Surrogate offered $10,000 to terminate due to severe health issues.

[zanDark]

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/

Long story short, a surrogate finds out that baby has heart problems and other health issues that give her a 25% chance of leading a normal life, and the parents want her to terminate as they feel it's unfair to bring a baby with such issues into the world. The surrogate then decides to move to another state in which surrogacy contracts (which state that she is willing to terminate if baby has problems and parents decide that it's best) are not recognized and she is considered to be the baby's biological mother, and she finds a couple to adopt the baby. LO has to go through multiple surgeries, and even then she won't be able to 100% function like other children.

She has a birth defect called holoprosencephaly, where the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres. She has heterotaxy, which means many of her internal organs, such as her liver and stomach, are in the wrong places. She has at least two spleens, neither of which works properly. Her head is very small, her right ear is misshapen, she has a cleft lip and a cleft palate, and a long list of complex heart defects, among other problems.
Baby S. -- her adoptive parents are comfortable using her first initial -- has a long road in front of her. She's already had one open-heart surgery and surgery on her intestines, and in the next year she'll need one or two more cardiac surgeries in addition to procedures to repair her cleft lip and palate. Later in childhood she'll need surgeries on her jaw and ear and more heart surgeries.
Her adoptive parents, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their family's privacy, know Baby S. might not be with them for long. The cardiac procedures she needs are risky, and her heterotaxy and holoprosencephaly, though mild, carry a risk of early death, according to doctors.
If Baby S. does survive, there's a 50% chance she won't be able to walk, talk or use her hands normally.

This article has me so torn! On one hand I'm glad that she gave the baby a chance to live, and found parents that will love her and support her with all her problems....on the other hand, isn't her decision to disregard the parents the same as forcing a woman to keep her baby even though she feels like termination is best due to severe problems?

How much of a say should surrogates have in issues such as these? Should the mother's wishes have been granted as if she were the one carrying her baby, or do you think the surrogate had a right to make that decision for them?

Thoughts?

 

[smokey]

I think this may come under forum rules of subjects not allowed to be discussed.

 

[zanDark]

It's not a thread about abortions (and having an abortion is not the same as terminating for health reasons!!!)....it's about how much say a surrogate should have in issues regarding the child she's carrying and whether or not she has a right to make decisions that the parents don't agree with. In this case I'm wondering if people think that she overstepped the boundaries or not

If it does fall under the forum rules then I'm sure the mods will do what they need to do...

 

[AngelofTroy]

Oo that really is a difficult one! I'm inclined to side with the surrogate.. but then again she really should not have signed that agreement if she wasn't happy with that possible outcome, even if it was an unlikely situation.

 

[katherinegrey]

This is a very, very difficult situation. I, too, would have been inclined to side with the surrogate if she hadn't signed a contract agreeing to abort if the baby had severe abnormalities and if she hadn't asked for extra $5000 to abort. If they'd agreed to pay the money straight away, would she have aborted that baby? Probably. She didn't want the baby herself, no, that would be too difficult for her, she didn't want to abort the baby if the price wasn't right as she didn't agree with it, all she wanted was the money. I'd have had more respect for her if she'd decided to keep the baby and care for her if she was her own. But as for the issue if I would have personally aborted? Yes, I think I personally would have, that baby wasn't hers, it was the biological parents baby and ultimately I believe their choice, and in the face of such severe abnormalities where the baby has already had to suffer numerous operations and will have to suffer many more, I personally believe that was the right choice for her biological parents to make.

 

[smileyfaces]

I dont think this thread is breaking any rules...it is about ethical termination. There is a section on this forum for ethical prenatal losses, right?

Anyway, this is such a tough one. I dont know. I have so much admiration for the surrogate to go ahead with the pregnancy and give the child to a couple who will love her unconditionally. It is hard to get my head around the fact that the biologicial parents have a child they did not want though. In any normal pregnancy (non-surrogate) if a woman decides that her childs health issues are too great to be brought into the world then she has the rights to opt for termination. In this case, the mother seemingly had that right taken away from her. That seems wrong to me.

Im guessing that the choice by the parents to terminate was a really hard one to make. To be using a surrogate Im guessing they have had their own fertility issues? So the chance for a child would have been amazing for them and maybe they just deemed it too cruel to bring a baby into the world that was going to suffer. From that perspective I think it is wrong that the surrogate went against the parents wishes. It wasn't really the surrogates choice to make.

 

[fantastica]

I think it's wrong. It wasn't hers to make that decision, maybe i'd view it differently if the biological parents had agreed that the baby could be adopted, or if she had raised it herself. Also, it brings up issues of how risky it could be to use a surrogate...what if someone agrees to do it then feels they can't part with the baby so just ups and leaves the state and keeps it herself?!

 

[steph.]

This definitely wasnt the surrogate's decision to make. She signed that contract, knew the terms, and accepted the money. This baby belonged to the other couple, and was obviously very wanted. They went through IVF and found a surrogate. They should have the right to make this decision if they feel that they dont want their baby to suffer, and giving the baby up for adoption wont change that. It would be the worse feeling in the world if you couldnt do what you thought was best for your child in these circumstances.

This surrogate was way out of line. If she knew she wouldnt have terminated she shouldnt have signed the contract and accepted the money. She made a life-changing decision for that couple that she had no right to make.

 

[Raven24]

if the baby has no dna from the surrogate mother then she should not have any say at all. if it was the surrogates egg for example then of course she has a right to decide but if not then what she has done is wrong. i couldnt see in the artical if it states whether the child is biologically the original couples or not so i dont know. if it was an anonymous donor egg and sperm them i guess it would fall to the surrogate to decide as she was carrying the child.
its obviously a difficult situation for all involved and quite sad that the baby most likely wont have a long life

 

[lindseymw]

if the baby has no dna from the surrogate mother then she should not have any say at all. if it was the surrogates egg for example then of course she has a right to decide but if not then what she has done is wrong. i couldnt see in the artical if it states whether the child is biologically the original couples or not so i dont know. if it was an anonymous donor egg and sperm them i guess it would fall to the surrogate to decide as she was carrying the child.
its obviously a difficult situation for all involved and quite sad that the baby most likely wont have a long life

The egg was an anonymous donor but the sperm was from the dad (if I read it right!).

It's a difficult one really. Part of me wants to side with the 'parents' as it is technically their decision to make and the surrogacy mother signed a contract.

However, unless I am in the surrogacy's position, I'm can't say 100% that I wouldn't make the same decision as her. It's one of the reasons that I couldn't be a surrogacy myself. I just couldn't imagine carrying a child and then being told to terminate due to x,y and z, especially if it's not the decision I would make had the child been my own.

 

[Andypanda6570]

Very sad. I also think it was not the surrogates choice.. XO

 

[LoraLoo]

Its a really difficult one but i think it always has to be the surrogates decision. If we took away rights to our own body- where would that leave us? A woman should never be forced to do anything with her body that she does not want, thats what it has to come down to imo x

 

[sparkle_1979]

Agree with the above poster

 

[Natsku]

I think what the surrogate did was wrong. She signed the contract. She technically gave up certain rights to her body by signing that contract so I consider that argument void in this situation.

 

[steph.]

I think what the surrogate did was wrong. She signed the contract. She technically gave up certain rights to her body by signing that contract so I consider that argument void in this situation.

I agree. She rented out her body for money, and gave up her rights when she agreed to the contract. The contract said she was willing to terminate for medical reasons, its not fair to change her mind and force this situation on the real parents.

 

[LoraLoo]

Completely disagree she agreed to carry a baby for the couple not give up rights on her body thats a ridiculous statement to make

 

[Natsku]

She signed a paper agreeing to terminate so she did give up her rights to refuse that. The very fact that she had to travel to a different state that didn't respect the contract showed that she did give up her rights.

 

[zanDark]

Its a really difficult one but i think it always has to be the surrogates decision. If we took away rights to our own body- where would that leave us? A woman should never be forced to do anything with her body that she does not want, thats what it has to come down to imo x

This was my first thought...but then I kept thinking that isn't her choice to keep the baby the same as denying the biological mother the right to terminate if she feels like it's the right thing to do for her baby? Obviously the baby wasn't in the mothers body, but ethically isn't it the same?

 

[Andypanda6570]

My best friend had to have a surrogate they, the kids are 5 now, but when the surrogate was pregnant the doctor advised my friend to terminate one of the babies, there were 3. My friend is from New York but had to go to a different state and have a lawyer and the whole contract thing just to be able to have kids as it's not legal in New York. The surrogate had absolutely NO say in it . My friend told the doctor she would not terminate one , but the doctor warned all could die, she said then that is what will be I am not terminating one. Long story short her boy and 2 girls are fine. The surrogate knew she had to do whatever my friend and her husband decided, yes it was her body but not her children and she signed a contract and got paid very well..

 

[LoraLoo]

We also have the right to say no when it comes to our body. I might go to donate blood, but if half way through i say no- then they MUST stop, thats my body, my decision. If i decide to use my body to trial medication and want to stop and say no- I have that right.

If you withdraw rights from your own body- where do you draw the line? You do not sign away rights to your body. The only thing they could do from breaking a contract is refuse payment- they cannot, and should not, ever- be able to force anybody to do anything with their own body against their will.