SURROGACY AND DIGNITY: RIGHTS AND RELATIONSHIPS

Authors

  • Kate Galloway James Cook University

Abstract

In this Journal, Rachel Kunde shared her experiences as an altruistic surrogate, advocating for greater government support for surrogate mothers. Based on her own experience, her argument suggests that recognising women’s bodily autonomy is a central consideration in liberalising the regulation of surrogacy. Importantly, she argues that surrogacy arrangements need not impair the dignity of the surrogate mother. In particular, her advocacy appears to presuppose reproductive rights both in the intending parents to found a family, and for the surrogate to bear a child. This article responds to Kunde. While celebrating Kunde’s contribution to the discourse through her personal narrative, it takes a broader approach to the question of regulation. This article first addresses the question of rights for each of the intending parents and the surrogate mother, suggesting that even if reproductive rights have some standing at law, they are not of themselves sufficient to justify liberalisation of altruistic surrogacy. Instead, it argues for a relational approach to regulation, looking beyond the individualised rights-based experience to that of national, and indeed global, relationships. Central to this argument is articulating dignity and autonomy as the principal values at stake.

Author Biography

Kate Galloway, James Cook University

Senior Lecturer, Law, James Cook University

References

References cited:

Linda M Blum, ‘Mothers, Babies, and Breastfeeding in Late Capitalist America: The Shifting Contexts of Feminist Theory’ (1993) 19(2) Feminist Studies 291

Phyllis Chesler, ‘Mothers on Trial: Custody and the “Baby M” Case’ in Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G Raymond (eds) The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism (Pergamon Press, 1990)

Martha Albertson Fineman, The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency (The New Press, 2004)

Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (Paladin, 1972)

Kate Galloway, ‘The Unwritten Rules’ (2013) 40 Griffith Review 1

Kate Galloway, ‘Theoretical Approaches to Dignity, Human Rights and Surrogacy’ in Paula Gerber and Katie O’Byrne (eds) A Human Rights Perspective of Surrogacy (Ashgate, 2015)

Kate Galloway, ‘Surrogacy: Whose Reproductive Liberty?’ Right Now (13 October 2014) <http://rightnow.org.au/writing-cat/surrogacy-whose-reproductive-liberty/>

Berta E Hernandez, ‘To Bear or Not to Bear: Reproductive Freedom as an International Human Right’ (1991) 17(2) Brooklyn Journal of International Law 309

Investigation into Altruistic Surrogacy Committee, Queensland Parliament, Report (2008)

Stephen L Isaccs, ‘Reproductive Rights 1983: An International Survey’ (1983) 14 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 311

Rachel Kunde, ‘Australian Altruistic Surrogacy: Still a Way to Go’ (2015) 3(2) Griffith Journal of Law and Human Dignity 227

Jenni Millbank, “The New Surrogacy Parentage Laws in Australia: Cautious Regulation or ‘25 Brick Walls’?” (2011) 35 Melbourne University Law Review 165

Susan Moller Okin, Justice, Gender, and the Family (Basic Books, 1989)

Anne Morris and Susan Nott, ‘The Law’s Engagement with Pregnancy’ in Jo Bridgeman and Susan Millns (eds), Law and Body Politics: Regulating the Female Body (Dartmouth, 1995) 53

Jennifer Nedelsky, ‘Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities’ (1989) 1(1) Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 7

Jennifer Nedelsky, Law's Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law (Oxford University Press, 2012)

Enohumah Kingsley Osagie, “Surrogacy: Whose Child Is It?” (2010) 1(11) Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences 505

John Pascoe, ‘State of the Nation - Federal Circuit Court of Australia’ (FMCA) [2014] Federal Judicial Scholarship 21

Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, ‘Reproductive Freedom: Beyond “A Woman's Right to Choose”’ (1980) 5(4) Signs 661

Margaret Radin, ‘What If Anything, Is Wrong With Baby Selling?’ (1995) 26 Pacific Law Journal 135

Janice G. Raymond, Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women's Freedom (Melbourne: Spinifex Press, 1993)

Reproductive Rights are Human Rights: A Handbook for International Human Rights Institutions (United Nations, 2014) <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/NHRIHandbook.pdf>

John A Robertson, ‘Liberalism and the Limits of Procreative Liberty: A Response to My Critics’ (1995) 52(1) Washington and Lee Law Review 233

John A Robertson, ‘Embryos, Families and Procreative Liberty: The Legal Structure of the New Reproduction’ (1986) 59 Southern California Law Review 939.

Michael Sandel, ‘What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets’ The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, delivered at Brasenose College, Oxford (11-12 May, 1998)

Debra Satz, Why Some Things Should Not be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets (Oxford University Press, 2010)

John Tobin, ‘To Prohibit or Permit: What is the (Human) Rights Response to the Practice of International Commercial Surrogacy’ (2014) 63(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 317

UNGA Res. 217A (III), UN Doc. A/810 (10 December 1948)

Women’s Legal Service New South Wales, ‘Foetal Personhood Bill: “Zoe’s Law”’ (November 2014) <http://www.wlsnsw.org.au/law-reform/past-campaigns/zoes-law/>

Downloads

Published

03.08.2016

Issue

Section

Articles