Bioethics 29 (5):353-361 (2015)

Authors
Christine Overall
Queen's University
Abstract
A serious moral weakness of reproductive ‘surrogacy’ is that it can be harmful to the children who are created. This article presents a proposal for mitigating this weakness. Currently, the practice of commercial ‘surrogacy’ operates only in the interests of the adults involved , not in the interests of the child who is created. Whether ‘surrogacy’ is seen as the purchase of a baby, the purchase of parental rights, or the purchase of reproductive labor, all three views share the same significant flaws. They endorse the transfer, for a fee, of the infant from the woman who gestated it to those who commissioned it, but without justifying such a transfer; they fail to demonstrate that the commissioners have any entitlement to the infant, or, for that matter, suitability to be the infant's parents; and they fail to take any notice of the infant's needs, interests, and wellbeing. A mere genetic connection is not enough to establish that the commissioners are entitled to receive the baby or that they are competent to raise it. Their good intentions, however caring, are not enough. Therefore, just as in the practice of adoption, there should be a formal institutionalized system for screening and licensing the prospective social parents, which would make the infant's needs, interests, and wellbeing paramount. I reply to several potential objections to this proposal, including the objection that genetic parents who raise their own child are not screened and licensed
Keywords adoption  surrogacy  parental licensing  pregnancy  baby‐selling  surrogate mother
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12107
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,541
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Complex Case of Ellie Anderson.Joona Räsänen & Anna Smajdor - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (4):217-221.
Against Private Surrogacy: A Child-Centred View.Anca Gheaus - forthcoming - Oxford University Press.
Fiduciary Duties and Commercial Surrogacy.Emma A. Ryman - 2017 - Dissertation, University of Western Ontario

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Can a Right to Reproduce Justify the Status Quo on Parental Licensing?Andrew Botterell & Carolyn McLeod - 2015 - In Richard Vernon, Sarah Hannan & Samantha Brennan (eds.), Permissible Progeny: The Morality of Procreation and Parenting. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 184-207.
Surrogacy in Australia: New Legal Developments.Renate Klein - 2011 - Bioethics Research Notes 23 (2):23.
Ethical Issues in Gestational Surrogacy.Rosalie Ber - 2000 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (2):153-169.
Rethinking “Commercial” Surrogacy in Australia.Jenni Millbank - 2015 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12 (3):477-490.
Questioning South Africa’s ‘Genetic Link’ Requirement for Surrogacy.Thaddeus Metz - 2014 - South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 7 (1):34-39.
Fair Trade International Surrogacy.Casey Humbyrd - 2009 - Developing World Bioethics 9 (3):111-118.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-08-01

Total views
69 ( #169,836 of 2,533,478 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #261,612 of 2,533,478 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes