CHAPTER 06 01
FUTURE INTRODUCTORY AND HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
6.3 INTERNATIONAL SURROGACY RIGHTS AND THE NEEDS OF SURROGATE MOTHERS356 When considering vulnerabilities related to both ICA and commercial global surrogacy arrangements, the natural question is what are the similarities and differences for the mothers – both birth mothers and surrogate mothers. While there are some significant differences in the two practices, one cannot underestimate the complex emotional experience entailed in adoption and surrogacy. Regardless of circumstances of conception, motherhood is a deeply profound experience for virtually all women, and the decision to relinquish or transfer a child through a legal agreement strikes most outsiders as simply abnormal. The reasons underlying each activity are varied, and some women report greater emotional strain than others357. Furthermore, in the case of most commercial global surrogacy arrangements, the children are conceived via in vitro fertilisation. Today, these pregnancies are quite frequently gestational pregnancies; thus, the infant is not genetically linked to the surrogate mother. The exception is traditional surrogacy arrangements (in which the surrogate mother’s ovum is used), but this form of surrogacy is far less frequent in commercial global surrogacy. In fact, traditional surrogacy is far less frequent in commercial global surrogacy, and is actually banned in India358. Once one removes the question of genetic linkage, similarities are more along emotional lines and, empirically speaking, little is actually known about the long-term emotional and mental health consequences of commercial global surrogacy for surrogate mothers. However, more is known about birth mothers in adoption, and their loss can be and often is profound359. The experience often requires aftercare, and best practices include counselling in the decision-making process as well as follow-up care. In reality, mothers in both adoption and commercial global surrogacy often receive insufficient support, especially in aftercare360. Quite simply, once the ‘transaction’ is completed, the birth or surrogate mother is largely forgotten as a new family is formed. That which is celebrated by one family represents loss to a mother (and potentially larger family group), and frequently the ‘receiving’ family lives in relative wealth as compared to the mother in question, especially in the case of India and other low-resource countries. As we consider the rights and needs of surrogate mothers, the experience of loss as well as the needs expressed by these women clearly cannot be ignored. The rights and needs of surrogate mothers is a complex discussion. The popular press has repeatedly highlighted the reality that thousands of women are involved in commercial global surrogacy arrangements around the world with little regulation. Ethical implications have been considered and cautions have been made as the industry rages on361. Quite simply, it is a billion dollar industry whose impact is profound for all involved362.
This contribution was written by Karen Smith Rotabi and Lopamudra Goswami. Pande, A (2014). Wombs in labor: Transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York, USA: Columbia University Press; Scherman, R, Misca, G, Rotabi, K S and Selman, P F (in press). ‘Parallels between international adoption and global surrogacy: What the field of surrogacy can learn from adoption’, in Adoption & Fostering; Wiley, W O and Baden, A L (2005). ‘Birth Parents in Adoption: Research, Practice, and Counseling Psychology’, in The Counseling Psychologist 33(1), pp. 13 – 50; available at: http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/33/1/13.abstract. 358 Bromfield, N F and Rotabi, K S (2014). Global surrogacy, exploitation, human rights and international private law: A pragmatic stance and policy recommendations, in Global Social Welfare: Research, Policy and Practice, pp. 123 – 135; available at: http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007%2Fs40609-014-0019-4. 359 Grotevant, H D, McRoy, R G, Wrobel, G M and Ayers-Lopez, S (2013) ‘Contact between adoptive and birth families: perspectives from the Minnesota/Texas adoption project’, in Child Development Perspectives, 7(3), pp. 193 –198; available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743089/; Roby, J and Matsumura, S (2002). ‘If I give you my child, aren’t we family? A study of birthmothers participating in Marshall Islands – US adoptions’, in Adoption Quarterly, 5(4), pp. 7 – 31; available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J145v05n04_02; Wiley, W O and Baden, A L (2005). Supra 357. 360 Pande, A (2014). Supra 357; and Wiley, W O and Baden, A L (2005). Supra 357. 361 Palattiyil, G B, Blyth, E, Sidhva, D and Balakrishnan, G (2010). ‘Globalization and cross-border reproductive services. Ethical implications of surrogacy in India for social work’, in International Social Work, 53(5), pp. 686 – 700; available at: http://www.iss.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/iss/Guests/Adoption___surrogacy/Publications/ Eric_Blyth_pub.pdf. 362 Supra 358. 356
357
172