Oncofertility pp 135-152 | Cite as

Domestic and International Surrogacy Laws: Implications for Cancer Survivors

  • Kiran Sreenivas
  • Lisa Campo-Engelstein
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 156)


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.


Cancer Survivor Assisted Reproductive Technology Birth Certificate Fertility Preservation Biological Child 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296.


  1. 1.
    Curado M, Edwards B, Shin H, et al. Cancer incidence in five continents (1998–2002). Vol. IX, No. 160. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications; 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uterine Cancer: Who’s at Risk? What You Need To Know About: Cancer of the Uterus [2002;]. Accessed August 24, 2009.
  3. 3.
    Treatment. What You Need To Know About: Cancer of the Cervix [2008;]. Accessed August 24, 2009.
  4. 4.
    Milliken DA, Shepherd JH. Fertility preserving surgery for carcinoma of the cervix. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008; 20(5):575–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tamoxifen: Questions and Answers. National Cancer Institute: Fact Sheet [2008;]. Accessed August 25, 2009.
  7. 7.
    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.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Surrogate motherhood. In: Lehman J, Phelps S, Eds. West’s encyclopedia of American law. Vol. 9, 2nd edn. Detroit: Gale; 2005:408–16.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Markens S. Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction. Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andrews L. Between strangers: surrogate mothers, expectant fathers & brave new babies. New York: Harper & Row; 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bennett KA. Pregnancy and multiple sclerosis. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 2005; 48(1):38–47.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kindregan C, McBrien M. Assisted reproductive technology: a lawyer’s guide to emerging law & science. Chicago: American Bar Association; 2006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chang M. Womb for rent: India’s commercial surrogacy. Harvard Int Rev. 2009 Spring:3111–2.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gentleman A. India nurtures business of surrogate motherhood. New York Times. 2008.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Surrogacy Orphan Trapped in Red Tape After Mothers Abandon Her. The Times; 2008.
  21. 21.
    Children born through Surrogacy Arrangements applying for Australian Citizenship by Descent. Australian High Commission: India. []. Accessed September 17, 2009.
  22. 22.
    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.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    American Society for Reproductive Medicine. IFFS Surveillance 07. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87(4 Supp 1) S50–S51.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Werb J. Gay man seeks perfect woman: surrogate mothers find a new market niche: single gay men. Macleans. May 21, 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bateman C. New Law will say no payment to surrogate mothers. CME: Your SA Journal of CPD. 2007; 25:343.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keppler V, Bokelmann M. Surrogate Motherhood – The Legla Situation in Germany. The American Surrogacy Center; 2000.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Teresa K. Woodruff LabChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Oncofertility Consortium and Center for Bioethics, Science & Society, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations