|
Edited on Wed Oct-26-05 08:20 PM by Arkana
As most of you who have read my posts on this subject, I'm taking Bioethics this semester at Providence College, and my prof is a nice guy, but he has the unfortunate quality of being a conservative Catholic anti-choicer. Anyway, this week's topic is surrogate motherhood--not the most hot-button of issues, but it makes for good reading anyway.
Our discussion today was on the case of "Baby M"--one of the most pivotal rulings on the subject.
The case of Baby M is as follows:
--The Stern family, William and Elizabeth, want to have a child, but Elizabeth has MS and does not want to go through pregnancy and the risk associated with having MS and being pregnant.
--They sign a commercial surrogacy argument with a surrogate mother, Mary Beth Whitehead. Whitehead agreed, for a fee of $10000, that she would be artificially inseminated with William Stern's sperm and bear a child, which she would give to the Sterns and which would be adopted by Elizabeth Stern. Whitehead was married and had two kids at the time.
--Whitehead became pregnant, and Baby M was born March 27, 1986. Upon giving birth, Whitehead realized she did not want to part with the child, but she turned it over nonetheless to the Sterns on March 30.
--The next day, emotional turmoil compelled her to beg the Sterns to let her keep the baby for another week. Reluctantly the Sterns agreed. When Whitehead subsequently failed to return the baby, William Stern filed a complaint seeking legal enforcement of the surrogacy contract.
--Whitehead and her husband, in response, took Baby M and fled to Florida from New Jersey. They moved around to attempt to avoid authorities, but they were eventually located and Baby M was returned to the Sterns at four months old.
--Eight months later, when Baby M was one year old, the trial court handed down its decision. It upheld the surrogacy contract, ordered the termination of Mary Beth Whitehead's parental rights, and awarded sole custody to William Stern. The baby was subsequently adopted by Elizabeth Stern.
--However, the NJ Supreme Court ruled differently. The court concluded that surrogacy contracts are null and void in NJ, based on four concerns: 1) A surrogate cannot be forced by any contract to give up a child because she is in no position to make an informed choice before birth.
2) Commercial surrogates are tantamount to "baby selling."
3) Commercial surrogacy would allow the rich to exploit the poor.
4) There is a risk of psychosocial harm to the child in question.
The final word? The Court awarded custody to the Sterns, but allowed visitation rights to Mary Beth Whitehead.
My question: What do you think? Do you agree with the trial court or the NJSC, and why? I'm always interested to know what DU thinks.
|