The ethics of sperm donation

The ethics of sperm donation
By John Milbank, Centre of Theology and Philosophy, University of Nottingham  
19 June 2009
Should donators of sperm remain anonymous? Some people say yes, others say no. But most assume that the argument is in principle resolvable if we can apply the right principles in relation to accurate evidence.

But supposing it isn’t? Supposing the argument is demonstrably irresolvable? Supposing that here we come up against an ethical impasse: an example of what the ancient Greeks called ‘aporia’, when either way to go is equally impossible? What would that imply?

I shall return to the last question presently. To begin with I want to argue that this argument indeed issues in an ‘aporia’.

On the one hand, sperm donors should remain anonymous. This is because they would otherwise become personally connected with a situation with which they should not really be personally connected. For even if the donor is known to the recipient he has not been selected as a friend, but as someone whose sperm is instrumentally useful – likely to be healthy, genetically reliable and so forth. His sperm supplies a material lack either within a personal relationship or for an individual woman. Hence disclosure implies a meaningful connection which is inappropriate. To the male partner in an unfertile relationship the donor must then inevitably appear as a kind of virtual adulterer. Equally, for the offspring of sperm donation, affection will naturally reach out towards the biological father, even though he has no intention of establishing a social relationship of paternity. Hence the properly instrumental function is subverted with inevitably ensuing suspicions and rivalries between male partners and male donors that can be catastrophically damaging for family relationships. One might say that these are natural rivalries artificially induced.

On the other hand, sperm donors should not remain anonymous.

A child has every right to know the identity of his/her natural parents. Any other view would render biology irrelevant to our sense of who we are, which would be an ironic conclusion in the light of our modern knowledge of genetics. Quite apart from the medical importance of knowing one’s genetic inheritance, our sense of identity requires us to relate to our natural forebears as well as to our cultural forebears. We need to make sense of both sets of influences, because only an unwarranted dogmatism would deny that both are equally important.

Therefore disclosure is wrong and non-disclosure is equally wrong. Above all, both courses of action are potentially of equal damage for offspring. A further aporia results from the question of whether a child should be told the artificial circumstances of their birth or not. Again, they have a right to know their natural origin and yet one can also claim that the knowledge that personal and natural union have here been divided is inherently disturbing. No such division occurs in the case of adoption and the common idea that this provides is a parallel shows an inability to think clearly in the ethical field.

So what does it mean when a proposed course of action leaves one with two equally unacceptable choices? Does it mean that one should throw a dice or leave choices to individuals? No, it is rather a sign that the proposed action is wrong in the sense of being practically-speaking incoherent or irrational.

For on either side of the aporia the problem is the separation of the interpersonal from the natural. This denies our strange hybrid nature as specifically rational animals. Whatever science may say, this is how in practice we have hitherto regarded ourselves. This is what makes us human. We stop being human if down one fork we deny our rational power of choice or down the other we deny our animality. Thus in relation to reproduction we only remain human when sex and procreation and so love and sex – even the love of a one-night stand – are held together. Then and then only we can say to ourselves that our very animality is the result of an interpersonal choice. Clearly, of course, this can only be a heterosexual choice, not because homosexual relations are wrong (I would not argue this) but because they cannot naturally issue in procreation.

Therefore one should welcome the fact that few men are prepared to donate their sperm. Implicitly they are following the correct line of practical reasoning which I have just sketched by not randomly dispersing their seed as if they thought of women like mere terrain.

To medicalise and sociologise this reluctance is to surrender to market and state infiltration into the very heart of human intimacy. It is to go along with the commodification and bureaucratisation of human reproduction. It is to promote a fascistic mass control of human biology which alienates the ‘rational’ side of our animality to science and reduces the animal side to that of nature in general. Under the illusion of an impossible ‘choice’ that we should not be granted, the power of human reproduction is gradually removed from the free control of human beings in relationship.

That, of course, is what has already happened in the field of production in general. For capitalism, as for technocratic science and bureaucracy, ordinary parents and families are like peasant proprietors and smallholdings. Eventually, of course, their function must be abolished as inefficient, unreliable, uncontrolled and likely to yield too many ‘poor crops’. Only naivety of the direst kind would fail to realise that the secret, usually unconscious aim of practices of surrogate birth is to legitimate only technologised, artificial reproduction removed from the scope of human inter-relationship, which is to say, removed from the scope of human love.

Let us salute then, the reluctant. May they long hold out against the liberal elites – both those who know too well whither they tend, and the vast majority who, in their folly, do not.
in Anonymous/Known Donation  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

News Alert: There Are 50 States & Michael Jackson’s Children Were Born in Only One – California

 

Submitted by Erickson Law on Wed, 07/01/2009 – 9:18am.

California is one of the only states that permits the intent of the parent(s) to govern their parental rights, so that the intended parent (or intended parents) are listed as the legal parents on the birth certificate, regardless of biological connection, so long as this intent is formalized in an agreement/consent.

I, like all of us, have been intently watching the news involving Michael Jackson and his children, yet what amazes me is that lawyers on TMZ and other national news outlets are declaring that Michael “never formally adopted the children.” Therefore, he must not be the father of these children…..And, they then ask, who are the parents of these children?

Well, guess what? He is the father – no adoption required in this case no matter if he is the biological father or not, which appears to be the case for all three children. In California, surrogacy law is very clear as to who is the parent, regardless of biological connection, based upon intent. We can only guess at the facts in this case, but a birth in California with a surrogate, egg donor and sperm donor, will not affect his rights to these children, or the rights of his children to his estate. The only uncertainty is the fact that he was married to Ms. Rowe at the time of the birth of the first two children. She may certainly have a claim if she remains on the birth certificate, again even if an egg donor was used.

What people have to remember is that almost all people have the desire to be a parent, even Michael Jackson, so we need to remember his intentions to be a father, instead of focusing on the drama surrounding these children. Let’s hope they can move forward without their father in their lives and become successful adults without the media making it worse

in In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Jackson’s youngest highlights donor, surrogate secrecy

By Janice Lloyd, USA TODAY

If Michael Jackson’s youngest child ever wants to explore his roots, the task probably will be daunting and perhaps impossible, legal experts say.

Adopted children in many states are able to contact their biological parents once they reach a certain age, but those avenues are not as available for children whose conceptions are the result of assisted-reproduction technology.

Unless Jackson left information about the woman who donated the egg or the surrogate or donor come forward, experts say it is doubtful the child will ever know everything.

“This is the same issue that came up many years ago with adoption,” says Judith Sperling-Newton, a lawyer for the Law Center for Children & Families in Madison, Wis. “With adoption there’s been a great deal of legislation to have adoption search agencies and the opportunity for placing parents to reconnect with children years later, but we haven’t had anything like that (on a large scale) with respect to assisted reproduction.”

Debbie Rowe was married to Jackson and gave birth to the first two children. The youngest child was born to an unidentified surrogate. Rumors about his sperm and egg donor have been topics of discussion.

Assisted reproduction has become a method for infertile couples, gay couples and singles to have children. The technology leads to the births of tens of thousands of children every year. At the beginning of the process, experts say, intended parents enter into contracts with egg, sperm and/or embryo donors and the surrogates to protect themselves and the confidentiality of the donors.

“It’s not just about secrecy,” Sperling-Newton says. “It is because in some areas of the law, we don’t have 100% protection for the recipient parents that a biological parent couldn’t come back at some point and say, ‘That’s my baby.’ That’s why confidentiality documents are drafted.” The documents also prevent children and parents from going back to the donor and asking for financial support.

Official birth certificates also are not likely to carry names other than those of the intended parents, says John Greene, a law partner with Cohen & Greene in Annapolis, Md.

Dean Masserman, a lawyer in Southern California and owner of an egg-donor company, says surrogates are not identified on birth certificates because they are “not considered to be parents. Most often the egg used is from a donor and the surrogate is only a carrier.”

Medical records and hospital records would list the surrogate’s name, says Michelle Keeyes, a lawyer with the National Fertility Law Center, but “those records are sealed records and could only be opened under a court’s order.”

Sperling-Newton says she cannot recall a case in which the surrogate wanted to know the offspring. She agrees with Masserman that surrogates are rarely the egg donors. “They’re incredibly altruistic people who are doing this service for parents who want to have children.”

Sperling-Newton says more needs to be done regarding fertility law. “The law in the area of assisted reproduction is decades and decades behind science,” she says.

in In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

UK’s First Surrogate Gay Dads Expecting Fourth Child

By On Top Magazine Staff

Published: June 20, 2009

The gay couple that caused an uproar when they became the UK’s first surrogate gay dads say they are expecting a fourth child, the UK’s Mail Online reported.

Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow received international attention in 1999 when they traveled to the United States and participated in the IVF procedure that produced twins Aspen and Saffron.

The couple became fathers for the third time four years later with the birth of Orlando.

“I am really looking forward to Father’s Day this year,” Barrie, 40, said.

“We had the pregnancy confirmed and we are going to find out today whether it’s a singleton or whether it’s a twin pregnancy. We know we are pregnant but we don’t know how many yet. The baby is due on Valentine’s Day.”

The Chelmsford, Essex couple drew controversy when they became the first gay couple to be jointly named fathers on their children’s birth certificates after a lengthy legal battle decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The pair, who became millionaires in 1998 when they sold their clinical research company, entered into a civil partnership in 2006, soon after returning to Britain from living in Spain.

The gay dads attempted to adopt a child before they investigated surrogacy, but despite glowing references by their social workers they were denied twice.

Barrie told the paper that the new baby’s egg donor was a Japanese woman from San Francisco, and they were using the same surrogate mother who gave birth to Orlando.

The Drewitt-Barlows, who have been accused of designing babies with past pregnancies, said they left the sex of the baby to chance.

in Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Indian Court Overturns Gay Sex Ban

July 3, 2009, New York Times
By HEATHER TIMMONS and HARI KUMAR

NEW DELHI —In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.

“The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone,” judges of the Delhi High Court wrote in a 105-page decision, India’s first to directly address rights for gay men and lesbians. “Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracized,” the decision said.

Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors.

“Clearly, we are all thrilled,” said Anjali Gopalan, the executive director and founder of the Naz Foundation, an AIDS awareness group that sued to have Section 377 changed.

“It is a first major step,” Ms. Gopalan said during a news conference in Delhi, but “there are many more battles.”

Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said.

Outside the hall where the Naz Foundation news conference was held, dozens of young men and women gathered to celebrate, along with a group of hijras, men who dress and act like women who classify themselves as belonging to neither gender. “It is a victory of human rights, not just of gay rights,” said one 22-year-old man who only identified himself as Manish.

Gay men and women have rarely been prosecuted under Section 377 in India in modern times, but it has been used to harass, blackmail and jail people.

Britain legalized homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967, but many of its former colonies, including Singapore, Zimbabwe and Malaysia, still retain strict laws against same-sex relations.

India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex.

In their decision, Chief Justice A. P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar declared Section 377, as it pertains to consensual sex among people above the age of 18, in violation of important parts of India’s Constitution. “Consensual sex amongst adults is legal, which includes even gay sex and sex among the same sexes,” they said.

The old law violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees all people “equality before the law;” Article 15, which prohibits discrimination “on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth;” and Article 21, which guarantees “protection of life and personal liberty,” the judges said.

Acceptance of homosexuality has thawed somewhat in recent years in some urban areas. Gay pride parades in Indian cities last weekend attracted thousands of marchers, and several recent Bollywood movies, like “Dostana,” have included gay themes and characters, often played by Bollywood’s biggest heterosexual stars.

Still, the decision was condemned from many corners in India. “This is wrong,” said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, a vice chancellor of Dar ul-Uloom, the main university for Islamic education in India. The decision to bring Western culture to India, he said, will “corrupt Indian boys and girls.”

The High Court’s decision should be overturned, said Murli Manohar Joshi, the leader of the main opposition Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. “The High Court cannot decide all things,” he said.

The ruling comes after a decade-long, broad-based campaign organized by gay rights advocates, authors, celebrities, lawyers and AIDS awareness groups from around the world. India has one of the world’s largest populations of people with AIDS, and Section 377 was viewed by many advocates as a hurdle to education about safer sex.

Now that the High Court has ruled against Section 377, some say the next step is a change in the way that society views gay people.

“The real problem is still the stigma attached,” especially outside big cities, said Ritu Dalmia, one of India’s best-known chefs, who lives with her girlfriend in New Delhi.

Change particularly needs to happen in rural India, she said in an e-mail message Thursday afternoon. “I have met women who were forced to sleep with men so that they could be ‘cured’ of homosexuality,” she said.

“Today is a historical moment where at least some tiny steps have been taken, but there is still a very, very long road ahead,” she said.

in In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

New York State Allows Payment for Egg Donations for Research

June 26, 2009, New York TImes
By LIBBY NELSON

Stem cell researchers in New York can now use public money to pay women who give their eggs for research, a decision that has opened new possibilities for science but raised concern among some bioethicists and opponents of such research.

The decision by the Empire State Stem Cell Board, announced two weeks ago, is believed by the board to be the first in the country allowing state research money to be used for this purpose. The board agreed that women can receive up to $10,000 for donating eggs, a painful and sometimes risky process.

Until now, researchers have relied on unused embryos from in vitro fertilization, as well as reprogrammed skin cells, for their work. Eggs, which offer other avenues for research, have proved more difficult to obtain.

Proponents say compensating women for their eggs is necessary for research, and point out that women who give their eggs for fertility purposes are already paid. Others worry that the practice will commodify the human body and lead to the exploitation of women in financial need.

“What we’re doing is making it in some ways more reasonable for women who are interested in donating for research to do so,” said Dr. Robert Klitzman, director of the new master’s degree program in bioethics at Columbia University and a member of the stem cell board’s ethics committee. “And at the same time, the goal is to move the science ahead, but we don’t want to just move science ahead regardless of people’s rights.” The board’s ethics and finance committees voted to approve compensation.

National Academy of Science guidelines prohibit paying women for eggs used in stem cell research, but researchers say recruiting unpaid donors has been unsuccessful.

“There are many questions you can only answer by studying human eggs,” said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Harvard and at Children’s Hospital Boston. “I think it’s a gold step for New York State, and it will mean a tremendous advantage for New York.”

Dr. Daley’s research has so far used poor-quality eggs discarded after in vitro fertilization, a process he said has yielded modest returns but no stem cells.

However, Dr. Daley said, concerns that payment alone could induce women to give eggs were valid.

In New York, payments will be carefully evaluated by an institutional review board, Dr. Klitzman said. But that safeguard did not assuage the concerns of some critics that money, and not altruism, would motivate women to give their eggs.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that this is going to create a kind of undue inducement, a scenario in which a person can feel unduly compelled to take advantage of a situation,” said the Rev. Thomas Berg, director of the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person, a Roman Catholic research group, and the only member of the stem cell ethics committee to vote against compensation.

Stem cells, the origin of all cells in the human body, have the potential to transform medicine by providing new ways to treat diseases and disorders that include cancer, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases and paralysis. But because stem cell research often involves human embryos, its financing has been a source of controversy for more than a decade. Congress bans the use of tax dollars for any research that results in the destruction of human embryos. In March, President Obama removed restrictions on federally financed stem cell research, but the Congressional restrictions are still in place.

States responded to the federal financing restrictions by pledging money of their own, including $600 million from the New York Legislature in 2007 for an 11-year stem cell research plan. Scientists say the New York board’s decision to permit compensation, reported online Thursday by The Washington Post, is likely to give the state an advantage.

Father Berg, who opposes stem cell research and in vitro fertilization, said he had found “strange bedfellows” in bioethicists who share his concern. Among them is Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, who said he feared that compensation would lead poor women to ignore the risks egg donation can pose.

“The image of women having their eggs harvested in a market is one that the industry is going to find difficult to destigmatize,” he said. “That notion of being treated as an object to derive those kinds of materials is not one that will sit well.”

The internal guidelines of some New York stem cell research centers, including Rockefeller University, Cornell University and the Sloan-Kettering Institute, prohibit paying for eggs. But for researchers without those prohibitions, it opens possibilities, said Susan Solomon, founder and chief executive of the New York Stem Cell Foundation.

“If you’re donating oocytes, there is time and burden,” Ms. Solomon said. “And in our society, we compensate for time and burden.”

in Anonymous/Known Donation / In the News / Legal  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Egg Donor Anonymity & Privacy & the Reality of the Google World

Submitted by Erickson Law on Wed, 06/24/2009 – 2:20pm.

I spent the evening last night finally spending some time reviewing some fertility blogs and websites. I was actually surprised by some of the “promises” that were being made to egg donors in relation to their donation of their eggs to recipient parents.  In fact, some claim that the information is shredded once a donation is over and/or their information is not released to other agencies or clinics. I am not really certain how that protects the privacy of the donors in all situations.

I think it is important that those in this industry make certain that we advise egg donors that we cannot ever completely guarantee privacy and anonymity. Yes, the clinics follow the HIPPA rules for the most part, and my office falls under attorney-client privilege rules; however, no one can absolutely be guarantee any privacy.

Why, you may ask? Because when an egg donor fills out her profile, she wants to make certain that some of her accomplishments, etc. are highlighted. By doing so, she makes herself searchable via Google or now Bing. Even when a donor places limited information on her profile, the advent of Facebook, Twitter, My Space, and Google make it very hard for any of us to stay hidden for long.

Well, with this in mind, what is my advice? Just be prudent with your information and understand that you can be found – BUT, and this is a big BUT, is unlikely to happen in the near future. Specifically, it is unlikely that the Intended Parents will try and locate you, although it is always a possibility.

Now, what about the resulting child? What if their parent shares the information with them as they get older to satisfy their curiosity or they find the profile in a safe? Disclosure is becoming more common, as we all know in this industry, and donors need to be aware that this can occur.

Should you as a donor be concerned? Well, I can tell you from personal experience that it is not such a bad thing. I was located, and I am fine with it, as the family did not expect anything from me, except that they were happy that I am there if there is a medical need. No relationship beyond that, and I have no legal responsibility to these children. But, as a donor, I do believe that I have a personal ethical responsibility to be available for information in the future. I am not afraid of the choices that I made, even though I was not advised of this when I donated, although this was in the advent of this entire industry.

In summary, the purpose of this article is not meant to scare away egg donors, as they are desperately needed by families who cannot have families without them; but as a donor, be aware, be prepared and go into this with your eyes wide open to the future. Educate yourself and know what you are agreeing to while knowing the wonderful gift that you are providing a family.

in In the News / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Baldwin bill seeks to end LGBT health disparities

By 365gay Newswire
06.24.2009 10:30am EDT

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin introduced the Ending Health Disparities for LGBT Americans Act (ELHDA) on Tuesday, the first comprehensive approach to improving all areas of the health care system where lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans face inequality and discrimination.

“Our current health care system fails LGBT Americans on many levels,” said Baldwin in a statement.

“Although we have ample anecdotal evidence of these disparities, the federal government lacks even the most basic data on sexual orientation and gender identity and health. This bill invests in research and takes critical steps towards improving the health of LGBT Americans and their families,” Baldwin said.

Joining Baldwin in sponsoring the bill are House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), and Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), and Nydia Velazquez (D-NY). Baldwin has worked for more than a year to craft the bill, which she calls “comprehensive” and “fully inclusive.”

In addition to investing in data collection and research, the bill establishes non-discrimination policies for all federal health programs, provides funding for cultural competence training for health care providers, extends Medicare benefits to same-sex domestic partners, creates a new office of LGBT Health within in the Department of Health and Human Services, and provides funding for community health centers who serve the LGBT community.

The legislation has earned the support of the Human Rights Campaign; National Coalition for LGBT Health; The AIDS Institute; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National; National Center for Transgender Equality; AIDS Action; American Psychological Association; Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization; and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

in Estate Planning / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Womb For Hire

ABC News, By Raissa Robles, Newsbreak, 06/16/2009, 06/23/2009

The story almost reads like a fairy tale: no sooner had the child been born than it was taken from its mother and whisked to a land far, far away.

Except that in this case, the infant was flown as hand-carried baggage from Manila to Bangkok, swaddled in the arms of a Danish man who had bought and prepaid for the baby boy.

Far from being a tale of enchantment, what took place  seven months ago in October was the first ever commercially transacted case of surrogacy in the Philippines. It was arranged by a foreign company between a Filipino married woman and a male gay couple from Malaysia and Denmark.

“The egg is actually her own,” Michael Ho, owner of Singapore-based Asian Surrogates, told Newsbreak. He said the woman, whom he declined to name, became pregnant in a “pretty straight forward” manner – through intrauterine insemination or IUI.

“The sperm is inserted into the womb of the surrogate and she gets pregnant, (with) no physical contact” with the male client, he assured.

Because the client “donated” his own sperm, he is the baby boy’s legitimate father and therefore has the legal right to take the infant out of the country, he said. The mother’s prior consent is part of the transaction, he added.

“The father took him back to Thailand because even though he’s Danish, he was working in Thailand,” he said.

He said the gay couple paid Asian Surrogates at least 45,000 Singapore dollars or P1.4 million pesos for the service. Of this amount, roughly P715,074 or 22,000 Singapore dollars went to the Filipina for renting out her womb and providing her eggs. The sum would roughly take   her 5.4 years to earn on minimum wage.

Eight other Filipino women are eagerly waiting in line to provide a similar service, Ho said, expressing his satisfaction.

“I have to say, the Filipinas, they are all very helpful, very enthusiastic. I find the Filipina excellent as a surrogate mother.”

However, they all appeared to be media shy since all refused to be interviewed for this article.

The transaction went unnoticed in the Philippines. Social welfare Secretary Esperanza Cabral said in an interview that she was not aware that commercial surrogacy was being practiced in the country. Even if it was, she said there was no law to ban it.

Womb Service-Provider

Ho’s company has been operating for four years now as a womb-service provider and claims to have clients in 15 countries including the Philippines, Canada, US, France, Belgium and Germany.

As a womb service-provider, Asian Surrogates is pretty up front with its array of services and fees.

It claims to handpick surrogates. They have to be non-smokers, non-drinkers, bright, healthy and attractive, below 30 but married or with a partner, and a tested baby-maker with at least one child born the natural way.

Unlike similar companies in India which advertise their surrogates are at least five foot three inches tall, Ho’s company imposes no height requirement.

However, he stresses that his girls “do not change their minds, (are) reliable, caring and ethical,” meaning, they “do not keep a couple’s baby for their own gain.”

The straightforward transaction discards any notion of romantic love or lust between the surrogate and her male client. Still, Ho believes love motivates his handpicked girls: They “want to help their own families with the fees they earned” and their husbands, partners or families understand and support this.

His company arranges both the “traditional” and “gestational” forms of surrogacy. The first method is illustrated by the Danish national’s case, where his sperm was mixed with the surrogate’s own eggs through artificial insemination.

The “gestational” method is harder, riskier and costlier. Here, the surrogate merely acts as the host. Eggs from another woman are mixed with sperm in a laboratory using a process called in vitro fertilization. The resulting embryo – popularly known as a “test tube baby” – is then planted inside the surrogate’s womb.

The traditional or natural surrogacy, if done in Manila, costs at least 45,000 Singapore dollars (US$30,380.80). This is easily thrice more expensive than in India, but far cheaper than in the United States.

Der Spiegel magazine, in a September 25, 2008 piece called  “The Life Factory”, estimated that commercial surrogacy in India costs US$10,000, and between US$50,000 to US$80,000 in the US.  (See http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,580209-3,00.html [5])

Costs in Manila could go up, though, in case of medical complications such as the “loss of reproductive organ.”

Ho’s company justifies its price. This includes the surrogate’s fee, her clothing allowance, food, housing, travel, insurance, medical bills and loss of wages. It also includes chauffeuring the client parents around and housing them.

Looking at the lengthy menu of its services, the firm is in effect practicing medical tourism in the Philippines.

The fee is paid in six gives, with an initial down payment of 5,000 Singapore dollars upon signing the surrogacy agreement. By the third month of pregnancy, two-thirds would have been paid up.

The company makes no mention what would happen to the baby in case the client fails to pay all.

Ho has a separate company, Ivimed, that buys from egg donors at 6,000 Singapore dollars per retrieval. The fee is higher if the donor has a doctorate or a special talent like in music or math.

A client pays 13,500 Singapore dollars for the egg harvesting and other expenses such as egg donor screening, travel, housing and food. Ivimed claims the harvesting won’t hurt, “though some pelvic heaviness, soreness or cramps are common.” Interestingly, the company provides a 250,000 Singapore dollars insurance “in case of medical emergency.”

Ho told Newsbreak that the harvested unused eggs “are frozen in a doctor’s clinic, either here (in Singapore) or in Malaysia.”

“The eggs belong to the girls,” not to his firm. “We take care of our girls, don’t worry,” he said.

Rent-a-womb & egg harvesting may be next RP sunrise industry

Ho’s company, Asian Surrogates, has targeted the Philippines as its area of operations because its “laws are pro-family and show the way in this part of the world by helping infertile couples to start a family without hassles.”

Among Manila’s major attractions is the absence of a specific law banning surrogacy.

“Yes, that’s right, in the Philippines the law is very hazy so there’s no law,” he said.

He acknowledged that surrogacy is banned in Singapore: ”Actually, it’s illegal in Singapore. But you see I’m not breaking any Singapore law because I’m doing this in the Philippines, in India or anywhere else.”

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez agreed with Ho. He told Newsbreak, “I don’t think we have a law on that” but he added that perhaps it was time the Philippines enacted legislation on the matter.

Ho’s company is not the only one eying Manila.

Fox Family Services Adoption Centre, a Singapore firm which was established “primarily to find good families for unwanted and abandoned infants and toddlers in the Philippines and elsewhere,” has expanded its services beyond mere adoption. It also offers to find for its clients “egg donors” and “surrogate mums”.

Last December, Fox Family owner Irene Low Ai lian was arrested in Jala Jala, Rizal when nine babies were found in the same house she was renting (see Parts 1 [5], 2 [6] and 3 [7], The Baby Merchants).

Meanwhile, the Philippines is apparently acquiring a reputation for its surrogacy services. An American of Taiwanese descent named Tim recently wrote in the web blog 8asians.com : “I was surprised to find out there’s a lack of Asian surrogates in the US (although no lack of them in India or the Philippines apparently.)”

Tim said he and his partner had obtained their daughter through the services of a Latino surrogate.

Commercial surrogacy is legally allowed, but with restrictions, in Tim’s home country the United States, in France, Germany and United Kingdom. It is banned in China, Spain, Australia and Italy.

Considering the skewed growth of the global population, the business caters to a growing niche market. World population is estimated to reach seven billion in two years but with a dramatic decline in fertility levels in the wealthiest regions, according to Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations population division and now research director of the UN Center for Migration Studies.

“The average (fertility) level for Europe, for example, is well below replacement, at 1.5 births per woman,” he said.

Fast-growing India is the acknowledged surrogate capital of the world, according to The New York Times newspaper and  Der Spiegel magazine. While no estimates are available on how much India earns from “baby outsourcing”, it is now being billed as the subcontinent’s next sunrise industry after business process outsourcing (BPO).

Surrogacy in RP

In the Philippines, surrogacy has sometimes been practiced but always informally and never by an organized and registered business like Asian Surrogates.

In fact The Family Code, signed into law on July 6, 1987 by the revolutionary government of President Corazon Aquino, acknowledged this informal practice but placed it firmly within the marital context. It was primarily intended to give the resulting offspring legitimacy when claiming inheritance.

Article 164 states that “children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife,” provided both spouses agreed in writing before the child’s birth and submitted this agreement to the civil registry, along with the birth certificate.

The Family Code never contemplated that a married couple might opt to hire another woman to grow an embryo from their egg and sperm, like what Sex and the City actress Sarah Jessica Parker and her husband Matthew Broderick are now doing.

Philippine law is silent on commercial surrogacy and egg harvesting, perhaps because it did not anticipate this, said lawyer Sally Escutin, legal services chief of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

She said that in the absence of a law banning either, “technically, it’s allowed. But ethically, shouldn’t this be outside the commerce of man?”

“The law never envisioned that a parent would be part of such trade,” she also said.

A section of the Anti-Child Abuse Law (Republic Act 7610) would appear to classify commercial surrogacy as “an attempt to commit child trafficking.” Article IV Section 8 states that trafficking is committed “when a person, agency, establishment or child-caring institution recruits women or couples to bear children for the purpose of child trafficking.”

RA 7610 defines a child trafficker for the first time in statute books as “any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for money.” It becomes a capital crime when the victim is below 12 years old.

But Atty. Escutin pointed out to Newsbreak that the law  does not extend its mantle of protection to the human egg and sperm. “Technically, when you are still egg and sperm you are not a person yet. You have to be born for you to be a person under the Civil Code,” she said.

Surrogacy and egg harvesting both take place before a child is born, so Section 8 of RA 7610 would not apply since it involves trafficking a child, she said.

Amihan Abueva, national coordinator of Asia Acts, an advocacy group against child trafficking, said she was unaware that the surrogacy business had arrived in the country. “It’s more prevalent in India. Here, it’s easier to have simulated births” or the registration of a birth naming fake parents to facilitate illegal adoptions.

Asked to comment on the successful surrogacy involving a Danish national and a Filipina mother, she said: “This is getting more and more bizarre.”

Offhand, she said that while “this really smacks of commercialism” she could not give her opinion on the matter because of the complexity of the issue.

“I guess the problem is, technology is moving so fast ahead of ethics and the law,” she said.

A local fertility doctor said that medically, artificial insemination or the method used in traditional surrogacy is easy to do but Filipino specialists don’t do this outside of  marriage. Insemination is also cheap in Manila, with prices ranging from P5,000 to P10,000.

The Philippine Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility has taken a strong position against commercial surrogacy, said its president, Dr. Eileen Malapaya Manalo. “In 2005, we came up with our own ethical guidelines. One of the principles is, there should be no third party surrogacy and no cloning,” she said.

“Basically, we are still influenced by the Catholic upbringing. Most members are Catholic.”  But she conceded that not all fertility specialists, including some who claim to be one, are society members.

Still, she took strong exception to Ho’s claim that “between you and me, all the IVF (in vitro fertilization) doctors in Manila they say they all don’t do it because of the Catholic faith. But in reality they do.”

“Let him face us,” she challenged Ho.

Some Filipinos are eager donors

Even if the country is reputedly deeply Catholic, some Filipinos would eagerly go out of their way and fly anywhere to perform this “humanitarian” deed.

Five Filipinos have offered to be egg donors and surrogates in the website surrogatefinder.com, which charges a hefty 99.99 British pounds just to trawl its site for six months.

One of them is Erika Obias, single, brown-eyed black-haired, part-time model from Malate, Manila who sent photos of herself in a college graduation gown, a schoolgirl uniform and a skimpy bikini.

On February 22, 2009, she posted this message to gay couples: “Hello, I am Erika, 22 years old and I am currently studying law and I have always dreamed of help[ing] people. If giving eggs is one way, I wouldn’t miss out on that kind of experience, even though it’s scary. But I would give it a try.”

Another is Jelo De Leon, a non-smoker. Offering his sperm to a lesbian couple he posted this message on February 17, 2009: “I’m 24, working in a hospital, friendly, caring and love helping others, and haven’t sleep (sic) with someone.”

Even in a macho society like the Philippines, some men would apparently agree to their female partners becoming surrogates. “Why not?,” taxi driver Nolan Lopez told Newsbreak when he learned how much it pays. “Anyway there’s no sex involved,” he said.

He was surprised when his partner, Jannylyn Macalincag, objected saying: “If even a mere cellphone becomes precious to me over time, what more a baby that I would carry inside me.”

in In the News / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

IVF Savings: Consider Shared Egg Donation

By Eleni Himaras

Would-be parents who want to work with an egg donor, but who don’t have the $30,000 or so in-vitro fertilization costs, have some hope. Many fertility centers give their recipient patients the option of splitting the cost of receiving an egg donation with another couple.

“It’s really great for the younger patients who haven’t had a chance to really acquire any finances,” says Dr. Bruce Rose of Infertility Solutions, P.C., a clinic in Allentown, Pa.”It gives them the chance to have a child not otherwise possible.”

Sharing Means Saving
This process can save patients up to 50% of the costs in this step in the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) process. In some cases what could typically cost $30,000 to $40,000 can come down in price to $15,000.

Other fertility treatment discounts are available, too. Dr. Carlos E. Soto-Albors, senior partner at the Northern California Fertility Medical Center in Roseville, Calif., is making IVF more affordable for patients by decreasing the cost each time they have the procedure, whether it is because they did not conceive the first time or because they want a second child.

“If they wait a year or two [to save additional monies for a second child] it will hurt their chance of getting pregnant,” he says.

Even With Fewer Eggs, Success Rates Are Similar
According to Soto-Albors, the most obvious drawback of sharing an egg donor is that each couple only gets half of the total oocytes.
Typically, when eggs are harvested, doctors will pick the healthiest two or three to turn into zygotes and implant into the mother. In a single-donor program, that can leave up to 10 eggs that can be frozen for use in the future if the procedure was unsuccessful or they want a second child.

But Soto-Albors says couples who share have a comparable conception rate as with those who do not share an egg donor.

“In 2008, we did 39 embryo transfers on the non-shared and 25 of those got pregnant,” he says. “That comes out to 64%.”

In the shared program, they implanted 11 women and seven got pregnant. That’s an identical 64% success rate.

At Soto-Albors’s practice, patients in the non-shared program pay $24,725, and those in the shared pay $16,775, but these numbers vary by clinic.

“When we started it years ago, I was expecting the success rate of the shared program to be smaller,” says Soto-Albors. But in the 10 years he’s been offering the program, the rates have only differed by, at most, 5%.

in IVF / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments