home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- ETHICS, Page 53And Baby Makes Four
-
-
- A new custody battle intensifies the debate over surrogacy
-
-
- Her belly swollen with the child she will soon bear, Anna
- Johnson looks like any other expectant mother. But there is a
- big difference: the Garden Grove, Calif., nurse, who is seven
- months pregnant, has no genetic claim to the baby she is
- carrying. The egg and sperm came from Cris and Mark Calvert,
- an Orange County, Calif., couple who hired Johnson to bear
- their "test-tube" baby for $10,000 because Cris had a
- hysterectomy and is unable to carry a baby. Last week, in a
- ground-breaking case, Johnson sued to keep the as-yet-unborn
- child.
-
- The dispute highlights the changes that surrogacy has
- undergone since the landmark Baby M. decision in 1987. In that
- case, Mary Beth Whitehead, the surrogate mother, was
- impregnated through artificial insemination by the husband of
- the couple who hired her. Though her fight to keep Baby M. was
- unsuccessful, Whitehead was the genetic mother. In the present
- case, however, the Calverts' egg and sperm were joined together
- in a laboratory Petri dish, producing a fertilized embryo that
- was implanted in Johnson's womb. The technique, known as
- gestational surrogacy, is on the rise; there have been nearly
- 80 such births worldwide in the past three years. The procedure
- is still less prevalent than Baby M.-style surrogacy, which has
- produced some 2,000 U.S. births over the same period.
-
- But these technological advances have left vexing legal and
- ethical questions in their wake. Central to the Johnson-Calvert
- tug-of-war is the very notion of parenthood. "Just because you
- donate a sperm and an egg doesn't make you a parent," argues
- Richard Gilbert, one of Johnson's lawyers. "Anna is not just
- a machine, an incubator." Counters Christian Van Deusen, the
- Calverts' lawyer: "That child is biologically Cris and Mark's.
- That contract is valid."
-
- Despite the Calverts' genetic claim, the legal outcome is
- uncertain. "Biology does not give us an answer in this case,"
- says Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School. "Both
- women -- the one who bore the child and the one who provided
- the egg -- have some biological claim to the child." George
- Annas of the Boston University School of Medicine maintains
- that "the gestational mother is the legal mother for all
- purposes. Biologically she's taken the majority of the risks."
-
- Some question the ethics of gestational surrogacy on class
- grounds, arguing that poor women risk being exploited by
- affluent couples. "We feel strongly that surrogacy should be
- limited to medical need and should not be for profit," says
- Richard Rawlins of Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center
- in Chicago. "We might have to deal with professional women who
- simply want to rent a uterus." But William Handel of the
- Beverly Hills-based Center for Surrogate Parenting disagrees:
- "That is a science-fiction scenario. I've been doing this for
- 10 years, and I've never met a woman who wanted to do this for
- convenience only."
-
- The court's decision in Johnson v. Calvert may serve as a
- guidepost for future surrogacy battles, but the ruling will
- offer no clear-cut answer to the questions raised by the
- technology of conception. As scientists come up with new
- techniques, the ethical arguments over who creates and who
- controls a human life are certain to multiply like cells in a
- Petri dish.
-
-
- By Andrea Sachs. Reported by Christine Gorman/New York and
- Sylvester Monroe/Los Angeles.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-