Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three Models of Surrogacy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Towards a Professional Model of Surrogate Motherhood

  • 722 Accesses

Abstract

Currently just two forms of surrogacy arrangement are recognized: altruistic and commercial. Altruistic surrogates are not paid. This seems unfair to many people, given the risky and arduous nature of pregnancy. Commercial surrogates receive financial compensation. However, this gives rise to the concern that they are motivated only by money and not by a desire to help others. This chapter introduces a third way, the professional model, which is based on an analogy to the caring professions. It treats surrogates fairly by paying them, while at the same acknowledging that their motives are good.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, L., Snelling, J., & Tomlins-Jahnke, H. (2012). The practice of surrogacy in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 52(3), 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berend, Z. (2010). Surrogate losses. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 24(2), 240–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berend, Z. (2016). “We are all carrying someone else’s child!”: Relatedness and relationships in third-party reproduction. American Anthropologist, 118(1), 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, C., & Wennerholm, U.-B. (2012). Obstetric outcome and long-term follow up of children conceived through assisted reproduction. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 26(6), 841–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake, L., Richards, M., & Golombok, S. (2014). The families of assisted reproduction and adoption. In F. Baylis & C. McLeod (Eds.), Family-making: Contemporary ethical challenges (pp. 64–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, H., & van Balen, F. (2010). Children of the new reproductive technologies: Social and genetic parenthood. Patient Education and Counseling, 81(3), 429–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, D. (1999). Professional education and professional ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 16(1), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chervenak, F. A., & McCullough, L. B. (2009). How should the obstetrician respond to surrogate pregnancy? Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 33(2), 131–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drabiak-Syed, K. (2011). Currents in contemporary bioethics: Waiving informed consent to prenatal screening and diagnosis? Problems with paradoxical negotiation in surrogacy contracts. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39(3), 559–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton-Glynn, C. (2016). Outsourcing ethical dilemmas: Regulating international surrogacy arrangements. Medical Law Review, 24(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, M., McLachlan, H. V., & Swales, J. K. (2005). Commercial agencies and surrogate motherhood: A transaction cost approach. Health Care Analysis, 13(1), 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelmann, E. (2010). I’m just the oven, it’s totally their bun: The power and necessity of the federal government to regulate commercial gestational surrogacy arrangements and protect the legal rights of intended parents. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 32, 159–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarberg, K., Stafford-Bell, M., & Everingham, S. (2015). Intended parents’ motivations and information and support needs when seeking extraterritorial compensated surrogacy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 31(5), 689–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna, J. K. M. (2010). Revisiting child-based objections to commercial surrogacy. Bioethics, 24(7), 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hieda, M. (2015). The surrogacy trail. In M. Cooper, K. Vafadari, & M. Hieda (Eds.), Current issues and emerging trends in medical tourism (pp. 139–152). Medical Information Science Reference: Hershey.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Imrie, S., & Jadva, V. (2014). The long-term experiences of surrogates: Relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 29(4), 424–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadva, V., Blake, L., Casey, P., & Golombok, S. (2012). Surrogacy families 10 years on: Relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children’s understanding of their surrogacy origins. Human Reproduction, 27(10), 3008–3014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadva, V., & Imrie, S. (2014). Children of surrogate mothers: Psychological well-being, family relationships and experiences of surrogacy. Human Reproduction, 29(1), 90–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadva, V., Murray, C., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2003). Surrogacy: The experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction, 18(10), 2196–2204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karandikar, S., Gezinski, L. B., Carter, J. R., & Kaloga, M. (2014). Economic necessity or noble cause? A qualitative study exploring motivations for gestational surrogacy in Gujarat, India. Affilia, 29(2), 224–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehn, D. (1994). The ground of professional ethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenceau, E. S., Mazzucca, L., Tisseron, S., & Pizitz, T. D. (2015). A cross-cultural study on surrogate mother’s empathy and maternal–foetal attachment. Women and Birth, 28, 154–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, F., Lycett, E., Murray, C., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2003). Surrogacy: The experience of commissioning couples. Human Reproduction, 18(6), 1334–1342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, Y. (2014). In defense of surrogacy agreements: A modern contract law perspective. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 20(2), 423–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, H. V., & Swales, J. K. (2009). Commercial surrogate motherhood and the alleged commodification of children: A defense of legally enforceable contracts. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72(3), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millbank, J. (2015). Rethinking ‘commercial’ surrogacy in Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 12(3), 477–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panitch, V. (2013). Surrogate tourism and reproductive rights. Hypatia, 28(2), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papaligoura, Z., Papadatou, D., & Bellali, T. (2013). The experiences of Greek individuals in families created through gestational surrogacy arrangements: A preliminary study. In Human Reproduction (pp. 275–275). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet, J. L. (2016). A womb that is (not always) one’s own. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 18(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramskold, L. A. H., & Posner, M. P. (2013). Commercial surrogacy: How provisions of monetary remuneration and powers of international law can prevent exploitation of gestational surrogates. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(6), 397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. (2011). Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: Decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 22(5), 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudrappa, S., & Collins, C. (2015). Altruistic agencies and compassionate consumers: Moral framing of transnational surrogacy. Gender & Society, 29(6), 937–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherman, R., Misca, G., Rotabi, K., & Selman, P. (2016). Global commercial surrogacy and international adoption: Parallels and differences. Adoption & Fostering, 40(1), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. (2016). What do gestational mothers deserve? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(4), 1031–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, R. (2008). Rethinking reproductive gifts as body projects. Sociology, 42(1), 11–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. (2016). Criminalising commercial surrogacy in Canada and Australia: The political construction of ‘national consensus’. Australian Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, B. (2011). Transnational surrogacy and international human rights law. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 18(2), 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straehle, C. (2015). Is there a right to surrogacy? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 33(2), 146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teman, E. (2008). The social construction of surrogacy research: An anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood. Social Science and Medicine, 67(7), 1104–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teman, E. (2010). Birthing a mother: The surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Heesch, M. M. J., Evers, J. L. H., Dumoulin, J. C. M., et al. (2014). A comparison of perinatal outcomes in singletons and multiples born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection stratified for neonatal risk criteria. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 93(3), 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A. Y., Dill, S. K., Bowman, M., & Sullivan, E. A. (2016). Gestational surrogacy in Australia 2004–2011: Treatment, pregnancy and birth outcomes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 56(3), 255–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, S. (2003). The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics, 17(2), 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waikato, Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand

    Ruth Walker & Liezl van Zyl

Authors
  1. Ruth Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liezl van Zyl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Walker .

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Walker, R., van Zyl, L. (2017). Three Models of Surrogacy . In: Towards a Professional Model of Surrogate Motherhood. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58658-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58658-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58657-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58658-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation