Many issues have been brought up regarding the legalising of surrogacy in Queensland. The idea of renting or using the female body to mother and nurture a child in order to overcome the problem of infertility has created a number of ethical and legal issues within our community. (Gray & Kenman, 1999, p.57) Professor Carl Wood, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Monash University states surrogacy is one of the most generous and kind acts that a woman can carry out to help others. (Giles, 1989, p. 291) Professor Wood made clear, that he was in favour of IVF surrogacy, as the infertile couple are the biological parents, possibly reducing the surrogate’s parental feelings towards the offspring. (Giles, 1989, p. 290) This statement has been clearly supported as only 1% of surrogate mothers regret their decisions. ()
Another argument brought up in favour of surrogacy is that it is no different to adoption. In an adoption situation the biological mother gives birth and the baby is instantly handed it over to the social parents. How is surrogacy different in this case? Legalising natural surrogacy in Queensland will destroy many traditional morals including the traditional definition of marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.’ () IVF surrogacy on the other hand, does not crush any moral beliefs, despite the thought of the female body being used to overcome a medical condition, and therefore should be made legal.
The Catholic Church is one that opposes surrogacy and believes the consequences could be tragic if surrogacy was legalised. (Gagliardi, 1989, p. 9) Father Brian Lucus, media spokesman for the Catholic Church in Sydney, believes both types of surrogacy set an unhuman outlook on society. Father Lucus believes that controversy about surrogacy involves questions about Community attitudes... Change of mind… Payments to surrogate mothers…Legal enforcement of surrogacy contracts… Whether parents should be married… Medical costs. (Giles, 1989, p 293, 294) These issues create much discussion between parties about whether surrogacy should be allowed in Queensland. IVF surrogacy clearly answers the issue about medical costs. The surrogate mother should be free of all medical costs as she is helping or doing an unfortunate couple a favour. Change of mind is a minor risk when dealing with IVF surrogacy as it is proven that the surrogate mother does not feel as connected to the child as it biologically belongs to another couple. Legalising IVF surrogacy in Queensland for couples in certain situations will not destroy as many moral and social principles, as the surrogate mother is only ‘doing the couple a favour’ and not ‘giving away her own baby’.
Two major issues, which would have to been clearly outlined if IVF surrogacy became legal in Queensland are ‘who should it be open to’ and ‘should there be any liability.’ Results from the same survey mentioned earlier shows that all participants believe surrogacy should be available to married couples. However, participants were able to choose more then one situation and 30% said that IVF surrogacy should also be available to either a single man or woman or people in either defacto or homosexual relationships. IVF surrogacy should only become available to married couples, as this relationship is proven to be the most secure, lessening the chance of the child growing up with a single parent or in an unstable situation. People may believe they are being discriminated against especially defactos, although it can be argued that if two people can’t make the commitment of marriage then they should not commit to sharing a child together. () Liability is also a great concern when dealing with IVF surrogacy, although it depends on the circumstances of the pregnancy. If the surrogate mother had abused her body by either drugs or alcohol then liability lays with the surrogate, whereas if the pregnancy was not abused then there is chance that the problem is genetic. These two issues would not be a problem if IVF surrogacy were lawful in Queensland so long as the conditions and availability were outlined clearly.
IVF Surrogacy involving payment is called commercial surrogacy, and in this case is also referred to as ‘rent-a-womb’. All states and Territories in Australia have passed a law making commercial surrogacy illegal. (Gray & Kenman, 1999, p. 57) Professor Wood states in favour of commercial surrogacy that we are all paid for using our bodies, both brain and muscle in our work and there seems reason to support payment to surrogates… surrogates use their brain, body and particularly her reproductive tract to help someone else. (Giles, 1998, p 292) Nadia Silverbine, opposes Woods opinion and questions if surrogates were simply good people, would they pocket the $20,000 people pay to rent their wombs? She also says that commercial surrogacy is dangerously close to prostitution. (Silverbine, 2004, p.22) Commercial surrogacy is seen to encourage financially poor, uneducated women to enter into such an agreement for money, without being aware of the duties and emotions, which are involved. It is also seen to be promoting women as child producing machines. () Laurie Victoria says that the answer against commercial surrogacy this is that surrogacy is a ‘gift’ or ‘favour’ a woman does for someone else, therefore should not receive any payment. (Victoria, 1998, p. 35) IVF Surrogacy, out of good will, is called altruistic surrogacy and should be legalised under strict guidelines for couples in Queensland.
Legalising IVF Surrogacy is a definite argument between opposing parties in Queensland. Two possible cases involving IVF surrogacy, which may be used to support this procedure, are both the Kirkman and Carole Moore’s cases. Linda Kirkman agreed to gestate the genetic child of her older sister Maggie. The baby was handed over to Maggie and her husband at birth. () Carole Moore’s case involved a woman giving birth to her stepbrother after becoming a surrogate her mother through IVF surrogacy. (Son is her stepbrother, 2004, p.6) These two cases can be used as valuable evidence to support making IVF surrogacy possible in Queensland.
If surrogacy was to be legalised there must be certain criteria that the surrogate must meet. The surrogate should have had a child of their own before becoming a surrogate mother for another couple. This would reduce the number of surrogates who change their mind as no amount of counselling at any stage in the arrangement can prevent these deep human emotions causing people to change their minds. (Giles, 1989, p. 294) There must also be a legal contract entered into, which may also prevent surrogates from changing their minds. Another criterion the biological parents should meet is informing the child, when they reach a certain age, of the surrogacy process. When this occurs the child should have every right to meet the surrogate mother if they wish. This operates similarly in an adoption situation. If these criteria were followed then legalising IVF surrogacy in Queensland should not be as big of a problem as it is thought to be.
Giving an infertile couple the chance of sharing a baby, that is biologically their own, is a wonderful and paramount gift any woman can give. The process of IVF surrogacy is an excellent way of accomplishing this without completely destroying the Marriage Act or moral opinions, such as a woman giving up a child they gave birth to themselves. IVF surrogacy is completely different to natural surrogacy and is believed to be a favour a woman does for another couple in an unlucky situation. Slight changes to the Surrogate Parenthood Act (Qld) 1988 may give unfortunate women the chance to raise a child of their own with the help of a close friend or relative. Finally, if life is the greatest gift anyone can give, then isn’t helping create life the supreme gift? (Carter, 1996, p. 8)
Bibliography
Journal article – known author
Laurie, V. (1998), ‘Surrogacy may get the nod’, Bulletin with Newsweek, vol.117, no. 6145, p. 35
Newspaper – known author
Carter, H. (1993), ‘A womb to spare’, Herald Sun, 18 February, p. 14
Gagliardi, J. (1989), ‘Churches oppose surrogate report’, Courier – Mail, 27 October, p. 9
Silversbine, N. (2004), ‘We hear you’, The Oprah Magazine, 7 February, p. 22
Newspaper – unknown author
Son is her stepbrother, (2004), Sunday Times The (Perth), 15 February, p. 6
Books
Giles, R. (1989), For & Against, The Jacaranda Press, Sydney
Gray, A & Kenman, S. (1999), Legal Studies in Action, John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd, Sydney
Russel, S & Short, G. (1994), Exploring the Law, Thomas Nelson Australia, Melbourne
Scheel, T. (1992), Understanding the Law, Edward Arnold Australia, Caulfield East
Websites
Better Health Channel. (2000). Surrogacy – a look at the issues [online], Available from (assessed 20 Feb. 2004)
Krohn, A. (1996). ACT Surrogacy Arrangements: What Happened to Uniform Policy? [online], Available from (assessed 2 March. 2004)
Legal Branch. (2000), Review of the Human Tissue Act 1983 – Assisted Reproductive Technologies [online], Available from (assessed 2 March. 2004)
Office of the Qld Parliamentary Counsel. (1988), Surrogate Parenthood Act 1988 [online], Available from (assessed 18 Feb. 2004)
Stuhmcke, A. (1995), For Love or Money: The Legal Regulation of Surrogate Motherhood [online], Available from (assessed 19 Feb. 2004)