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. Cmnd 9314. London, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar
- Wertheimer, Alan. 1992. Two questions about surrogacy and exploitation. Philosophy & Public Affairs 21: 211–239.Google Scholar
- Wertheimer, Alan. 1996. Exploitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar