Ethics Behind Surrogacy: Lyndon Presentation

Lee Renshaw
Everett

Ethics Behind International Surrogacy

   Mary Lyndon (or Molly Shanley; not entirely sure how that works) spoke about the ethical conflicts revolving around the practice of surrogacy, meaning when a a couple is socially and/or physically incapable of having a baby and so they decide to "use" the womb of a woman who is able to bear a child.  She used the example of Indian women doing this for people in the U.S., but her focus was on the issue itself, not necessarily on certain nations or cultures.  She brought to light the opposing views on the subject are and then inserted her own two cents.  She obviously has her own opinion and is therefore biased to one side, but she presented both arguments quite fairly, which is something we have learned to do and are practicing in class now.  

    In her speech, Lyndon explained that the surrogate mothers in India are paid between five and seven thousand dollars.  However, at the end, during the question-answer period, an inquiry was raised regarding how exactly women were paid, meaning how the money was distributed periodically in case of a miscarriage or other accident were to happen.  That way, the women didn't get paid in full until the baby was actually born.  She also raised a point in her speech about how the Indian doctors told them that they were merely vessels for rent; that they sever no purpose in the process of pregnancy, except for being the womb to grow their baby in and then give to them  over to the intending parents, without developing any kind of attachment.  Those on the side of for the Indian women being surrogates would argue, on the other hand, that this surrogate processes develop relationships between the American families and those of the Indian women who gave birth to their child.  Another question was raised, however, and it was one of a rather interesting perspective but a valid and important point nonetheless.  The audience member made a connecting comment before her question.  Her comment was that there are some Indian women who do not want any kind of relationship with the intending parents or their family.  As was mentioned towards the beginning of her speech, Lyndon mentioned the notion that the Indian women would not do this if they had any better opportunity to make money.  So, there are of course at least a few of them who only do it for the money and do not desire any communication outside of that which is necessary during the surrogacy.  The question that followed the comment was the obvious one concerning this group of women and how their situations would be handled.  

     In my opinion, the concept of international surrogacy is a highly debatable subject that isn't solved easily.  From my point of view, the overarching question is: is it fair to the Indian women?  Is it right to give the option of carrying someone else's child and putting herself at great physical and emotional risk to a woman who has virtually no other economic option?  Yes, they are paid nearly ten years annual income for a successful birth, which would help their families enormously.  However, there are several possible dangers that come with pregnancy, ranging from the physical perils that are always a risk to the possibility of the women becoming emotionally attached to the baby inside them.  Women who go through pregnancy naturally form some form of bond with their babies, even though they may not be their own.  For me, it comes down to weighing out the fairness of the whole practice; to comparing the benefits and the detriments of surrogacy in general.  In my view, the risks outweigh the financial gains, but that is the opinion of a complete stranger to the entire concept.  The main opinion that should be taken into account is that of the Indian women.  As long as everyone involved gives wholehearted consent and cooperation, then it is a win-win situation.