Page 3459 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 11 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is the human factor, the motivation and the outcome, which matters, not the technology itself. So, the key question we should be asking is not whether surrogacy should be banned; instead, we should be asking: Under what circumstances - this is the important part - will surrogacy be allowed, if any? Again I make the point that I do not think anybody here would ever accept commercial surrogacy under any circumstances.
Unfortunately, in the minds of some people, the concept of surrogacy has gained a bad name because of the commercialisation which has dominated surrogacy arrangements in the USA. This does not mean, as I said, that surrogacy itself as a technique is always undesirable. Rather, it shows that, without adequate regulation, it can be used more as a means of making money than of helping infertile couples to have a baby. There should be no question that commercial surrogacy should be prohibited, and the Bill makes that quite clear. There is no way that society will, or should, tolerate any suggestion of baby farming.
However, not all surrogacy, I believe, should be banned, and, of course, the Bill does not do that. There are some people for whom surrogacy on an altruistic basis could be entirely appropriate. Consider, for example, a healthy young couple whose own eggs and sperm are normal, and the sole reason for their infertility is that the woman had the misfortune to be born either without a uterus or with a uterus that is distorted, or, for that matter, has some other problem, and therefore is incapable of carrying a pregnancy. In this situation there should be no moral, medical or legal reason, in my view, why a surrogacy arrangement should not be entered into to allow the couple to have their baby with the assistance of another woman, potentially a sister, who wants to help because of her care and concern for the couple and the baby they hope for, as long as absolutely no payment is made.
Provided that arrangements for non-commercial surrogacy are between people who know each other well, people who have a longstanding relationship - that is often sisters, cousins, et cetera - who trust each other and who have a clear commitment to each other's well-being, people who have the support of their families, who are informed about the procedures and the consequences and who are willing to participate - in other words, give their consent - such altruistic surrogacy should be allowed to proceed. Moreover, medical practitioners who facilitate these arrangements with professional support - such as information, counselling and technical expertise - in my view, should be free from any suggestion of professional misconduct. The Bill before us is deficient because it simply does not allow this sort of surrogacy.
I think it is important to make the point that one of the other good things about this Bill is that it means that even any altruistic surrogacy of this nature that is entered into, any contract that the two parties may sign, is null and void. I think that is an appropriate approach. I believe that if the sister, the cousin or the good friend, determines that after the baby is born they cannot give it up, that they do not feel able to adopt the child, that is a quite fine situation and it should be backed up by legislation. But if the arrangement can go ahead and normal adoption procedures are followed - in other words, if the interests of the child are paramount - I believe very strongly that that should be allowed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .