Abstract
Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, individuals have a right to access reproductive technologies. This is so in virtue of the 2012 Inter-American Court of Human Rights landmark reproductive rights decision in Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica, in which the Court held that a complete ban on reproductive technologies, and assisted reproductive technologies in particular, interferes with the right to a private and family life, which includes the decision to become a parent, as well the option and access to the means to materialize that private decision. In spite of the Artavia Murillo ruling, the legal status of surrogacy agreements in State Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights is uncertain. This paper examines whether surrogacy is compatible with the Inter-American System of Human Rights. It focuses on three types of potential objections to the legalization of surrogacy: “corruption arguments,” that is, the idea that surrogacy corrupts maternity; “child welfare concerns,” that is, the idea that surrogacy should not be allowed because of its effects on resulting children; and the potential exploitation of surrogates. The author of this article concludes that these objections are not convincing but that the American Convention on Human Rights requires regulatory schemes that protect the rights of surrogates, intending parents, and children.
This paper is based on two previous papers on surrogacy in Latin America (Hevia 2018; Hevia forthcoming 2018).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Article 11(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes that each person has a right to respect for his/her honor and recognition of his/her dignity. In addition, article 11(2) states that “[n]o one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” Article 11(3), in turn, establishes that this right must be protected by law.
- 2.
Id.
- 3.
Abrams, supra note 50, at 188.
- 4.
For a general theory of relational autonomy, see Nedelsky (2011).
- 5.
Id., at 1254–1255.
References
Abrams, P. 2015. The bad mother: stigma, abortion and surrogacy. J Law Med Ethics 43: 179.
Baby, M. 1988. 109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d 1227.
Banfi Vique, A., O. Cabrera, F. Gómez-Lugo, and M. Hevia. 2011. The Politics of Reproductive Health Rights in Uruguay: Why the Presidential Veto to the Right to Abortion is Illegitimat. J Health Law 12: 192.
Bassan, S. 2016. Shared Responsibility Regulation Model for Cross-Border Reproductive Transactions. Mich J Int’l L 37: 299–342.
Bell, D. 2001. Communitarianism. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed Edgar N. Zalta. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/. Last visited May 5, 2018.
Brining, M.F. 1995. A Maternalistic Approach to Surrogacy: Comment on Richard Epstein’s Surrogacy: The Case for Full Contractual Enforcement. Virginia Law Review 81: 2377.
Cohen, G. 2012. Response: Rethinking Sperm-Donor Anonymity: Of Changed Selves, Nonidentity, and One-Night Stands. Geo L J. 100: 431–435.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 3.
Defensor del Pueblo de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires y Otros c. GCBA y Otros s/amparo, judgment of 4-08-2017 (Argentine Appellate Chamber for Administrative Law and Taxation, 2017).
Duff, R.A. 1993. Choice, Character, and Criminal Liability. Law and Philosophy 12: 345–381.
Epstein, R. 1995. Surrogacy: The Case for Full Contractual Enforcement. Virginia Law Review 81: 2305.
Hevia, M. 2018. Liberalismo y Gestación por Sustitución. In Entre la Libertad y la Igualdad. Ensayos Críticos Sobre la Obra de Rodolfo Vázquez, 301–311. México: UNAM.
Hevia, M. 2018. Surrogacy, Privacy, and the American Convention on Human Rights. Forthcoming. Journal of Law and Biosciences 5: 375.
Hevia, M., and C.H. Vacaflor. 2013. From Recognition to Regulation: The Legal Status of In Vitro Fertilization and the American Convention on Human Rights. Florida Journal of Intonational Law 25: 453.
Lamm, E. Argentina. 2013a. In International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level, ed. K. Trimmings and P. Beaumont, 5–24. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Lamm, E. Venezuela. 2013b. In International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level, ed. K. Trimmings and P. Beaumont, 397. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Lamm, E., and N. Rubaja. 2016. Parámetros Jurisprudenciales en los Casos de Gestación por Sustitución Internacional. Los Lineamientos del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y sus Repercusiones en el Contexto Global. Revista de Bioética y Derecho 37: 149–156.
Laufer-Ukeles, P. 2013. Mothering for Money: Regulating Commercial Intimacy. Indiana Law of Journal 88: 1123.
Murillo, A. et al. 2012. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica; November 28, 2012 CDH-12.361/177.
Nedelsky, J. 2011. Law’s Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parfit, D. 1987. Reasons and Persons, 359. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pelzman, J. 2018. Womb for Rent: Gestational Surrogacy Contracts—A New Path for Outsourcing Service Contracts. Available at https://www2.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/docs/papers/Pelzman_IIEPWP2010-30.pdf. Last visited Jan 16, 2018.
Posner, R.A. 1989. The Ethics and Economics of Enforcing Contracts of Surrogate Motherhood. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 5: 21.
Rawls, J. 1993. Political Liberalism, 139–140, 217. New York: Columbia University Press.
Satz, D. 2013. Por Qué Ciertas Cosas No Deberían Estar a la Venta. Los Límites Morales de los Mercados: Los Mercados en la Reproducción Femenina 13 Revista Argentina de Teoría Jurídica. http://www.utdt.edu/download.php?fname=_135092683913866300.pdf. Last visited May 5, 2018.
Tecú, J., and E. Guatemala Lamm. 2013. In International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level, ed. K. Trimmings and P. Beaumont, 167. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Thaler, R.H., and C. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Trebilcock, M. 1993. Paternalism in The Limits of Freedom of Contract, 155. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Warnock, M. et al. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embriology. London. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hevia, M. (2019). The Legal Status of Surrogacy in Latin America. In: Rivera-López, E., Hevia, M. (eds) Controversies in Latin American Bioethics. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 79. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17963-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17963-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17962-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17963-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)