The controversy of Surrogacy.
Newsweek recently published an article, Womb for Rent on the rise of Surrogacy in the United States in recent years.
I was surprised to read that many of these surrogates are military wives.
I know there are a lot of people who do not believe in surrogacy. From the personal perspective, having been through infertility, I find these women [whether their motive be financial or a desire to help] to be heroes. One can not explain the anguish of not being able to have a child. These women are bringing such joy to these couples. One woman in the article compared her sacrifice (to a point) to that of her husband's being in the military. Her point, was that she sees the sacrifices he makes and it has made her want to help others as well. She is right in saying, that it may not be as severe as her husband's, but she is putting her life and body on the line.
When I was going battling infertility, my sister had offered to be a surrogate for me if I needed it. We never had to face that choice, since my problem was not with carrying a child, but conceiving one. But her willingness to give me that ultimate gift made me appreciate her that much more.
I know some see IVF as bad and of course, then surrogates. But I was never able to understand how bringing a wanted child into this world could be considered anything but wonderful and precious.
One thing the article brought up that made me really think was that these surrogate pregnancies being carried by military wives are being paid for with their military medical insurance.
Having never delved too deeply into the issue of surrogacy for myself, I had never thought too much about it. But I had assumed that the medical expenses would have been picked up by the parents. This does raise questions for me along the lines of whether tax dollars should be paying for this. I fully support infertility treatments and surrogacy, but I do not support mandates or tax coverage for either. I am sure with military wives as surrogates being on the rise, this is an issue that will be debated in the future.
I must give a lot of credit to these women though for their sacrifice. $20,000 is a lot of money to be compensated, but you have to put it into the context of what they are doing. They are enduring drugs, shots, many doctor's visits, surgery and then 9 months of pregnancy and all that goes with that. One must also take into account that it can very well take more than one IVF procedure to result in a pregnancy. These women are doing something good and wonderful and deserve the credit for it.
I was surprised to read that many of these surrogates are military wives.
Newsweek discovered that many women who have turned to surrogacy are military wives looking to supplement the family income while their husbands are serving overseas. Several agencies reported a significant increase in the number of wives of soldiers and naval personnel applying to be surrogates since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. These women can earn more with one pregnancy than their husbands’ annual base pay (which ranges for new enlistees from $16,080 to $28,900).
I know there are a lot of people who do not believe in surrogacy. From the personal perspective, having been through infertility, I find these women [whether their motive be financial or a desire to help] to be heroes. One can not explain the anguish of not being able to have a child. These women are bringing such joy to these couples. One woman in the article compared her sacrifice (to a point) to that of her husband's being in the military. Her point, was that she sees the sacrifices he makes and it has made her want to help others as well. She is right in saying, that it may not be as severe as her husband's, but she is putting her life and body on the line.
When I was going battling infertility, my sister had offered to be a surrogate for me if I needed it. We never had to face that choice, since my problem was not with carrying a child, but conceiving one. But her willingness to give me that ultimate gift made me appreciate her that much more.
I know some see IVF as bad and of course, then surrogates. But I was never able to understand how bringing a wanted child into this world could be considered anything but wonderful and precious.
One thing the article brought up that made me really think was that these surrogate pregnancies being carried by military wives are being paid for with their military medical insurance.
Military wives are also attractive candidates because of their health insurance, Tricare, which has some of the most comprehensive coverage for surrogates in the industry, and agencies may offer a potential surrogate with this health plan an extra $5,000. Last year military officials asked for a provision in the 2008 defense authorization bill to cut off coverage for any medical procedures related to surrogate pregnancy. They were unsuccessful—there are no real data on how much the government spends on these cases. Tricare suggests that surrogate mothers who receive payment for their pregnancy should declare the amount they’re receiving, which can then be deducted from their coverage. But since paid carriers have no incentive to say anything, most don’t. The subject of Tricare surrogacy coverage is becoming a hot topic throughout the military world, and fiercely debated on Web sites such as militarySOS.com.
Having never delved too deeply into the issue of surrogacy for myself, I had never thought too much about it. But I had assumed that the medical expenses would have been picked up by the parents. This does raise questions for me along the lines of whether tax dollars should be paying for this. I fully support infertility treatments and surrogacy, but I do not support mandates or tax coverage for either. I am sure with military wives as surrogates being on the rise, this is an issue that will be debated in the future.
I must give a lot of credit to these women though for their sacrifice. $20,000 is a lot of money to be compensated, but you have to put it into the context of what they are doing. They are enduring drugs, shots, many doctor's visits, surgery and then 9 months of pregnancy and all that goes with that. One must also take into account that it can very well take more than one IVF procedure to result in a pregnancy. These women are doing something good and wonderful and deserve the credit for it.
Add a Comment
4 Comments
-
Comment by Amanda on April 24, 2008 at 9:42am -
I don't think there is an easy answer or moral judgement to any part of this dilemma. That said, I don't think Deanna is trying to say that women who choose to become compensated surrogates are coerced, I think she's more expressing a sadness and frustration that they do it more out of economic necessity than altruism.
One way of looking at it is this: what is your dollar amount? (How many affluent, or even firmly middle-class women do you hear of becoming a compensated surrogate?) I personally would not want to go through surrogacy, but I have to recognize that in part that feeling has to do with the compensation. A mere 20 grand is not enough for me to do something that I would feel was emotionally painful--but what if we upped that price tag to $1 million? Then would I have to give it a second look? That's a lot of money. I could easily pay for my son's college. I could send him to the very best prep schools. I could set up a trust fund.
No, no one is beating down my door with a cashier's check for a million dollars and a turkey baster full of, ahem, genetic material. So I don't have to really think about any of this. But for these women who live in poverty, that $20,000 might be the rough equivalent of the million I stipulated as my "hmmm, I might have to consider that..." amount.
I remember reading this article in the Globe back in December and thinking then that the cost of hiring a surrogate still seems to be about on par with or even less than the cost of an international adoption. Shouldn't it be more costly?
I don't know. I think women should have the right to make any and all decisions that pertain to their own bodies, and I would never presume to tell women who live in poverty what they can and can't do with themselves. But it still strikes a sad chord somewhere with me that women, yet again, seem to be thought of less as people and more a good to be bought, sold, and consumed.
-
Comment by Sue on April 22, 2008 at 7:12pm - Paula - That is really wonderful of your coworker. I really believe that having a monetary motive does not mean it is not a wonderful gesture or thing to do. You can get paid for it and still feel really good about what you are doing. Regardless, she helped to give a couple their dream. It is sweet that she gets pictures. That must make her feel so good about what she did.
-
Comment by Sue on April 20, 2008 at 9:17am
- I agree with you that not all women who are surrogates have pure motives. I do not believe that women should be taken advantage of, pushed or coerced into surrogacy. I have not studied the issue in great depth and I know there are a lot of aspects. But in most cases, if a woman wants to become a surrogate, whether paid or unpaid, I feel that it should be her choice. I don't think that being compensated is a bad thing since it is a huge physical and emotional burden. Again, assuming it is a free choice made by them.
-
Comment by Deanna Durica on April 19, 2008 at 11:24pm -
I understand how grateful families struggling with infertility may be to the surrogates who help them with their families, but I'm not sure that all women participate in surrogacy out of altruistic motives.
Really, the thing in most cases of surrogacy is not a pure desire to help others - this often is about money. Whether they are military wives looking to supplement the military salary, or women in the developing world, women are selling their wombs. As much as they may profit, the agencies that broker the relationships between the (often) poor women who volunteer to participate and the (usually) more affluent couples needing a surrogate is where the real profit is. This blog post by Judith Warner in the New York times does a great job of reviewing the issues of developed vs. developing world disparities in surrogacy.
Several countries do not allow surrogacy (France, for example) and others (the UK) do not allow women to be paid for their surrogate services. I've read arguments that the English model does more to preserve the dignity of the surrogate, as it is less transactional and more relationship-based.
I have no wish to be judgmental or make couples struggling with infertility feel bad, but i think the issues are bigger than an individual couple's wishes for a family. What does the "womb for hire" do to our views of women as more than the sum of their parts? What does it say about our regard for poor women or women in developing nations that we are willing to invest in their reproductive health only when it benefits rich people in the US? Why, so often, do women's most profitable economic choices still revolve around their reproductive organs?
This is really complicated, and I'm not sure if this is exploitation or great economic opportunity - I'm just sad that it's so hard to tell the difference.
© 2009 Created by Marie
You need to be a member of WEGO Health to add comments!
Join this social network