Baby M's case in 1988

Melissa Stern's conception took place under an agreement signed at Noel Keane's Infertility Center of New York on February 5, 1985. There were three parties to the agreement: Richard Whitehead gave his consent to the contract's "purposes, intents, and provisions" and to the insemination of Mary Beth Whitehead, his wife, with the sperm of William Stern. In addition, since any child born to Mary Beth Whitehead would legally be the child of her husband, he agreed that he would "surrender immediate custody of the child" and "terminate his parental rights."

Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artificially inseminated and to form no "parent-child relationship" with the baby. She agreed that she would, upon delivery of the child, surrender her parental rights to William Stern; and she acknowledged that she would, during the term of the pregnancy, relinquish her right to make a decision about an abortion. She was permitted to seek an abortion only if the fetus was "physiologically abnormal" or if the inseminating physician agreed an abortion was required to insure her "physical health." Whitehead then agreed that it was William Stern's right to require amniocentesis testing and that she would "abort the fetus upon demand of William Stern should a congenital or genetic abnormality be diagnosed." Despite the limitation of Whitehead's right to seek an abortion, the contract allocated to Stern responsibility for the child in the event that Whitehead refused to fulfill this part of her agreement: "If Mary Beth Whitehead refuses to abort the fetus upon demand of William Stern, his obligations as stated in this Agreement shall cease forthwith, except as to obligations of paternity imposed by statute." Finally, the Whiteheads "agree[d] to assume all risks, including the risk of death, which are incidental to conception, pregnancy, [and] childbirth."

Stern agreed to pay $10,000 to Whitehead. Although the $10,000 was described as "compensation for services and expenses" and the contract specifically states that the fee should "in no way be construed as a fee for termination of parental rights or a payment in exchange for a consent to surrender the child for adoption," it was payable only upon surrender of a live infant. If Whitehead suffered a miscarriage prior to the fifth month of pregnancy, she would receive no compensation; if the "child is miscarried, dies or is stillborn subsequent to the fourth month of pregnancy and said child does not survive," Stern agreed to pay Whitehead $1,000. He also paid $10,000 to Noel Keane, for his services in arranging the surrogacy agreement.

Stern's wife, Elizabeth, was not a party to the agreement, nor was she mentioned by name. The contract referred to her only as Stern's wife. The first such reference is the statement that the contract's "sole purpose . . . is to enable William Stern and his infertile wife to have a child which is biologically related to William Stern."' The other reference states, "In the event of the death of William Stern, prior or subsequent to the birth of said child, it is hereby understood and agreed by Mary Beth Whitehead, Surrogate, and Richard Whitehead, her husband, that the child will be placed in the custody of William Stern's wife.''

Events did not go according to the contractual script. On March 27, 1986, Whitehead gave birth to a daughter. She named the infant "Sara Elizabeth Whitehead," took her home, and turned down the $10,000. On Easter Sunday, March 30, the Sterns took the infant to their home. The baby was back at the Whitehead home on March 31; in the second week of April, Whitehead told the Sterns she would never be able to give up her daughter. The Sterns responded by hiring attorney Gary Skoloff to fight for the contract's enforcement. The police arrived to remove "Melissa Elizabeth Stern" from the Whitehead's custody; shown the birth certificate for "Sara Elizabeth Whitehead," they left. When the police returned, Whitehead passed her daughter through an open window to her husband and pleaded with him to make a run for it.

The Trial Begins
The trial commenced on January 5, 1987, by which time a representative had been appointed for the child, known as "Baby M," which stood for Melissa. The Sterns had received temporary custody. Whitehead, who had been ordered by Judge Harvey Sorkow to discontinue breast-feeding the child, had been temporarily awarded two one-hour visits each week, "strictly supervised under constant surveillance . . . in a sequestered, supervised setting to prevent flight or harm."

Skoloff framed the "issue to be decided" as "whether a promise to make the gift of life should be enforced." He stated that "Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to give Bill Stern a child of his own flesh and blood" and emphasized that Elizabeth Stern's multiple sclerosis "rendered her, as a practical matter, infertile . . . because she could not carry a baby without significant risk to her health."

Harold Cassidy, the attorney for Whitehead, offered an alternative view in his own opening remarks: "The only reason that the Sterns did not attempt to conceive a child was . . . because Mrs. Stern had a career that had to be advanced. . . . What Mrs. Stern has is [multiple sclerosis] diagnosed as the mildest form. She was never even diagnosed until after we deposed her in this case. . . . We're here," Cassidy summed up, "not because Betsy Stern is infertile but because one woman stood up and said there are some things that money can't buy." A neurologist affiliated with the Mount Sinai School of Medicine testified that Elizabeth Stern was afflicted with "a very, very, very slight case of MS, if any."

When the issue of custody was brought up, Skoloff stated that contract law and the infant's best interests dictated that exclusive custody should be awarded to the Sterns: "If there is one case in the United States, where joint custody will not work, where visitation rights will not work, where maintaining parental rights will not work, this is it." He addressed Sorkow directly: "Your Honor, under both the contract theory and the best-interest theory, you must terminate the rights of Mary Beth Whitehead and allow Bill Stern and Betsy Stern to be Melissa's mother and father."

Baby M.'s representative, Lorraine Abraham, took the stand to make her own recommendation. She told the court that she had relied, in part, upon the opinions of three experts in forming her own conclusion: psychologist Dr. David Brodzinsky; social worker Dr. Judith Brown Greif; and psychiatrist Dr. Marshall Schechter. Abraham stated that the experts "will . . . recommend to this court that custody be awarded to the Sterns and visitation denied at this time." Abraham, required to offer her own opinion as Baby M's representative, added that she was "compelled by the overwhelming weight of [the three experts'] investigation to join in their recommendation."

During Elizabeth Stern's testimony, she was asked by Randy Wolf, one of Whitehead's lawyers, "Were you concerned about what effect taking the baby away from Mary Beth Whitehead would have on the baby?"

Stern responded: "I knew it would be hard on Mary Beth and in Melissa's best interest."

Wolf then said: "Now, I believe you testified that if Mary Beth Whitehead receives custody of the baby, you don't want to visit."

Stern replied, "That is correct. I do not want to visit."

Skoloff next raised questions about Whitehead's fitness as a mother. Whitehead had hidden in Florida with Baby M shortly after the infant's birth, and Skoloff represented this as evidence of instability. He then played for the court a taped telephone conversation between Mary Beth Whitehead and William Stern:

Stern: I want my daughter back.
Whitehead: And I want her, too, so what do we do, cut her in half?
Stern: No, no, we don't cut her in half.
Whitehead: You want me, you want me to kill myself and the baby?
Stern: No, that's why I gave her to you in the first place, because I didn't want you to kill yourself.
Whitehead: I've been breast-feeding her for four months. She's bonded to me, Bill. I sleep in the same bed with her. She won't even sleep by herself. What are you going to do when you get this kid that's screaming and carrying on for her mother?
Stern: I'll be her father. I'll be a father to her. I am her father.
Stern: You made an agreement. You signed an agreement.
Whitehead: Forget it, Bill. I'll tell you right now I'd rather see me and her dead before you get her.

The following day, it was Mary Beth Whitehead's turn to testify. One of her attorneys asked, "If you don't get custody of Sara, do you want to see her?"

Whitehead replied:

Yes, I'm her mother, and whether this court only lets me see her two minutes a week, two hours a week, or two days, I'm her mother and I want to see her, no matter what.

Expert testimony followed. Dr. Lee Salk, the influential child psychologist, testified for the Sterns. Already termed a "third-party gestator" in court documents, Whitehead would now be called "a surrogate uterus." "The legal term that's been used is 'termination of parental rights,'" Salk began,

and I don't see that there were any "parental rights" that existed in the first place. . . . The agreement involved the provision of an ovum by Mrs. Whitehead for artificial insemination in exchange for $10,000 . . . and so my feeling is that in both structural and functional terms, Mr. and Mrs. Stern's role as parents was achieved by a surrogate uterus and not a surrogate mother.

Dr. Marshall Schechter testified, as predicted by Abraham, that he believed custody should be awarded to the Sterns. He declared that Whitehead suffered from a "borderline personality disorder" and that "handing the baby out of the window to Mr. Whitehead is an unpredictable, impulsive act that falls under this category." Then, citing (among other things) that Whitehead dyed her hair to conceal its premature whiteness, he added the diagnosis of "narcissistic personality disorder."

Boston psychiatric social worker Dr. Phyllis Silverman refuted Schechter's characterization of Whitehead's behavior as "crazy'':

Mrs. Whitehead's reaction is like that of other "birth mothers" who suffer pain, grief, and rage for as long as 30 years after giving up a child. The bond of a nursing mother with her child is very powerful.

"By These Standards, We Are All Unfit Mothers"
Outside the courtroom, 121 prominent women refuted Schechter's contentions and the "expert opinions" of Brodzinsky and Greif. On March 12, 1987, they issued a document entitled "By These Standards, We Are All Unfit Mothers." The document quoted from each of the expert's testimony and included the New York Times' summary of what commentators called Dr. Schechter's "Patty Cake" test:

Dr. Schechter faulted Mrs. Whitehead for saying "Hooray!" when the baby played Patty Cake by clapping her hands together. The more appropriate response for Mrs. Whitehead, he said, was to imitate the child by clapping her hands together and saying "Patty Cake" to reinforce the child's behavior. He also criticized Mrs. Whitehead for having four pandas of various size available for Baby M to play with. Dr. Schechter said pots, pans and spoons would have been more suitable.

Signed by Andrea Dworkin, Nora Ephron, Marilyn French, Betty Friedan, Carly Simon, Susan Sontag, Gloria Steinem, Meryl Streep, Vera B. Williams, and others, the document concluded with the statement that "we strongly urge . . . legislators and jurists . . . to recognize that a mother need not be perfect to 'deserve' her child."

When Cassidy made the closing argument on behalf of Whitehead, he re-emphasized that Elizabeth Stern was not, as Whitehead had been told, infertile. He also stressed that termination of parental rights was permitted by law only in the event "of actual abandonment or abuse of the child." Finally, he warned that a ruling in favor of the contract's enforcement would lead to "one class of Americans . . . exploit[ing] another class. And it will always be the wife of the sanitation worker who must bear the children of the pediatrician."

Sorkow announced his verdict on March 31, 1987: "The parental rights of the defendant, Mary Beth Whitehead, are terminated. Mr. Stern is formally judged the father of Melissa Stern." Elizabeth Stern was then escorted into Sorkow's chambers, where she adopted Baby M.

New Jersey Supreme Court's Opinion
The Supreme Court of New Jersey overturned the lower court's ruling on February 2, 1988. It invalidated the surrogacy contract, annulled Elizabeth Stern's adoption of Baby M, and restored the parental rights of Whitehead. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz said:

We do not know of, and cannot conceive of, any other case where a perfectly fit mother was expected to surrender her newly born infant, perhaps forever, and was then told she was a bad mother because she did not.

The justices then dealt with the issue as a difference between "the natural father and the natural mother, [both of whose claims] are entitled to equal weight." Custody was awarded to William Stern and the trial court was instructed to set visitation for Mary Beth Whitehead.

The court awarded Whitehead visitation on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; every other weekend; and two weeks during the summer. (Holidays were also divided: the Sterns are entitled to Melissa's company on her birthday, Christmas Day, and Mother's Day, among other occasions.) Since Melissa is now in school during the week, and the Sterns live in New Jersey and Whitehead on Long Island, Whitehead reports that these circumstances have made it increasingly difficult for her to comply with the court-imposed schedule for visits with her daughter. In a recent interview, she said she would seek either a revision of the agreement's terms or to move the rest of her family closer to Melissa's other home in New Jersey.

The New Jersey Supreme Court decision prohibited additional surrogacy arrangements in that state unless "the surrogate mother volunteers, without any payment, to act as a surrogate and is given the right to change her mind and to assert her parental rights." Seventeen other states have since adopted similar guidelines.

This case elicited a divided response from feminists. Some asserted the primacy of a mother's claim to her child; others argued that any nullification of the contract would constitute a restriction upon a woman's right to control her own body.

For Further Reading
Brennan, Shawn, ed. Women's Information Directory. Detroit: Gale Research, 1993.
Chesler, Phyllis. Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M. New York: Times Books, 1988.
Cullen-DuPont, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of Women's History in America. New York: Facts on File, 1996.
Davis, Flora. Moving the Mountain: The Women's Movement in America Since 1960. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991.
Evans, Sara M. Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America. New York: The Free Press, 1989.
Knappman, Edward, ed. Great American Trials. Detroit: Gale Research, 1994.
Sack, Kevin. "New York is Urged to Outlaw Surrogate Parenting for Pay." New York Times, May 15, 1992.
Squire, Susan. "Whatever Happened to Baby M?" Redbook, January 1994.
Whitehead, Mary Beth, with Loretta Schwartz-Nobel. A Mother's Story: The Truth About the Baby M Case. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.

Source: Women's Rights on Trial, 1st Ed., Gale, 1997, p.312.

Conclusion

" The decision made is in your hands, think twice before you want to do it ... "

In conclusion, surrogate motherhood is a term referred to an arrangement in which a woman becomes pregnant for the sole purpose of having a child that another couple will raise (Hinders 2007). Before deciding to pursue surrogacy as an option for having a child, it’s wise for couples to spend some time considering both the pros and cons of the issue. Surrogate motherhood enables infertile couples to have children and fulfill their parenthood dream. Many infertile couples turn to surrogate mother rather than to adoption. The reason is because surrogate motherhood is a better form of alternative than adoption, as surrogate motherhood ensures the child is biologically related to the commissioning parents. However, the problems and effects brought about by surrogate motherhood outweigh the pros.

Surrogate mothers, commissioning parents and the child are troubled by the various problems that are caused by surrogate motherhood. Not only that, the effects of surrogate motherhood to the society has resulted in the society condemning and rejecting surrogacy. In our opinion, society should not be prejudice against surrogate mothers, but instead learn about their true intention before making any judgement. Not all surrogate mothers are driven by financial reasons, as some are driven by good intention such as the personal happiness and satisfaction in helping infertile couples to have baby (Swift Current Academy n.d.). As new technology emerged almost everyday, there are various alternatives to surrogate motherhood such as in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian tube transfer that do not cause as much problems and effects to the society as compared to surrogate motherhood. The issues on surrogate motherhood very much depend on the perspective of the individual. One may condemn it and another may perceive it as a good deed. Therefore, before making any biased judgement on the issue, we should take into account the pros and cons of surrogate motherhood.

A Sucessful Story

Positive Effects

Parenting dream for infertile couples

In this modern culture a couple is expected to have children, after a time of being together. They may think that is not perfect if they do not have children of their own. A child today is expected to carry on the family name. Parents also want an heir to their possessions, as well as to the family business. A couple which wanted children, but were unable to have children, in the past only had two options either adoption or remain childless. Adoption may not always be the answer to gaining a child because it is not their own child. Today, surrogacy can help a couple solve the two options above. Many couples who chose to remain childless often lose a feeling of self-worth, and are abandoning by society. Surrogate motherhood enables infertile couple to have children. They can hire a surrogate mother to gestate a child for them. Other cases of surrogacy include the brother or sister providing the eggs or a female relative bearing the child. The main factor is that they want a child. Surrogate motherhood has enabled many infertile couples to have children and realized their dream of parenting (Vadeboncoeur 1995). The Office of Technology Assessment in the US estimated in 1988, around 600 children were born through the means of a surrogate mother. In other words, 600 pairs of infertile couple were able to have children (Swift Current Academy n.d.).

Redefined of motherhood

raditionally, the role of ‘mother’ is assigned to the woman that give birth to a biologically related baby. Now, with the emergence of surrogate mothers, ‘motherhood’ is redefined. Surrogate mother carry and give birth to a baby that is not biologically related. She contributed time, effort, love, good maternal environment and ultimately gave birth to a baby. These are sufficient for her to be considered a mother although the baby and her are not biologically related (Jones 2002).

Negative Effects of Surrogacy

Negative Effects of surrogate mother on society ...

Surrogate motherhood brings about both negative and positive effects to the society.

2.1 Amplify the social and economic differences

The surrogacy will affect the social too. Surrogacy will amplify the social and economic differences between the upper class, the rich couples and the lower class, the relatively poor surrogate mother. A typical surrogacy agreement in 1987 provided $10,000 for the surrogate mother, $10,000 for the lawyer, and $5,000 for the medical expenses involved and for maternity clothes. The couple's joint annual income exceeded $100,000, whereas the surrogate's annual income was $8,000. Moreover, the high cost of surrogacy mean that only the rich will be able to employ surrogate mother and that is stating that the rich are more superior to reproduce than the poor (Dorff 1998).

2.2 Degradation of women

Another effect of surrogacy on the society is the degradation of women in the society. Surrogacy is widely rejected by many of the societies. Since only women are involved in surrogate motherhood, the status of women will be degraded in the society. Surrogacy is seen by the society as an immoral conduct that involves selling the human body. Women transform their reproduction abilities into commercial values in the market. They are considered unethical and dishonourable in the society. Many surrogate mothers are discriminated against and face many problems in the society (Dorff 1998)

India's Baby Farm adapted from smh.com.au

January 6, 2008

Dressed in pink and blue gowns, a group of expectant mothers meets in a clinic. None of the women will become mum to the child she carries.

Every night in the quiet Indian city of Anand, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors cares for the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery and counsels them afterwards. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to about 40 babies.

More than 50 women in the city are pregnant with the children of couples from the US, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalisation, as well as that most natural of desires: to have a family.

The woman behind Anand's baby boom defends her work as meaningful for everyone involved.

"There is this one woman who desperately needs a baby and cannot have her own child without the help of a surrogate. And at the other end there is this woman who badly wants to help her [own] family," Dr Nayna Patel said.

"If this female wants to help the other one why not allow that? It's not for any bad cause.

"They're helping one another to have a new life in this world."

Experts say commercial surrogacy - it has been called "wombs for rent" - is growing in India. While no reliable numbers track such pregnancies nationwide, doctors work with surrogates in virtually every major city. The women are impregnated in-vitro with the egg and sperm of couples unable to conceive on their own.

Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002, as it is in many other countries, including the US. But India is the leader in making it a viable industry rather than a rare fertility treatment. Experts say it could take off for the same reasons outsourcing in other industries has been successful: a wide labour pool working for relatively low rates.

Critics say the couples are exploiting poor women in India - a country with an alarmingly high maternal death rate - by hiring them at a low cost to undergo the hardship, pain and risks of labour.

"It raises the factor of baby farms in developing countries," said Dr John Lantos of the Centre for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Missouri.

"It comes down to questions of voluntariness and risk."

Dr Patel's surrogates are aware of the risks because they've watched others go through them. Many of the mothers know one another, or are even related. Three sisters have all borne strangers' children, and their sister-in-law is pregnant with a second surrogate baby.

Nearly half the babies have been born to foreign couples, while the rest have gone to Indians.

Ritu Sodhi, a furniture importer from Los Angeles who was born in India, spent $US200,000 ($228,636) trying to get pregnant through in-vitro fertilisation, and was considering spending another $US80,000 to hire a surrogate mother in the US.

"We were so desperate," she said. "It was emotionally and financially exhausting."

Then, on the internet, Ms Sodhi found Dr Patel's clinic.

After spending about $US20,000 - more than many couples because it took the surrogate mother several cycles to conceive - she and her husband are back home with their four-month-old baby, Neel. They plan to return to Anand for a second child.

"Even if it cost a million dollars, the joy that they had delivered to me is so much more than any money that I have given them," she said. "They're godsends to deliver something so special."

Dr Patel's centre is believed to be unique in offering a one-stop service. Other clinics may request that the couple bring in their own surrogate, often a family member or friend, and some place classified ads. But in Anand the couple just provides the egg and sperm and the clinic does

Source: The Sun-Herald

Surroga Mother Lead To ProblemS

What are the problems ?

Surrogate motherhood has brought about various problems since its introduction. These problems can be related to the surrogate mother, child or the infertile couple.

1.1 Problems to surrogate mother

1.1.1 Separation from the child

Most surrogate motherhood contracts, the contracted woman is expected to give up the child that she has borne over approximately nine months to another couple. She is not allowed to foster a relationship with the child after birth, so that the child will only recognize the parents who raised them and not the surrogate mother. The problem is that surrogate mother naturally bonds to her child during pregnancy, and giving up their child often hard to do. If a surrogate mother does fight back for their child, that means she broke the contract (Vadeboncoeur 1995).

Most of the surrogate mothers find that it is difficult for them to separate from the baby and hand in the baby to the intended mother. This is due to the fact that the surrogate mother gives greater warmth during pregnancy and they are emotionally contacted and attached to the baby. Surrogates can change their emotional feeling after giving birth. Some of them even feel traumatized after the relinquishment of the baby. For example, it has been suggested that relinquishing the child may be extremely distressing and may result in psychological problems. There is also fear about the surrogate mother forming a bond with the baby that would changed her mind about handing over the child to the commissioning parents. On the other hand, it has been proposed that surrogate mothers may tend to distance themselves from the unborn baby with the belief that the child is not theirs. Such behavior might endanger the surrogate mother and the unborn child. For those women who give up on the child, the risk of post-natal depression, in addition to feelings of anger or guilt, may further damage the woman’s psychological health (Jadva et.al 2003).

The surrogate mother would be expected to deliver the child to the parents with whom she made the arrangement once the child is born. This is one of the problems because many surrogate mothers have refused to hand over children they had agreed to carry for the respective parents. In these cases, the surrogate mothers have developed a link with the child they were carrying. There are arguments stating that, some woman says that they have the right to own the child that they are carrying. If the child is surrendered as agreed by the surrogate mother, there is a high possibility of emotional suffering (Law Reform Commission 1988).

1.1.2 Problems to the surrogate mother’s family

Many surrogates already have children. The health and stability of her children, especially if raised by her, are used as guidelines. The ethical problem deals with these other children of the surrogate. They see that their mother is going to have another brother or sister for them. Then they see their mother go to the hospital, and return without their other sibling (Jadva et.al. 2003). The surrogate must see past the initial financial gain, and see what stress she may be placing on her own family, for the sake of another

1.1.3 Labor employment issues

The relationship that the surrogate mother has with her employers has been scrutinized by several human rights organizations, who argue that it is morally unjust for an employer to have control over the body of their employee. Many contracts emphasize that surrogate mother must exercise, keep away from drugs, alcohol, and smoking, and eat a healthy balanced diet in order to further the development of a healthy baby. Many surrogate mothers do not care the healthy of their child. Unfortunately, some surrogate mothers are force to help the baby be born healthy, and non-addicted to drugs (Vadeboncoeur 1995). For example, an intended mother will control the foods and drinks that the surrogate mother will have to eat. This lead to a discussion for us: Do the intended mother has the right to control over what should the surrogate mother eat? Besides that, the intended mother will also ask the surrogate mother to attend some pre-giving-birth courses such as yoga class and music class. Other than that, they will limit the activities of the surrogate mother. A lot of conflicts may be provoked between the surrogate mother and the intended parents concerning ways of managing the pregnancy, as many couples would like to control the whole process, while the carrier might have a lot of her own thoughts how to behave during the pregnancy period. This creates a human rights issue between the couple and the surrogate mother. This will create an emotional problem for the surrogate mothers. They cannot do activities that they like and their lives are totally controlled.

1.1.4 Health risk

The surrogate mother is facing various risks to her health by getting pregnant. In other words, in any pregnancy there are risks to the woman’s life and health. The medical problems that will be faced by the surrogate mothers are namely high blood pressure, diabetes, bleeding or premature labor. They may result in the need for medical treatments such as drugs. In addition, problems during the pregnancy may require an operative delivery of the child. All these problems may affect the health and quality of life of the surrogate mother during the pregnancy (Law Reform Commission 1988).

1.1.5 Risk of exploitation

The surrogate mother is at risk of exploitation in commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is a service of providing children to other couples. The commercial surrogate mother is often paid for their services. The financial problem is often used as a reason to become a surrogate mother. Surrogacy may exploit women from a more economically disadvantaged background, such that women may enter into a surrogacy arrangement because of financial hardship without being fully aware of the potential risks (Jadva et.al 2003). The median fee paid to surrogates by the couple wanting a child is $10,000. In other words, the surrogate mother is paid approximately $1.33 per hour calculated over the duration of the pregnancy. Subsequently, the average income of a surrogate being around $25,000 per annum, the possibility of a large sum of $10,000 seems very tempting (Vadeboncoeur 1995).

If surrogacy agents become legal and mainstream, it is very likely that poorer women the one from third-world countries would be very willingly to become one. They are more likely to distance themselves from the children they give birth to, and their financial condition will ensure the surrogacy contracts will not be challenged in court. Moreover, the price paid to surrogates could be reduced, as poor women are just trying to survive and support their own families, and thus may agree to any sum of payment (Jones 2002). Bioethicists and sociologists found that the Indian surrogate mothers are badly paid. Additionally, they are working as a surrogate mother in country with a high percentage of maternal death (The Sun Herald 2008). This is due to the reason that the medical facilities for surrogacy provided are not easy to get access. Moreover, many of them are also holding the traditional principles and superstitions which is a barrier for them to have medical check-up. Critics say the couples are exploiting poor women in India - a country with an alarmingly high maternal death rate - by hiring them at a low cost to undergo the hardship, pain and risks of labor.

1.1.6 Risk to blame

If the baby is born with physical disabilities, how should the couple and the clinic deal with this problem? As we know, internal factors such as surrogate mother’s habit and external factors like environment factors will determine the health of the baby. There are the possibilities that some of the couple might refuse to take care of the problem baby and they will blame the clinic or the surrogate mother herself. Besides that, if the surrogate mother is unable to give birth successfully, we might not have idea on how are they going to tackle the problem. This controversial issue will lead to an unhappy situation that requires solving this problem in the court that wastes of money and time.

1.2 Problems to infertile couple and child

1.2.1 Risk to couple

There are several risks to be considered here. The contracting couples have the risks of being ridiculed, or unsupported, by their family, who do not feel the pain that the couples are going through by not being able to have the children that they want to have together, and even add to the pain. The couple also spent a lot of money and time in order to go through the procedures involved with acquiring a surrogate mother and proceeding through the use of a clinic. The couple must also be able to produce the sperm or eggs, if the case may be. For example, in the case of egg harvesting, the women are putting many health risks, such as that of abdominal infection. As a serious result, it may cause death to the women. If the embryo is implanted outside the mother body, instead of artificial inject semen into female reproductive system, the child is put at a higher risk of incomplete birth (Vadeboncoeur 1995).

The couple must risk the emotional or financial pressures if the surrogate mother refuses to hand over the child or delay the delivery date. They also face a high possibility that the arrangement is not carried out, and the child is not received by them when the child is born (Law Reform Commission 1988).

1.2.2 Risk in child emotional development

Once the child is born, the nurturing parents face some problems like how to tell this child about how it was born. Even for parents of the normal method of conceiving, bearing, and nurturing a child, the issue of parental sex and the birth of a child are difficult and embarrass to say. Maybe the most difficult to explain to a child is the fact that his nurturing parents paid for the ability to raise him or her. Another problem to think about is the case of the parents who are unable to conceive because of their age, and so go about gaining a child through surrogacy. It is difficult for some children to accept the fact of being surrogate children. The child then must spend much of their life dealing with his parent's increasing age, mentality, and medical needs (Vadeboncoeur 1995). As the child grows up, anxiety about the identity of the surrogate mother might be experienced by the child. The members of the Chalmers Committee in Tasmania called attention to the risk of serious harm to the child who later finds out that he or she was born as a result of a surrogate motherhood arrangement (Law Reform Commission 1988).

1.2.3 Marriage Problem

Surrogacy will also lead a problem to a marriage. Introducing a third party into the couple's reproductive process may ultimately undermine the couple's relationship altogether (Dorff 1998). The infertile woman will be put under tremendous stress with the decision of having a baby through the means of surrogacy. First, there is a need for her to have a child, which may be a product of social conditioning. Next, there is the pressure placed on her by her husband’s need to be the biological father of the child. In combination these pressures might caused arguments between the couple, which may potentially lead to a break down of their marriage.