Stories from Fertility Industry Professionals

COMMERCIAL SURROGACY EXPLOITS AND COMMODIFIES WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Many countries of Europe have realised the dangers of surrogacy agreements and, in pursuit of the best interest of the child, enacted legislation to ban or strictly regulate surrogacy. Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Italy and Bulgaria completely prohibit all surrogacy agreements.

Surrogacy agreements are against public policy in those countries. One of the chief reasons is that surrogacy commodifies the human body. With surrogacy the child becomes the mere object of a legal transaction, while the surrogate mother is used,effectively, as an incubator. Such commodification in itself violates the dignity of both the surrogate mother and the child.

A child born after a surrogacy agreement may have up to five adults claiming parent's rights over him or her: the genetic mother (egg donor), the gestational or birth mother (surrogate), the commissioning mother; the genetic father (sperm donor), the commissioning father, and arguably a six adult, namely the husband of the gestational or birth mother (presumption of paternity)

The gametes of one or both the commissioning parents may have been used. The gestational mother may be the genetic mother; this is the case when she is artificially inseminated. Such manipulations are contrary to the genetic truth. As we know from the experience both of adopted children and donor-conceived people, the genetic truth is more and more sought and cannot be
lightly set aside.


Surrogacy is presented as a method of medically assisted reproduction among others, a treatment for infertility. It is often depicted as a generous altruistic action meant to help couples who cannot naturally have children, to offer them the joy of parenting.

However, reality is far from this sugar-coated picture.

----http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Surrogacy%20final%20PDF.pdf

Date submitted: February 25, 2014

---

Health of IVF Adults

Recently, as a professional ethicist I attended a lecture on perinconception health in which evidence was presented on Health risks generated by what happens to the parents from 12 weeks before conception until 8 weeks of pregnancy. One of the issues was the effect of obesity in either parent roducing genetic effects that predispose to obesity in the child, even if the family did not have a history of obesity beforehand. Some early results were discussed of a major project to assess the health of IVF adults. It was said that there was strong evidence of insulin resistance in IVF adults. That predisposes to a range of adult disorders including diabetes and polycystic ovarian disease in women. It was suggested that the insulin resistance might have something to do with the culture media used for embryos. I am aware of a project involving 93% of IVF adults conceived in the Australian State of Victoria. I would be interested in any other long term follow-up projects assessing the adult health of IVF conceived people.

Date submitted: December 23, 2011

---

We Have to Change

I am a mental health professional specializing in working with infertility patients. I am also an adoptive mother. Part of what I do at work is prepare people for the implications of using a donor. The most challenging topic we discuss is the issue of whether the couple will tell their child how s/he were conceived.

As an adoptive mother, I am 100% pro disclosure. I feel it is a child's fundamental right to know who they are at every level. Yes, it's confusing as a parent to know how much or when to disclose, but that confusion can be eradicated with some solid education and preparation. Part of what you sign up for when you build your family in a non-traditional way is that you will have to parent your child about how to deal with that difference.

To be honest, I myself, could not imagine using a donor because I don't understand the intense need for genetic link or to be pregnant. Yet, I find myself in the position of counseling many individuals who have chosen a very different path from the one I have chosen in life. At times I have even considered shifting the focus of my practice away from infertility so that I can feel more comfortable with my work. Then I think of the importance of the discussions I have with people and rationalize that at least I am a voice for donor-conceived children. At least, I bring their voice into the picture before couples even become pregnant.

I am amazed at the number of clinics, physicians, and agencies that really do not give even one second of thought to the needs of the children that are being conceived via "third party reproduction." As a nation, we need to get a conscience about what we are doing here. Yes, it's nice when an infertile couple is able to build a family, but what about the children? Shouldn't their needs be in the mix from the very beginning too? I think it is ridiculous that a donor-conceived child would need to "research" to find out their genetic origins. Give me a break. What if you had to do that? Is it fair?

I would like to say that most of the mental health professionals who specialize in infertility really do understand the complexity of these issues and support openness around donor conception. I feel proud of that and feel that we are having an impact on couples that come through our offices. However, until all couples and donors are required to consult with us so we have a chance to open everyone's eyes early in the process, it will be an uphill battle. I conduct my consultations with donors and couples using ASRM's ethical guidelines for third party reproduction. The guidelines are solid, but not mandatory, so if a clinic or agency chooses not to adhere to them, there is nothing anyone can do. Consequently, many people go into arrangements with donors pretty clueless about parenting issues and implications for their donor-conceived offspring. We need to change this situation. It's not fair to donors, intended parents, and especially to donor-conceived children.

Date submitted: March 26, 2011

---