Calls for Regulating Surrogacy in the New York Times
Three weeks ago, the New York Times published “Building a Baby, With Few Ground Rules,” the third in a series (also 1, 2) by Stephanie Saul on assisted reproduction. Then last week, the Times ran four opinions on the ethical conundrums surrounding commercial gestational surrogacy—the topic of Saul’s most recent article—in its online "Room for Debate" blog. What's most notable is the degree of consensus: all four contributions call for varying degrees of regulation.
On one end of these consensus was provided by Suffolk University's Charles Kindregan, co-author of the American Bar Association book on assisted reproduction. He advocates a gentle approach, including the caveat that "regulation of surrogacy must be reasonable and carefully defined" and citing a dubious Constitutional "freedom of parental choice to conceive and raise a child." Yet even he recommends state-level legislation to license surrogacy brokers and clinics and to require judicial review of prospective parents of children born to a surrogate.
Diane Kunz of the Center for Adoption Policy takes the firmest line. She notes that assisted reproduction “is replacing adoption as the preferred method of family creation for those who cannot have a baby without assistance” and asserts that it “should be regulated, not to limit technology but to protect all involved, especially the children.” Medical tourism and the globalization of surrogacy, she says, “make the case for regulation imperative.” Kunz recommends regulation for assisted reproductive technologies in general and an international convention on ARTs, similar to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
Previously in Biopolitical Times: