Surrogacy Case Summary

Amie Cullimore, a medical practitioner, filed a child support claim against Michael Ranson, who more than two decades ago donated his sperm to Amie Cullimore, who subsequently conceived two children. Cullimore alleges that throughout the years, Ranson has assumed the role of loco parentis, which means that Ranson has stood in the place of the parent throughout the years. Ranson filed a response that Bill 28, also known as, All Families Are Equal Act, which extinguishes Cullimore`s claim based on the assertion that the surrogate parents who lack an intention to be parents cannot be considered parents in law.

I read an article that was published on The Hasting Center Journal, called “The Case Against Surrogate Parenting”, by Herbert Krimmel, Krimmel takes a stand against surrogate motherhood arrangements because of the many ethical issues it causes, he argues surrogate motherhood, is a financial profit, there can be conflicts during the process, and is designed to separate in the mind of the surrogate mother. First, Krimmel argues that the reason a woman often or always undertakes the pregnancy is because of the money motive. He states, “The cause of this dissociation is some other benefit she will receive, most often money.' In other words, her desire to create a child is born of some motive other than the desire to be a parent. This separation

Baby Business by Insight on SBS had a discussion about surrogacy in relation to a couple that had a baby though surrogacy. In the show it was said that most surrogate mothers have genetically babies, which the mother gives her egg and the father gives his sperm and the doctor inseminates it in the surrogate mother. Most of the everyday people have to the term “renting a womb” towards surrogacy whereas the Women Health Resources

Cases of this kind emphasise the tension between two significant policy goals: the child’s best interests, which must dominate the court’s determination as to whether to grant parenting orders, and the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. The former, naturally, prevails. In every published case, the Family Court relied on the evidence tendered by the intended parents indicating the foreign birth mother’s consent to the applications, even where some of that evidence was quite concerning; the birth mother’s lack of interest in parenting the child;and the satisfactory nature of the parenting arrangements achieved under the agreement, in concluding that the best interests of the child were served by making the parenting orders.The earliest published international surrogacy case is Re Mark (an application relating to parental responsibilities). The facts are fairly typical. A couple from Victoria entered into a surrogacy contract under which a woman in California agreed to bear a child for them; the ovum was supplied by an anonymous woman, and one of the applicants provided the

When one or more persons contract with a woman to gestate a child than relinquish that child after birth to the person or couple is known as surrogacy. It is a course of action that goes outside of natural reproduction. For some, it is the only method of having children, extending family. Surrogacy has been stirring up many controversies over the years. Ethics, morals, laws, religious views, etc. have played a major role in the issues that follow the topic of surrogacy. Laws and regulations pertaining to surrogacy vary from state to state. Some states have no enforceable laws

Effective law reform such as The Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) has greatly improved the Government responses to issues surrounding Surrogacy. The Act allows for transferral of parentage from the biological mother to the adoptive parents. This allows non-legally binding donor agreements to be considers and accepted, achieving justice for both parties involved in the process. By adapting to social values and accepting modern family structure justice is served for society. When the Surrogacy Act was introduced in March 2011, it becomes illegal to enter a commercial surrogacy agreement oversea in NSW, QLD, ACT, with penalties of up to $100000 or 2 years imprisonment. These penalties are seen in the worse interest for the child, as the child could be without their adoptive parents or grow up in economic hardship due to the fines. Although this is effective as it prohibits commercial surrogacy, as it underlines rights and freedoms under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), this is mirrored into state legislation to protect the child involved. This is highlighted under article 35 of CRC, where states should take measures to “prevent sale or trafficking of children for any

Commercial surrogacy is the process in which a woman is paid a fee to carry and deliver a baby to term. Once the baby is delivered, the woman relinquishes all parental rights to the commissioning couple who exclusively raise the child as their own. Altruistic surrogacy, by contrast, is an arrangement where the surrogate receives reimbursement but only for the expenses that she may have incurred during the pregnancy. In this essay I will argue that commercial surrogacy should not be market-inalienable. I will start by outlining Elizabeth Anderson’s argument in “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” in which she offers a number of criticisms to commercial surrogacy. I will then outline objections to the argument and highlight how her argument is highly speculative and does not provide an adequate basis for the prohibition of commercial surrogacy.

The procedures of surrogacy is a delicate and sensitive topic which raises many concerns in the public. As a result of this, Australian laws and courts of law must allow and regulate these practices to make it safe for all involved. Commercial forms of surrogacy agreements are illegal in most states, shown in Part 2, Division 2 in the Surrogacy Act 2010 NSW and Chapter 4 Part 1 in the Surrogacy Act Qld. However, in remaining jurisdictions, couples are allowed to deal in commercial agreements and therefore often turn to an overseas arrangement. It is here where Australian law becomes more obscure and less regulated. In any arrangement including altruistic surrogacy, there are no enforceable laws on the agreement, hence prompting multiple issues regarding the parentage of the child. When the child is born from the gestational carrier- the birth mother and father, according to the Status of the Children Act 1996, are the legal parents. It is when the intended parents apply for a parenting order and accepted by the birth mother that the child’s parentage is transferred- this situation is set out in the case of Re Michael

Philosophers of the Enlightenment played a crucial role in how the governments and people of Europe would think and change. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were two political philosophers that were quite important to this movement. John Locke is credited as the “principal forerunner of the Enlightenment” (Mason 18) his writing would have large influence on other prominent figures in the Enlightenment. The words of Rousseau in The Social Contract elaborated on concepts touched upon by Locke, such as sovereignty and natural rights. “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to anyone in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation

The Marxist criminalization of commercial surrogacy originates from the class divisions produced when the reproductive labors of poor women are exploited by wealthy couples. Because the parties within a surrogacy contract often are not autonomous equals and hold distinct relationships to the means of production, female surrogates unintentionally reinforce class divisions through their participation in womb commodification. However, there are also cases in which surrogates are not drawn from lower economic strata, so the possibility of their labor being “forced” by economic circumstances is attenuated. These include instances of altruistic surrogacy, in which the surrogate is motivated by a desire apart from monetary need, such as a wish to bestow a gift upon the

In Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Amy Chua stresses the fact that practice makes perfect and if her daughters take breaks, they will fall behind. I agree whole-heartedly with her and this statement because with lots of practice, you are able to perfect what you are doing and make it great. On the other hand, if you are not practicing, you are just setting yourself up for failure. In her book, Chua states, “In the words of Lulu’s violin teacher Mr. Shugart, ‘Every day that you don’t practice is a day that you’re getting worse’” (Chua 94).

Law reform is considered proactive with relation to surrogacy and birth technologies, as methods of conception must be permitted before they are conducted. Surrogacy, which occurs when one woman agrees to fall pregnant and bear a child for a couple, is illegal in NSW when the woman is paid a fee or award, under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW). Hence, surrogacy must be altruistic. Furthermore, the Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) now criminalises an international journey for commercial surrogacy.

Someone once asked me how I felt about prejudice. “In contrast to what?”, or should I say, “shocking in all its forms.” Initially my response was puzzling. Let me explain.

I do detect a strong parallel between paying for non-replenishable organs and poor individuals harming their bodies for the benefit of the rich. First of all, I do not believe it is acceptable to accept a payment or fee or the duty of carrying a child as a surrogate for the gestational mother. In most cases when a fee is accepted for this service, the child is by definition labeled as a product of a business transaction. Due to the fact that a fee is paid to the surrogate mother for bearing the child as well as lawfully accepting provisions such as refrainment from smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, revoking her right to abort unless assessed by a physician as necessary for the surrogate’s health, or even taking certain medications, thus crafts the act into one requiring payment for the purchase of a baby. “Such provisions indicate that the fee is a payment for a healthy child and not for the rental of a uterus” (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.232). The resulting fact is that payment is rendered for a satisfactory product: a healthy baby who is raised by the surrogate in its fetal state under many stipulations and conditions. This gives way to “the fact that the presence of payment may tempt financially distressed women to agree to surrogate contracts against their best interests” (Baillie, Garrett, Garrett, McGeehan, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems, 2009, p.234). This directly correlates with another

Some view altruistic surrogacy as a form of exploiting the surrogate. There is no monetary compensation to woman placing her health and well-being on the line for another’s benefit. However, it can also be held that the woman knowingly entered into the agreement with full disclosure of the risks and benefits to her health and body. Again, autonomy and justice are extremely prevalent ethical principles to explore when discussing the topic of surrogacy. Same-sex marriage has become a hot topic in the United States in the last few years. The idea of raising a family by homosexual