As people mature, quite often they dream of getting married and starting a family. Having children is a fundamental desire for most married couples, yet for an increasing number of these people, infertility stands in the way of attaining this lifelong goal. Over the years, many have turned to adoption and, more recently, high technology in order to become parents. One such method of technology, surrogacy, is fast becoming a common, although controversial, means of acquiring a child. Although much needs to be done to establish its specific guidelines, surrogacy should remain a viable option to infertile couples wishing to have a child.
Surrogacy, by definition, is a practice in which a woman bears a child for the sole purpose of surrendering it to its contractual parents. This technology is generally utilized when one or both of the prospective parents are unable or unwilling to produce a child of their own. The first contrac- tual surrogacy agreements began in 1976, and by 1986, five hundred babies were born utilizing these techniques (Field 5).
Two major methods commonly used in order to impregnate the surrogate mother are artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF). With artificial insemination, the sperm, usually of the contractual father, is injected into the surrogate's uterus using a syringe. IVF, a more complicated procedure, is achieved by removing several eggs from either the surrogate or the contractual mother, uniting them with the sperm in a Petri dish, and injecting the resulting embryos into the uterus of the surrogate mother ("Surrogacy" 957). The most common method currently used is artificial insemination (Field 34) simply because it has a higher success rate than IVF. Artificial insemination may succeed anywhere from fifty-five to seventy percent of the time ("Artificial Insemination" 134), while "only about ten percent of couples achieve pregnancy on the first attempt [at IVF], and many tries may be needed before a successful pregnancy is achieved." In addition, each try may cost upwards of $5,000 ("In vitro Fertilization" 605), which, needless to say, is a large amount of money to pay for such an uncertain result.
Throughout surrogacy's sixteen-year history, nothing has harmed its reputation more than the infamous "Baby M" case. In 1987, a twenty-nine-year- old New Jersey housewife, Marybeth Whitehead, entered into a surrogacy agreement with William and Elizabeth Stern, also from New Jersey. Mrs. Whitehead was married to a sanitation worker and had two children of her own, ages ten and twelve. At the time the contract was signed, she agreed to bear a child for the Sterns who, because of Elizabeth's mild case of multiple sclerosis, decided not to have children of their own. Artificial insemination was used; therefore, the child, biologically speaking, belonged to Mr. Stern and Mrs. Whitehead. The contract, arranged by an attorney representing the Sterns, stated that the child was to be surrendered at birth to the Sterns, and a fee of $10,000 was to be paid to Mrs. Whitehead at that time (Field 2). However, shortly after the birth, Mrs. Whitehead began to bond with her new daughter, and because she felt she couldn't give her up, she refused the $10,000 fee. A bitter custody battle ensued, but in the end, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Sterns (Field 3,4). As a direct result of the trial, the state of New Jersey outlawed commercial surrogacy; however, to date, most other states have no laws regulating it (Field 4). Many feel the "Baby M" case represents a valid reason for outlawing surrogacy altogether, but in fact, it depicts the exception, not the rule. Out of five to six hundred surrogacy agreements entered into through 1987, only three, including "Baby M," ended in disputes ("Lessons" 17).
Another major issue surrounding the practice of surrogacy is whether it should be regarded as baby selling. It is not difficult to understand the logic that if a woman accepts money in lieu of her biological child, she is, in fact, selling her baby. Commercial surrogacy, or surrogacy for profit, should be outlawed for several reasons. First, the high price tag for a surrogacy contract makes it an option only for the upper class. According to Martha A Field, author of Surrogate Motherhood, "a conservative estimate of typical costs to the adopting couple is $25,000: $10,000 for the mother, $8,000-10,000 for the agency that arranges the procedure, and the rest for miscellaneous items such as travel, medical expenses, maternity clothes, and possibly lost wages" (25). The fee paid to the surrogate, which may greatly exceed $10,000, should be eliminated in order to ensure that agreement is not being entered into for financial gain. Without this lure, the number of surrogate volunteers would decrease, but those willing to enter into such an agreement would be doing so for the right reasons (Field 23). They may have enjoyed the pregnancy experience, but do not want, or can not afford to have, more children of their own. They may simply have a strong desire to aid a childless couple (Field 20). One surrogate explained her motives this way: "I'm not going to cure cancer or become Mother Teresa, but a baby is one thing I can sort of give back, something I can give someone who couldn't have it any other way" (Field 20). Whatever their reasons may be, they should not be influenced by the thought of financially profiting from their sacrifices.
A second major problem with paid surrogacy is that it may lead to the exploitation of poor women. Because, generally speaking, the adoptive parents are almost always better off financially than the surrogates they hire (Field 25), sustaining such an industry would tend to create an "underclass of breeder women" (Field 30). Accordingly, Field also states that if the practice of paid surrogacy becomes too widespread, affluent couples may find it relatively easy to hire surrogates for less than essential reasons such as career ambitions and fear of childbirth (30). Finally, one can only imagine the emotional effects on the paid surrogate's older children. "How can she make them believe that they do not also have a price tag?" (Field 33). Compared to such a situation, the case of Arlette Schweitzer depicts a much more pleasant scenario. When the forty-two-year-old grandmother learned that her daughter, Christa, twenty-two, was born with no uterus, she agreed to bear a child for her using the eggs and sperm of Christa and her husband, Kevin. The IVF procedure proved to be doubly successful when Mrs. Schweitzer became pregnant with twins (Aberdeen 58). When her seven-year-old grandson inquired about her pregnancy, she simply told him that "Christa and Kevin's babies are going to use Grandma's uterus until they are old enough to be born" (Aberdeen 216). This idea was not at all difficult for the child to understand, es- pecially since his grandmother was emotionally gratified by her action, not financially rewarded.
Historically, another argument against surrogacy has been that its binding contract legally forces a mother to give up her child. In a poll of 246 surrogates, each was asked to predict her emotions when it came time to relinquish her child. Forty percent "thought they would always grieve." Thirty percent predicted they would eventually recover and feel no sense of loss, and twenty-five percent thought the event would not bother them at all. After the fact, however, ninety-five percent said they grieved much more than they anticipated (Field 178). Pregnancy and childbirth can be described as an "emotional minefield"; making the decision to surrender a child is a heartwrenching one. Therefore, as in other types of adoption, surrogates should be given the opportunity to keep their biological children if they choose. One suggestion may be to offer the mother a grace period of several days in which to change her mind. In contrast, there should be no need for such a stipulation in contracts involving most IVF surrogates because, more often than not, the child biologically belongs to the contractual parents. In this situation, the emotional ties the surrogate feels towards the unborn child are considerably lessened. An example of this assumption is illustrated in the case of a Los Angeles couple and the surrogate they contracted to have their child. Cynthia and her husband Dick were unable to have children of their own because of a hysterectomy Cynthia had undergone. Because her ovaries were still intact, they were able to utilize the IVF procedure in order to impregnate their surrogate, Debbie (Gupta 141). When asked to express her feelings about carrying the child that was not biologically hers, she stated, "In a way, . . . I was just a baby-sitter; all I did, really, was carry and feed the baby - exactly the way a baby-sitter would" (qtd. in Grupta 215).
If surrogacy becomes an option available to too many infertile couples, many believe the institution of adoption will be discouraged, thus creating a larger population of unwanted children. This assumption could not be further from the truth. The fact is that many couples encounter obstacles when they attempt to adopt, including their age, their race, and an overall shortage of healthy, adoptable children. In 1984 alone, out of two million prospective adoptive parents, there were only 58,000 adoptable children (Field 162). Moreover, many of those who choose surrogacy do so after years of unsuccessful attempts to adopt. If surrogacy is allowed as a viable option, some of the demand for adoptable children will be alleviated.
In summary, the practice of surrogacy itself is not a problem. Only those who have tried unsuccessfully to have children can begin to understand the heartache such a failure can bring. If a solution is available that benefits both parties involved, there should be no reason to condemn it. The actual problem lies in the fact that there are few laws prohibiting surro- gacy's abuse and exploitation. Elimination of financial profit, flexibility of contractual agreements, and acknowledgment of surrogacy as a reasonable "improvement on the accepted practice of adoption" ("Lessons" 17) would bring happiness to a great number of childless couples. Works Cited Aberdeen, J. Madeline Nash. "All in the Family." Time August 1991: 58. "Artificial Insemination." The American Medical Association Home Medical
Encyclopedia. 1989 ed. Field, Martha A. Surrogate Motherhood.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP Press, 1988 Gupta, Nelly Edmondson, and Frank Feldinger. "Brave New Baby."
Ladies' Home Journal October 1989: 140+. "In vitro Fertilization." The American Medical Association Home Medical
Encyclopedia. 1989 ed. "The Lessons from Baby M." The Economist 21 March 1989: 16-17. "Surrogacy," The American Medical Association Home Medical
Encyclopedia. 1989 ed.