Criminalising commercial surrogacy in Canada and Australia: the political construction of ‘national consensus’

A Partial Defense of the Non-Commercialization of Surrogacy

“…More persuasive than comments from politicians or from the CFAS, which has some members with a financial stake in the success of the private, for-profit fertility industry, is empirical evidence that challenges the necessary link between commercial payments and exploitation in Western countries (13,14,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). This evidence suggests that, on the whole, surrogates tend to find their experience to be positive, for themselves and for their families (16,18,20).…”

“…While it would be overblown to describe non-commodification as a dominant trend within feminist bioethics today, a number of feminist scholars in Canada and elsewhere subscribe to positions under this umbrella (9-11) 2. It is also questionable whether most Canadians found this link to be persuasive during the process of drafting the AHR Act(12)(13)(14).…”

Decriminalizing Payment of Gamete Donors and Surrogates in Canada: An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Public Debate in Light of Bill C-404

“…Some argue that the commercialization of reproductive capacities entails a risk of exploitation of socio-economically vulnerable individuals who will donate or act as a surrogate because they find themselves in difficult financial circumstances (Baylis 2018; CBC 2018; Guichon as quoted in Blackwell 2017). Decriminalization would allow for "economically secure people to buy procreative labour and custodial rights of vulnerable women" (Snow 2016citing Shanley 2007and Wilkinson 2003 which is, from Bill C-404's opponents' point of view, a problematic situation which threatens women's dignity and well-being (Baylis et al 2018). In return, though they agree on the importance of protecting women's dignity and well-being, proponents of decriminalization highlight that altruistic surrogacy is not an efficient way to guarantee exploitation-free agreements.…”

“…In such circumstances social reasons are the source of the coercion and not money. Thus, the dichotomy between altruistic and commercial surrogacy and the depiction of the first one as respectful of women's well-being and the second one as necessarily exploitative is over-simplistic (Snow 2016citing Campbell 2013. Proponents of decriminalization also point to the fact that current arrangements are exploitative in the sense that fertility professionals involved in ARTs make substantial amounts of money, leaving only gamete donors and surrogates-the ones on which the whole process relieswithout remuneration (Snow as quoted in Moss 2018;Panitch 2018).…”

“…Decriminalizing payment increases the number of ways in which a person can autonomously use their body to earn money. They hold that it is not up to the state to limit these opportunities and to dictate to individuals, for their own good and dignity, what they can and cannot do with their bodies to earn money (Campbell 2013;Snow 2016). In their view, the intrusion of the state in such matters is paternalistic and in disharmony with the diversity of values inherent to a pluralistic society (CBC 2018;Housefather 2018;Housefather and Cohen 2018).…”