Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 477–490 | Cite as

Rethinking “Commercial” Surrogacy in Australia

Original Research

Abstract

This article proposes reconsideration of laws prohibiting paid surrogacy in Australia in light of increasing transnational commercial surrogacy. The social science evidence base concerning domestic surrogacy in developed economies demonstrates that payment alone cannot be used to differentiate “good” surrogacy arrangements from “bad” ones. Compensated domestic surrogacy and the introduction of professional intermediaries and mechanisms such as advertising are proposed as a feasible harm-minimisation approach. I contend that Australia can learn from commercial surrogacy practices elsewhere, without replicating them.

Keywords

Surrogate mothers Infertility Reproductive medicine 

References

  1. Alghrani, A. 2012. Surrogacy: “A cautionary tale”: Re T (a child). Medical Law Review 20(4): 631–641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Braveman, A., P. Casey, and V. Jadva. 2012. Reproduction through surrogacy in the U.K. and U.S.A. In Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics, edited by M. Richards, G. Pennings, and J. Appleby, 150–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brugger, K. 2012. International law in the gestational surrogacy debate. Fordham International Law Journal 35(3): 665–697.Google Scholar
  4. Busby, K. 2013. Of surrogate mother born: Parentage determinations in Canada and elsewhere. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 25(2): 284–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busby, K., and D. Vun. 2010. Revisiting The Handmaids Tale: Feminist theory meets empirical research on surrogate motherhood. Canadian Journal of Family Law 26(1): 13–93.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, A. 2012. Law’s suppositions about surrogacy against the backdrop of social science. Ottawa Law Review 43(1): 29–58.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, A. 2013. Sister wives, surrogates and sex workers: Outlaws by choice? Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Ciccarelli, J., and L. Beckman. 2005. Navigating rough waters: An overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues 61(1): 21–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, I.G. 2010. Protecting patients with passports: Medical tourism and the patient protective-argument. Iowa Law Review 95(5): 1467–1567.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, I.G. 2011. Medical tourism, access to health care, and global justice. Virginia Journal of International Law 52(1): 1–56.Google Scholar
  11. Crawshaw, M., E. Blyth, and O. van den Akker. 2012. The changing profile of surrogacy in the U.K.: Implications for national and international policy and practice. The Journal of Social Welfare Law 34(3): 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damelio, J., and K. Sorensen. 2008. Enhancing autonomy in paid surrogacy. Bioethics 22(5): 269–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIAC]. 2012. Citizenship by descent applications granted to infants by India and USA posts 2008–2011 [FOI request FA 12/03/00935]. Canberra: DIAC.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIAC]. 2013. Applications for citizenship by descent lodged for applicants 18 years or under, by country of birth (India, Thailand, Ukraine and USA). January 19.Google Scholar
  15. Everingham, S. 2014. Use of surrogacy by Australians: Implications for policy and law reform. In Families, policy and the law: Selected essays on contemporary issues for Australia, edited by A. Hayes and D. Higgins, 67–80. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Galbraith, M., H. McLachlan, and K. Swales. 2005. Commercial agencies and surrogate motherhood: A transaction cost approach. Health Care Analysis 13(1): 11–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gamble, N. 2012. Made in the U.S.A.: Representing U.K. parents conceiving through surrogacy and ART in the United States. Family Law Quarterly 46(1): 155–168.Google Scholar
  18. Golombok, S., C. Murray, V. Jadva, F. MacCallum, and E. Lycett. 2004. Families created through a surrogacy arrangement: Parent–child relationships in the first year of life. Developmental Psychology 40(3): 400–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Golombok, S., F. MacCallum, C. Murray, E. Lycett, and V. Jadva. 2006a. Surrogacy families: Parental functioning, parent–child relationships and children’s psychological development at age 2. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(2): 213–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Golombok, S., C. Murray, V. Jadva, E. Lycett, F. MacCallum, and J. Rust. 2006b. Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: Consequences for parent–child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3. Human Reproduction 21(7): 1918–1924.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Golombok, S., P. Casey, J. Readings, L. Blake, A. Marks, and V. Jadva. 2011. Families created through surrogacy: Mother–child relationships and children’s psychological adjustment at age 7. Developmental Psychology 47(6): 1579–1588.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Golombok, S., L. Blake, P. Casey, G. Roman, and V. Jadva. 2013. Children born through reproductive donation: A longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54(6): 653–660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hague Conference on Private International law. 2012. Preliminary report on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements. The Hague: Permanent Bureau. http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2012pd10en.pdf . Accessed October 28, 2013.
  24. Horsey, K., and S. Sheldon. 2012. Still hazy after all these years: The law regulating surrogacy. Medical Law Review 20(1): 67–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [HFEA]. 2012. Code of practice, 8th ed. London: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/8th_Code_of_Practice.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2014.
  26. Hunt, J. 2013. Cross border treatment for infertility: The counselling perspective in the UK. Human Fertility 16(1): 64–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jadva, V.J., C. Murray, E. Lycett, F. MacCallum, and S. Golombok. 2003. Surrogacy: The experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction 18(10): 2196–2204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jadva, V.J., L. Blake, P. Casey, and S. Golombok. 2012. Surrogacy families 10 years on: Relationships with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children’s understandings of their surrogacy origins. Human Reproduction 27(10): 3008–3014.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Keyes, M. 2011. Cross border surrogacy agreements. Australian Journal of Family Law 26(1): 28–50.Google Scholar
  30. Kotiswaran, P. 2013. Do feminists need an economic sociology of law? Journal of Law and Society 40(1): 115–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krawiec, K. 2009. Altruism and intermediaries in the market for babies. Washington and Lee Law Review 66(1): 203–257.Google Scholar
  32. Laufer-Ukeles, P. 2003. Gestation: Work for hire of the essence of motherhood? A comparative legal analysis. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 19(2): 91–133.Google Scholar
  33. Laufer-Ukeles, P. 2013. Mothering for money: Regulating commercial intimacy. Indiana Law Journal 88(1): 1–57.Google Scholar
  34. Macaldowie, A., Y.A. Wang, G.M. Chambers, and E.A. Sullivan. 2012. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2010. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737423255. Accessed June 10, 2014.
  35. Millbank, J. 2011. The new surrogacy parentage laws in Australia: Cautious regulation or “25 brick walls”? Melbourne University Law Review 35(1): 165–207.Google Scholar
  36. Millbank, J. 2012. From Alice and Evelyn to Isabella: Exploring the narratives and norms of “new” surrogacy in Australia. Griffith Law Review 21(1): 101–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Millbank, J. 2013. Resolving the dilemma of legal parentage for Australians engaged in international surrogacy. Australian Journal of Family Law 27(2): 135–170.Google Scholar
  38. Millbank, J., E. Chandler, I. Karpin, and A. Stuhmcke. 2013. Embryo donation for reproductive use in Australia. Journal of Law and Medicine 20(4): 789–810.Google Scholar
  39. Millbank, J., I. Karpin, and A. Stuhmcke. 2013. Towards facilitative regulation of assisted reproductive treatment in Australia. Journal of Law and Medicine 20(4): 701–711.Google Scholar
  40. Murphy, T. 2009. The texture of choice. In New technologies and human rights, edited by T. Murphy, 195–221. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. 2007. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Canberra: Australian Government. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e78.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2014.
  42. Page, S., and A. Harland. 2011. Tiptoe through the minefield: A state-by-state comparison of surrogacy laws in Australia. Family Law Review 1(4): 198–230.Google Scholar
  43. Pande, A. 2010. Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother–worker. Signs 35(4): 969–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pascoe, J. 2011. The rise of surrogate parenting: Family law and human rights implications in Australia and internationally. http://www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/pubs/html/Speech%20-%20Pascoe%20-%20LawAsia%20-%202011.html. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  45. Pennings, G., E. Vayena, and K. Ahuja. 2012. Balancing ethical criteria for the recruitment of gamete donors. In Reproductive donation: Practice, policy and bioethics, edited by M. Richards, G. Pennings, and J. Appleby, 150–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Purewal, S., M. Crawshaw, and O. van den Akker. 2012. Completing the surrogate motherhood process: Parental order reporters’ attitudes towards surrogacy arrangements, role ambiguity and role conflict. Human Fertility 15(2): 94–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Ragoné, H. 1994. Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ragoné, H. 2003. Gift of life: Surrogate motherhood, gamete donation and constructions of altruism. In Surrogate motherhood: International perspectives, edited by R. Cook, S. Day Sclater, and F. Kaganas, 3209–3226. Abingdon: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee [RTAC], Fertility Society of Australia. 2010. Code of practice for assisted reproductive technology units. Melbourne: Fertility Society of Australia. http://www.fertilitysociety.com.au/wp-content/uploads/201011201-final-rtac-cop.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  50. Skene, L. 2012. Why legalising commercial surrogacy is a good idea. The Conversation, December 10. http://theconversation.com/why-legalising-commercial-surrogacy-is-a-good-idea-11251. Accessed October 25, 2013.
  51. Standing Committee of Attorneys-General [SCAG] Joint Working Group. 2009. A proposal for a national model to harmonise regulation of surrogacy. Sydney: NSW Attorney General's Department. http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/policycoord/documents/polcoord_surrogacy_consultationpaper.pdf.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2014.
  52. Stockey-Bridge, M. 2013. Surrogate-intended parent relationships in a transnational context. Presentation at the Surrogacy Australia conference, May 6–7, in Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  53. Storrow, R. 2011. Assisted reproduction on treacherous terrain: The legal hazards of cross-border reproductive travel. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 23(5): 538–545.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Storrow, R. 2012. The phantom children of the new republic: International surrogacy and the new illegitimacy. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law 20(3): 561–609.Google Scholar
  55. Stuhmcke, A. 2004. Looking backwards, looking forwards: Judicial and legislative trends in the regulation of surrogate motherhood in the UK and Australia. Australian Journal of Family Law 18(1): 13–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Stuhmcke, A. 2011. The criminal act of commercial surrogacy in Australia: A call for review. Journal of Law and Medicine 18(3): 601–613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Stuhmcke, A. 2014. Extraterritoriality and surrogacy: The problem of State and Territory moral sovereignty. In Law in context, edited by A. Sifris and P. Gerber, pages forthcoming. Annandale, NSW: Federation Press Sydney.Google Scholar
  58. Teman, E. 2008. The social construction of surrogacy research: An anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood. Social Science and Medicine 67(7): 1104–1112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Teman, E. 2010. Birthing a mother: The surrogate body and the pregnant self. London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thorn, P., T. Wischmann, and E. Blyth. 2012. Cross-border reproductive services—suggestions for ethically based minimum standards of care in Europe. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 33(1): 1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Trimmings, K., and P. Beaumont. 2011. International surrogacy arrangements: An urgent need for legal regulation at the international level. Journal of Private International Law 7(3): 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Trowse, P. 2011. Surrogacy: Is it harder to relinquish genes? Journal of Law and Medicine 18(3): 614–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. van den Akker, O.B. 1998. Functions and responsibilities of organizations dealing with surrogate motherhood in the UK. Human Fertility 1(1): 10–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. van den Akker, O.B. 2003. Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers’ experience of surrogacy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 21(2): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van den Akker, O.B. 2005. A longitudinal pre-pregnancy to post-delivery comparison of genetic and gestational surrogate and intended mothers: Confidence and genealogy. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology 26(4): 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van den Akker, O.B. 2007. Psychological aspects of surrogate motherhood. Human Reproduction Update 13(1): 53–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Ware, J. 2013. First IVF provider to be floated on stock market sees early share price boost. BioNews (709), June 17. http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_313238.asp. Accessed June 10, 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Technology SydneyBroadwayAustralia

Personalised recommendations