Assisted reproduction is a technology invented to address infertility problems among affected people. It may involve surrogacy, divided into two, one that consists of a woman carrying her own fertilized egg from a man they have no ties with and gestational surrogacy. This essay will assess a case study and give viable reasons as to why a surrogate mother should be granted child legitimacy or the biological couple in case the surrogate mother is unwilling to give away the young one.
Response to case study 1:
This case involves a surrogate mother who, after the birth of her child, got instinctive motherhood connection to a child and was not willing to give away the kid to her biological parents. This case exhibits some parallelism according to what some USA state laws depict but breaches some laws too. In a lawsuit filed by Johnson, a surrogate mother, in the California Supreme Court in 1993 against her child's biological parents, the Calverts, saw the surrogacy contracts being upheld. Besides, most states consider the surrogacy contract unenforceable by the law but go ahead to bar any payments to the intermediary and the surrogate mother (Surrogate Motherhood, n.d.). This decision is in a bid to stop child selling and exploitation of poor persons by the rich. In our case, the complainant had been paid for both her surrogacy compensation costs and expenses costs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Caplan, paid surrogacy is unethical and exploitative (Caplan, 2014). He argues that poverty is a significant motivator for someone to become a surrogate mother. Paid surrogates have to endure the pain of childbirth and enter a drug prison where they have to take a lot of drugs, yet they have no right over the child they will bear or bond with the outcome of motherhood. However, I somehow give a benefit of the doubt because this practice is meant to help other people who are not gifted to give birth to their kids and earn the surrogate financial compensation. In my opinion, I do not think that paying a surrogate undermines her and her child. The reason is that the surrogate got into a contract before the procedure was effected. This was a consented practice where the mother felt it was okay with her to sell her reproductive vessel. It is just like a perceived crime that becomes inviable when it is discovered that the victim had a hand in whatever consequences he or she suffered.
Different people argue differently about selfishness as a motivator for a couple to opt for surrogacy when they are not fortunate to bear their own. I can not entirely agree with this opinion because, in this case, the woman did not choose to suffer from uterine cancer. Unfortunately, this is the reason she cannot bear a kid of her own. In this case, surrogacy was justifiable. Since I disregard selfishness as a motivator for a couple to work and have a biological kid, choosing to adopt a kid is just an option like surrogacy can be, and everyone has a right to whatever decision he or she makes.
The American Medical Association's post about surrogacy supports the idea of avoiding a surrogacy contract within a given period. While this is true because the surrogate mother may get an emotional connection to the kid after birth, it is not fair for the couple who were the first party to express interest in having the baby. This couple set their plans and were anticipating a baby, but a turn of events means that a court tussle ensues with each party pulling from their side. It is just but fair to consider the couple as the legitimate parents of the child. If the surrogate mother feels she wants ownership of the child, she should repudiate the surrogacy contract 180 days after conception (Surrogate Motherhood, n.d.). It is fair compared to waiting until birth, yet the surrogate from our case study received full payment in compensation for her services. While most states like Virginia do not enforce surrogacy contracts, I think it's high time to look into this matter again.
In as much as battles may ensue due to surrogacy, it is not wise to disqualify it as an option that couples that cannot bear their kids. Such cases may be a small portion against a significant number of successful surrogacy cases. From a religious perspective, surrogacy is a way to alleviate the pains of infertility that a couple is experiencing. Thus, surrogacy should not be disregarded though should be performed following proper means and contract requirements (Deonandan, 2016).
Giving a baby to its surrogate, in my opinion, will lead to emotional harm to the child. A child will always feel comfortable being attached to his or her biological parents. When he or she learns that whoever he or she calls mum is not her biological mother, it makes them emotionally distraught.
I think that the child should be given to the couple. The reason is that in the beginning, the surrogate mother never had any plans to have a baby, but the couple had. Besides, the surrogate had been paid fully for her services, and the woman's infertility had been caused by cervical cancer, something she didn't wish on herself.
In conclusion, surrogacy is an assisted reproduction option that should be handled with the same magnitude as child adoption. It depends on a personal choice on whatever road he or she would take. Battles that ensue from the practice are not reason enough to say it is not a good option over any other.
Reference
Caplan, A., 2014. Paid Surrogacy Is Exploitative - Nytimes.Com . [online] Nytimes.com.
Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/09/22/hiring-a-woman-for-her-womb/paid-surrogacy-is-exploitative> [Accessed 13 June 2020]
Surrogate Motherhood, S., n.d. Surrogate Motherhood - Does Surrogacy Involve Making
Families Or Selling Babies? Further Readings . [online] Law.jrank.org. Available at: <https://law.jrank.org/pages/10643/Surrogate-Motherhood.html> [Accessed 13 June 2020].
