• Article Tools
• Print
• RSS

Questions to Ponder

by Vicki Thorn 

I’ve been doing some strange reading lately, pursuing books that probably are not on most people’s list of things to read.

In my readings on assisted reproductive technology, I’ve been learning about “other mothers” and “biological mothers” and “surrogate mothers”. I’m mired in the questions that are raised by the “brave new world” we live in, where children are viewed as some sort of object or possession to be obtained, and my head is spinning from the multitude of new questions that must be confronted in this new place.

It is clear that we now have an entitlement mentality when it comes to producing a child: “It is my right to have a child when I want one, in whatever circumstances I find myself, and I will do whatever needs to be done to make that happen.” Some couples are struggling with infertility. There are more unmarried women facing a biological clock who wrestle with wanting a child.

OctoMom has been fueling the tabloids for over a year now, ever since her eight newborns – conceived via in vitro fertilization – joined her already large brood of six from other IVF cycles.  There is a morbid fascination about this whole thing. The doctor who implanted the embryos is facing sanctions for his role in the event, as it is recommended that no more than two embryos be implanted in someone of Nadya Suleman’s age. Mother Nature knows that the number of babies a mother can successfully care for in most cases corresponds to the number of nipples that the mammal/human has.

“The right to reproduce isn’t unlimited. You can’t put children at risk,” said Arthur Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. Caplan has been arguing for the need for professional regulations in reproductive medicine.

“The field of reproductive medicine and fertility treatment has an absolute responsibility to look out for the children it is creating in new ways,” he said. “And in this case it seems to have failed.”

This week on YouTube is the story of a couple from Michigan who hired a surrogate mother using ova and sperm from non-related individuals. The surrogate mother gave birth to a set of twins which she turned over to the adoptive parents, only to change her mind. Michigan does not honor surrogacy contracts, and so the woman who gave birth to the twins and her husband took them back and changed their names, leaving the other couple without the children they thought they had legally contracted for. Remember, neither couple is even genetically related to the babies.

The twins were babies eight and nine for the surrogate mother, who has four other children living at home and has birthed three other children in surrogate pregnancies.

I wonder what one says to your children when you turn the new baby over to another family. How do you explain why you wanted the last two back? How does this affect them? There is still hope, apparently, for the other couple. They have 20 more frozen embryos stored in a liquid nitrogen tank, made from the sperm and ova purchased from the non-related donors. They just need to find a surrogate mother again … and maybe move to a state where surrogacy contracts are legal and binding.

In its article on the surrogacy saga, the New York Times quoted bioethicist George J. Annas, chairman of the health law program at Boston University.

“This is the main problem with commercialization, seeing children as a consumer product,” Annas said. “This is especially true when there is no genetic connection with the child. ... It really does treat children like commodities. Like pets.”

This little-regulated industry has become a lucrative business. Fees can run between $80,000 and $120,000 by the time brokers’ fees, legal and medical expenses and surrogacy are fees covered.

The stories continue: The Ohio couple who underwent IVF, only to discover that the fertility clinic made a mistake and implanted the wrong embryo. They carried the child to term, entrusted it to its genetic parents and now will have to hire a surrogate mother to carry their next embryo, as the wife cannot risk another pregnancy.

Then there’s the case of the couple who hired a surrogate after seven failed attempts to get pregnant. The surrogate conceived, but the woman who hired her also conceived naturally around the same time. The babies, both boys, were born within 23 days of each other and are now “being raised as twins cooked in different ovens” by the original couple. The surrogate mother, however, remains connected to the family, and the boys consider her an aunt.

How do we begin to make sense of the complexity of these stories? Who is who? In cases in which sperm and ova are brokered anonymously, carried by a birth mother and surrendered to yet another party, courts say that neither of the two players in the surrogacy is biologically related to the child.

But I’ve been thinking about something. Because of the phenomena of microchimerism, a pregnant woman and the child she is carrying will experience an exchange of cells, meaning she has cells from the baby that she will carry with her for the rest of her life, and vice versa. Does this mean that perhaps even a surrogate mother might have a biological claim on the child?

So many questions! So many situations we have never faced before! Just because we can do something, does it mean we should? What are the consequences for all the children involved? How does one begin to make sense of this? How do you explain it? 

---

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Headline Bistro or the Knights of Columbus.)