RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759774
Commercial Surrogacy: An Overview
Gestação de substituição comercial: Uma visão global
Abstract
Objective Surrogacy is the process in which a woman carries and delivers a baby to other person or couple, known as intended parents. When carriers are paid for surrogacy, this is known as commercial surrogacy. The objective of the present work is to review the legal, ethical, social, and cultural aspects of commercial surrogacy, as well as the current panorama worldwide.
Methods This is a review of the literature published in the 21st century on commercial surrogacy.
Results A total of 248 articles were included as the core of the present review. The demand for surrogate treatments by women without uterus or with important uterine disorders, single men and same-sex male couples is constantly increasing worldwide. This reproductive treatment has important ethical dilemmas. In addition, legislation defers widely worldwide and is in constant change. Therefore, patients look more and more for treatments abroad, which can lead to important legal problems between countries with different laws. Commercial surrogacy is practiced in several countries, in most of which there is no specific legislation. Some countries have taken restrictive measures against this technique because of reports of exploitation of carriers.
Conclusion Commercial surrogacy is a common practice, despite important ethical and legal dilemmas. As a consequence of diverse national legislations, patients frequently resort to international commercial surrogacy programs. As of today, there is no standard international legal context, and this practice remains largely unregulated.
Resumo
Objetivo A gestação de substituição é o processo no qual uma mulher engravida e entrega um bebê a outra pessoa ou casal, conhecidos como pais pretendidos. Quando as gestantes são pagas, isto é conhecido como gestação de substituição comercial. O objetivo do presente trabalho é rever os aspectos legais, éticos, sociais e culturais da gestação de substituição comercial, bem como o panorama atual em todo o mundo.
Métodos Trata-se de uma revisão da literatura publicada no século XXI sobre a gestação de substituição comercial.
Resultados Um total de 248 artigos foi incluído nesta revisão. A demanda por tratamentos com gestação de substituição por mulheres sem útero ou com distúrbios uterinos importantes, homens solteiros e casais masculinos está aumentando constantemente em todo o mundo. Este tratamento reprodutivo tem dilemas éticos importantes. Além disso, a legislação é amplamente adiada em todo o mundo e está em constante mudança. Portanto, os pacientes procuram cada vez mais por tratamentos no exterior, o que pode levar a importantes problemas legais entre países com leis diferentes. A gestação de substituição comercial é praticada em vários países, na maioria dos quais não há legislação específica. Alguns países tomaram medidas restritivas contra esta técnica por causa de relatos de exploração destas mulheres.
Conclusão A gestação de substituição comercial é uma prática comum, apesar de importantes dilemas éticos e legais. Como consequência de diversas legislações nacionais, os pacientes frequentemente recorrem a programas de gestação de substituição comercial internacionais. Atualmente, não existe um contexto jurídico internacional padrão e esta prática permanece em grande parte não regulamentada.
Palavras-chave
bioética - fertilização em vitro - legislação médica - turismo médico - gestação de substituiçãoPublikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 16. Mai 2022
Angenommen: 25. August 2022
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. Dezember 2022
© 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
References
- 1 Joseph RA, Rafanello AM, Morris CJ, Fleming KF. Surrogacy: Pathway to Parenthood. Neonatal Netw 2018; 37 (01) 19-23
- 2 Hobzová H. Surrogate motherhood: the contradicitons in terminology. Ceska Gynekol 2018; 83 (06) 464-467
- 3 Klock SC, Lindheim SR. Gestational surrogacy: medical, psychosocial, and legal considerations. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (05) 889-891
- 4 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org, Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Consideration of the gestational carrier: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (06) 1017-1021
- 5 Deharo G, Madanamoothoo A. Is international surrogacy the lark's glimmer?: When Covid-19 reveals the legal insecurity of surrogacy use. Eur J Health Law 2020; 27 (04) 345-367
- 6 Cui L, Li L, Adashi EY, Chen ZJ. Surrogacy: a family-building option in search of legitimacy. BJOG 2016; 123 (Suppl. 03) 65-68
- 7 Beeson D, Darnovsky M, Lippman A. What's in a name? Variations in terminology of third-party reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31 (06) 805-814
- 8 Ha JO. Current issues on a standard for surrogate pregnancy procedures. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2012; 39 (04) 138-143
- 9 Swain ME, Rogerson CJ. Addressing legal issues in cross-border gestational surrogacy: current topics and trends. Fertil Steril 2021; 115 (02) 268-273
- 10 Swanson K, Letourneau JM, Kuppermann M, Einerson BD. Reproductive travel of intended parents for delivery of gestational carrier pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (03) 591-596
- 11 Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System (NASS) Group. Trends and outcomes of gestational surrogacy in the United States. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (02) 435-442.e2
- 12 White PM. Canada's surrogacy landscape is changing: should Canadians care?. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017; 39 (11) 1046-1048
- 13 Howard S. Taming the international commercial surrogacy industry. BMJ 2014; 349: g6334
- 14 Hague Conference on Private International Law. Permanent Bureau. A preliminary report on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements. The Hague: Permanente Bureau; 2012
- 15 Tsai S, Shaia K, Woodward JT, Sun MY, Muasher SJ. Surrogacy laws in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (03) 717-722
- 16 Knoche JW. Health concerns and ethical considerations regarding international surrogacy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 126 (02) 183-186
- 17 Gracias CS. Reproductive surrogacy in Ireland - an ethical and legal context. Ir J Med Sci 2021; 190 (03) 1063-1070
- 18 Sifris R. Commercial surrogacy and the human right to autonomy. J Law Med 2015; 23 (02) 365-377
- 19 Wade K. Reconceptualising the interest in knowing one's origins: a case for mandatory disclosure. Med Law Rev 2020; 28 (04) 731-752
- 20 Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9 (05) 483-491
- 21 Golboni F, Jalali A, Dinmohammadi M, Taghizadeh Z, Nouri P, Salahsoor MR. Iranian model of decision making to use surrogacy: A grounded theory Study. Health Care Women Int 2020; 41 (07) 853-865
- 22 MacCallum F, Lycett E, Murray C, Jadva V, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experience of commissioning couples. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (06) 1334-1342
- 23 Rozée V, Unisa S, de La Rochebrochard E. The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the new law of 2018. BMC Womens Health 2020; 20 (01) 234
- 24 Riddle MP. The psychological impact of surrogacy on the families of gestational surrogates: implications for clinical practice. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 43 (02) 122-127
- 25 Hodson N, Townley L, Earp BD. Removing harmful options: The law and ethics of international commercial surrogacy. Med Law Rev 2019; 27 (04) 597-622
- 26 Bagcchi S. Mothers who turn to surrogacy to support their families face ostracism, study shows. BMJ 2014; 348: g3257
- 27 Agnafors M. The harm argument against surrogacy revisited: two versions not to forget. Med Health Care Philos 2014; 17 (03) 357-363
- 28 Yee S, Hemalal S, Librach CL. “Not my child to give away”: A qualitative analysis of gestational surrogates' experiences. Women Birth 2020; 33 (03) e256-e265
- 29 Lamba N, Jadva V, Kadam K, Golombok S. The psychological well-being and prenatal bonding of gestational surrogates. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (04) 646-653
- 30 Jadva V, Murray C, Lycett E, MacCallum F, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (10) 2196-2204
- 31 Nisand I. Grossesse pour autrui : pour le cas par cas. Gynécol Obstét Fertil 2010; 38 (03) 226-229
- 32 Mitra P. Invisible women in reproductive technologies: Critical reflections. Indian J Med Ethics 2018; 3 (02) 113-119
- 33 Montanari Vergallo G, Marinelli E, di Luca NM, Zaami S. Gamete donation: are children entitled to know their genetic origins? a comparison of opposing views. The Italian state of affairs. Eur J Health Law 2018; 25 (03) 322-337
- 34 Jadva V. Postdelivery adjustment of gestational carriers, intended parents, and their children. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (05) 903-907
- 35 Zadeh S, Ilioi EC, Jadva V, Golombok S. The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (06) 1099-1106
- 36 Montanari Vergallo G. A child of two mothers: what about the father? Italian overview. Acta Biomed 2019; 90 (03) 319-325
- 37 Pennings G. Evaluating the welfare of the child in same-sex families. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (07) 1609-1615
- 38 Mackenzie SC, Wickins-Drazilova D, Wickins J. The ethics of fertility treatment for same-sex male couples: Considerations for a modern fertility clinic. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 244: 71-75
- 39 Smith MK, Willmott L, Trowse P, White B. Back to the future: prohibiting surrogacy for singles, same-sex and shorter-term heterosexual couples in Queensland. J Law Med 2013; 20 (03) 638-654
- 40 Ekberg ME. Ethical, legal and social issues to consider when designing a surrogacy law. J Law Med 2014; 21 (03) 728-738
- 41 Markens S. The global reproductive health market: U.S. media framings and public discourses about transnational surrogacy. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74 (11) 1745-1753
- 42 Aznar J, Martínez Peris M. Gestational surrogacy: current view. Linacre Q 2019; 86 (01) 56-67
- 43 Wade K. The regulation of surrogacy: a children's rights perspective. Child Fam Law Q 2017; 29 (02) 113-131
- 44 Sharma RS. Social, ethical, medical & legal aspects of surrogacy: an Indian scenario. Indian J Med Res 2014; 140 (Suppl): S13-S16
- 45 Frydman R. Contre la grossesse pour autrui (GPA). Gynécol Obstét Fertil 2010; 38 (03) 224-225
- 46 Makinde OA, Olaleye O, Makinde OO, Huntley SS, Brown B. Baby factories in Nigeria: starting the discussion toward a national prevention policy. Trauma Violence Abuse 2017; 18 (01) 98-105
- 47 Overall C. Reproductive ‘surrogacy’ and parental licensing. Bioethics 2015; 29 (05) 353-361
- 48 Qadeer I. The ART of marketing babies. Indian J Med Ethics 2010; 7 (04) 209-215
- 49 Parks JA. Care ethics and the global practice of commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 2010; 24 (07) 333-340
- 50 Hanna JK. Revisiting child-based objections to commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 2010; 24 (07) 341-347
- 51 Blazier J, Janssens R. Regulating the international surrogacy market:the ethics of commercial surrogacy in the Netherlands and India. Med Health Care Philos 2020; 23 (04) 621-630
- 52 Kumar P, Inder D, Sharma N. Anu. Surrogacy and women's right to health in India: issues and perspective. Indian J Public Health 2013; 57 (02) 65-70
- 53 Shetty P. India's unregulated surrogacy industry. Lancet 2012; 380 (9854): 1633-1634
- 54 Deonandan R, Green S, van Beinum A. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics 2012; 38 (12) 742-745
- 55 Yeshua-Katz D, Khvorostianov N. “Only my husband and my doctor know. And you, girls”: online discussions of stigma coping strategies for Russian surrogate mothers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (21) 11325
- 56 Trowse P, Cooper D. The agony and the ecstasy: sacrifice and pain for financial gain: have Indian surrogate mothers been exploited by their intended parents in commercial surrogacy arrangements?. J Law Med 2018; 25 (02) 388-407
- 57 Albert MM. La explotación reproductiva de mujeres y el mito de la subrogación altruista: una mirada global al fenómeno de la gestación por sustitución. Cuad Bioet 2017; 28 (93) 177-197
- 58 Saravanan S. Global justice, capabilities approach and commercial surrogacy in India. Med Health Care Philos 2015; 18 (03) 295-307
- 59 Damelio J, Sorensen K. Enhancing autonomy in paid surrogacy. Bioethics 2008; 22 (05) 269-277
- 60 Naik Africawala A, Kapadia S. Women's control over decision to participate in surrogacy. J Bioeth Inq 2019; 16 (04) 501-514
- 61 Tanderup M, Reddy S, Patel T, Nielsen BB. Reproductive ethics in commercial surrogacy: decision-making in IVF clinics in New Delhi, India. J Bioeth Inq 2015; 12 (03) 491-501
- 62 Tanderup M, Reddy S, Patel T, Nielsen BB. Informed consent in medical decision-making in commercial gestational surrogacy: a mixed methods study in New Delhi, India. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94 (05) 465-472
- 63 Yanagihara Y. Reconstructing feminist perspectives of women's bodies using a globalized view: The changing surrogacy market in Japan. Bioethics 2020; 34 (06) 570-577
- 64 Patrone T. Is paid surrogacy a form of reproductive prostitution? A kantian perspective. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2018; 27 (01) 109-122
- 65 Beier K, Wöhlke S. An ethical comparison of living kidney donation and surrogacy: understanding the relational dimension. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2019; 14 (01) 13
- 66 McCartney C. Uterine surrogacy is morally equivalent to selling a kidney. South Med J 2019; 112 (01) 32-32
- 67 Wilkinson S. Exploitation in international paid surrogacy arrangements. J Appl Philos 2016; 33 (02) 125-145
- 68 Stuhmcke A. The regulation of commercial surrogacy: The wrong answers to the wrong questions. J Law Med 2015; 23 (02) 333-345
- 69 Makinde OA, Makinde OO, Olaleye O, Brown B, Odimegwu CO. Baby factories taint surrogacy in Nigeria. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 32 (01) 6-8
- 70 Mahajan T. (Mis)regulation–the case of commercial surrogacy. Indian J Med Ethics 2015; 12 (01) 38-41
- 71 Kirby J. Transnational gestational surrogacy: does it have to be exploitative?. Am J Bioeth 2014; 14 (05) 24-32
- 72 Gaffney P. Why the “widespread agreement” is wrong: contesting the non-harm arguments for the prohibition of full commercial surrogacy. J Law Med 2009; 17 (02) 280-296
- 73 Osberg B. For your first born child: an ethical defense of the exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Penn Bioeth J 2006; 2 (02) 42-45
- 74 Wilkinson S. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 2003; 17 (02) 169-187
- 75 Ferolino AP, Camposo MAD, Estaño KCL, Tacbobo JMR. Mothers for others: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of gestational surrogates' child relinquishment experiences. J Patient Exp 2020; 7 (06) 1336-1340
- 76 Attawet J, Wang A, Sullivan E. ‘Womb for work’ experiences of Thai women and gestational surrogacy practice in Thailand. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2021; •••: 1-12
- 77 Rozée V, Unisa S, de La Rochebrochard E. Sociodemographic characteristics of 96 Indian surrogates: Are they disadvantaged compared with the general population?. PLoS One 2019; 14 (03) e0214097
- 78 Berend Z. The social context for surrogates' motivations and satisfaction. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 29 (04) 399-401
- 79 Smietana M, Rudrappa S, Weis C. Moral frameworks of commercial surrogacy within the US, India and Russia. Sex Reprod Health Matters 2021; 29 (01) 1-17
- 80 Golboni F, Jalali A, Dinmohammadi M, Taghizadeh Z, Nouri P, Salahsoor MR. Factors affecting on couple's decisions to use surrogacy: a qualitative study. J Family Reprod Health 2019; 13 (04) 201-208
- 81 Hammarberg K, Stafford-Bell M, Everingham S. Intended parents' motivations and information and support needs when seeking extraterritorial compensated surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31 (05) 689-696
- 82 Henrion R. La gestation pour autrui pour les personnes de même sexe. Rev Prat 2014; 64 (10) 1340-1341
- 83 Jacobson H. A limited market: the recruitment of gay men as surrogacy clients by the infertility industry in the USA. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2018; 7: 14-23
- 84 van Beers B, Bosch L. A revolution by stealth: a legal-ethical analysis of the rise of pre-conception authorization of surrogacy agreements. New Bioeth 2020; 26 (04) 351-371
- 85 Jackson E, Millbank J, Karpin I, Stuhmcke A. Learning from cross-border reproduction. Med Law Rev 2017; 25 (01) 23-46
- 86 Luk J, Petrozza JC. Evaluation of compliance and range of fees among American Society for Reproductive Medicine-listed egg donor and surrogacy agencies. J Reprod Med 2008; 53 (11) 847-852
- 87 Gunnarsson Payne J, Korolczuk E, Mezinska S. Surrogacy relationships: a critical interpretative review. Ups J Med Sci 2020; 125 (02) 183-191
- 88 Saxena P, Mishra A, Malik S. Surrogacy: ethical and legal issues. Indian J Community Med 2012; 37 (04) 211-213
- 89 Ramskold LA, Posner MP. Commercial surrogacy: how provisions of monetary remuneration and powers of international law can prevent exploitation of gestational surrogates. J Med Ethics 2013; 39 (06) 397-402
- 90 Humbyrd C. Fair trade international surrogacy. Developing World Bioeth 2009; 9 (03) 111-118
- 91 Shenfield F, Pennings G, Cohen J, Devroey P, de Wert G, Tarlatzis B. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 10: surrogacy. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (10) 2705-2707
- 92 Kim HH. Selecting the optimal gestational carrier: medical, reproductive, and ethical considerations. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (05) 892-896
- 93 Milliez J. FIGO Committee for Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health. Surrogacy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2008; 102 (03) 312-313
- 94 ACOG Committee Opinion No. 660 Summary: family building through gestational surrogacy. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (03) 620-621
- 95 Saito Y, Matsuo H. Survey of Japanese infertile couples' attitudes toward surrogacy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 30 (03) 156-161
- 96 Jadva V, Gamble N, Prosser H, Imrie S. Parents' relationship with their surrogate in cross-border and domestic surrogacy arrangements: comparisons by sexual orientation and location. Fertil Steril 2019; 111 (03) 562-570
- 97 Stuvøy I. Troublesome reproduction: surrogacy under scrutiny. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2018; 7: 33-43
- 98 Van Zyl L, Walker R. Beyond altruistic and commercial contract motherhood: the professional model. Bioethics 2013; 27 (07) 373-381
- 99 Swanson K, Letourneau JM, Kuppermann M, Einerson BD. Obstetric morbidity in gestational carrier pregnancies: a population-based study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2021; 38 (01) 177-183
- 100 Swanson K, Ayala NK, Barnes RB, Desai N, Miller M, Yee LM. Understanding gestational surrogacy in the United States: a primer for obstetricians and gynecologists. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (04) 330-337
- 101 Peters HE, Schats R, Verhoeven MO, Mijatovic V, de Groot CJM, Sandberg JL. et al. Gestational surrogacy: results of 10 years of experience in the Netherlands. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 37 (06) 725-731
- 102 Rumpik D, Rumpikova T, Pohanka M, Ventruba P, Belaskova S. Gestational surrogacy in the Czech Republic. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2019; 163 (02) 155-160
- 103 Murugappan G, Farland LV, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Anchan RM, Ginsburg ES. Gestational carrier in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2018; 109 (03) 420-428
- 104 Phillips AM, Magann EF, Whittington JR, Whitcombe DD, Sandlin AT. Surrogacy and Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2019; 74 (09) 539-545
- 105 Söderström-Anttila V, Blomqvist T, Foudila T. et al. Experience of in vitro fertilization surrogacy in Finland. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81 (08) 747-752
- 106 Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Montebruno P. Incidence of surrogacy in the USA and Israel and implications on women's health: a quantitative comparison. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36 (12) 2459-2469
- 107 Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Tsioulou P, Rapani A, Anifandis G, Pantou A. et al. Risks in surrogacy considering the embryo: from the preimplantation to the gestational and neonatal period. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 6287507
- 108 White PM. Hidden from view: Canadian gestational surrogacy practices and outcomes, 2001-2012. Reprod Health Matters 2016; 24 (47) 205-217
- 109 Wang AY, Dill SK, Bowman M, Sullivan EA. Gestational surrogacy in Australia 2004-2011: treatment, pregnancy and birth outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 56 (03) 255-259
- 110 Hovav A. Cutting out the surrogate: Caesarean sections in the Mexican surrogacy industry. Soc Sci Med 2020; 256: 113063
- 111 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Consideration of the gestational carrier: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (07) 1838-1841
- 112 Atreya A, Kanchan T. The ethically challenging trade of forced surrogacy in Nepal. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018; 140 (02) 254-255
- 113 Goswami L, Larmar SA, Boddy J. The impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on surrogacy in India: The role of social work. Qual Soc Work: Res Pract 2021; 20 (1-2): 472-478
- 114 Yau A, Friedlander RL, Petrini A, Holt MC, White II DE, Shin J. et al. Medical and mental health implications of gestational surrogacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 225 (03) 264-269
- 115 Kim HH. Family building by same-sex male couples via gestational surrogacy. Semin Reprod Med 2017; 35 (05) 408-414
- 116 Riddle MP. Psychological assessment of gestational carrier candidates: current approaches, challenges, and future considerations. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (05) 897-902
- 117 Galbraith M, McLachlan HV, Swales JK. Commercial agencies and surrogate motherhood: a transaction cost approach. Health Care Anal 2005; 13 (01) 11-31
- 118 Frankford DM, Bennington LK, Ryan JG. Womb out sourcing: commercial surrogacy in India. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2015; 40 (05) 284-290 , quiz E19–E20. Doi: 10.1097/NMC.0000000000000163
- 119 Deonandan R, Loncar M, Rahman P, Omar S. Measuring reproductive tourism through an analysis of Indian ART clinic Websites. Int J Gen Med 2012; 5: 763-773
- 120 Arvidsson A, Johnsdotter S, Essén B. Views of Swedish commissioning parents relating to the exploitation discourse in using transnational surrogacy. PLoS One 2015; 10 (05) e0126518
- 121 Millbank J. The Role of professional facilitators in cross-border assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2018; 6: 60-71
- 122 Walker N, Houlahan L, Johnston C, Kelleher L. International surrogacy: be prudent and well informed. Aust Nurs Midwifery J 2013; 21 (05) 17
- 123 Gezinski LB, Karandikar S, Levitt A, Ghaffarian R. “We want to offer you peace of mind”: Marketing of transnational commercial surrogacy services to intended parents. Health Mark Q 2017; 34 (04) 302-314
- 124 Hunt J. Cross border treatment for infertility: the counselling perspective in the UK. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2013; 16 (01) 64-67
- 125 Davies T. Cross-border reproductive care: quality and safety challenges for the regulator. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (01) e20-e22
- 126 Henrion R, Bergoignan-Esper C. [Gestational surrogacy]. Bull Acad Natl Med 2009; 193 (03) 583-618
- 127 Gamble N. Crossing the line: the legal and ethical problems of foreign surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19 (02) 151-152
- 128 Armour KL. An overview of surrogacy around the world: trends, questions and ethical issues. Nurs Womens Health 2012; 16 (03) 231-236
- 129 James S, Chilvers R, Havemann D, Phelps JY. Avoiding legal pitfalls in surrogacy arrangements. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (07) 862-867
- 130 Crockin SL, Edmonds MA, Altman A. Legal principles and essential surrogacy cases every practitioner should know. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (05) 908-915
- 131 Lamm E. Argumentos para la necesaria regulación de la gestación por sustitución. Gac Sanit 2017; 31 (06) 539-540
- 132 Sifris A. The Family Courts and parentage of children conceived through overseas commercial surrogacy arrangements: A child-centred approach. J Law Med 2015; 23 (02) 396-412
- 133 Brandão P, Ceschin N, Gómez VH. The pathway of female couples in a fertility clinic. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2022; 44 (07) 660-666
- 134 Chang CL. Surrogate motherhood. Formos J Med Humanit 2004; 5 (12) 48-62
- 135 Hague Conference on Private International Law. A study of legal parentage and the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements. The Hague; 2014
- 136 Johnson KM. Contingent maternities? Maternal claims-making in third party reproduction. Sociol Health Illn 2017; 39 (08) 1349-1364
- 137 Thompson M, Plater D. An Issue that is not Going Away: Recent Developments in Surrogacy in South Australia. J Bioeth Inq 2019; 16 (04) 477-481
- 138 Urquiza MF, Carretero I, Quaini FM, Inciarte F, Pasqualini RA, Pasqualini RS. Subrogación uterina. Aspectos médicos y jurídicos del primer caso con sustento legal en la Argentina. Medicina (B Aires) 2014; 74 (03) 233-238
- 139 Kalantry S. Regulating markets for gestational care: comparative perspectives on surrogacy in the United States and India. Cornell J Law Public Policy 2018; 27 (03) 685-715
- 140 Purshouse C, Bracegirdle K. The problem of unenforceable surrogacy contracts: can unjust enrichment provide a solution?. Med Law Rev 2018; 26 (04) 557-584
- 141 Oultram S. One mum too few: maternal status in host surrogate motherhood arrangements. J Med Ethics 2015; 41 (06) 470-473
- 142 Latham SR. The United Kingdom revisits its surrogacy law. Hastings Cent Rep 2020; 50 (01) 6-7
- 143 Igareda González N. Legal and ethical issues in cross-border gestational surrogacy. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (05) 916-919
- 144 Bassan S. Different but same: a call for a joint pro-active regulation of cross-border egg and surrogacy markets. Health Matrix 2018; 28 (01) 323-374
- 145 Couture V, Drouin R, Moutquin JM, Monnier P, Bouffard C. Reproductive outsourcing: an empirical ethics account of cross-border reproductive care in Canada. J Med Ethics 2019; 45 (01) 41-47
- 146 Lozanski K. Transnational surrogacy: Canada's contradictions. Soc Sci Med 2015; 124: 383-390
- 147 Nelson E. Global trade and assisted reproductive technologies: regulatory challenges in international surrogacy. J Law Med Ethics 2013; 41 (01) 240-253
- 148 Deomampo D. Defining parents, making citizens: nationality and citizenship in transnational surrogacy. Med Anthropol 2015; 34 (03) 210-225
- 149 Sifris R, Sifris A. Parentage, surrogacy and the perplexing state of australian law: a missed opportunity. J Law Med 2019; 27 (02) 369-386
- 150 Merchant J. Les nouvelles technologies de reproduction - État des lieux aux États-Unis. Med Sci (Paris) 2019; 35 (03) 253-257
- 151 Arvidsson A, Johnsdotter S, Emmelin M, Essén B. Being questioned as parents: An interview study with Swedish commissioning parents using transnational surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2018; 8: 23-31
- 152 Courduriès J. At the nation's doorstep: the fate of children in France born via surrogacy. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2018; 7: 47-54
- 153 Margaria A. Parenthood and cross-border surrogacy: what is ‘new’? The ECtHR's first advisory opinion. Med Law Rev 2020; 28 (02) 412-425
- 154 Marinelli S. Medically-assisted procreation and the rise of off-center, new types of “parenthood”: it is incumbent upon lawmakers to intervene. Clin Ter 2019; 170 (04) e241-e244
- 155 Birenbaum-Carmeli D. Thirty-five years of assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2016; 2: 16-23
- 156 Whittaker A, Speier A. “Cycling overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol 2010; 29 (04) 363-383
- 157 Piersanti V, Consalvo F, Signore F, Del Rio A, Zaami S. Surrogacy and “procreative tourism”. What does the future hold from the ethical and legal perspectives?. Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57 (01) 47
- 158 Jacobson H. Cross-border reproductive care in the USA: Who comes, why do they come, what do they purchase?. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2020; 11: 42-47
- 159 Zannettino L, Lines L, Grant J, de Lacey SL. Untangling the threads: stakeholder perspectives of the legal and ethical issues involved in preparing Australian consumers for commercial surrogacy overseas. J Law Med 2019; 27 (01) 94-107
- 160 Whittaker A, Inhorn MC, Shenfield F. Globalised quests for assisted conception: Reproductive travel for infertility and involuntary childlessness. Glob Public Health 2019; 14 (12) 1669-1688
- 161 Salama M, Isachenko V, Isachenko E, Rahimi G, Mallmann P, Westphal LM. et al. Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): a growing global phenomenon with multidimensional implications (a systematic and critical review). J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35 (07) 1277-1288
- 162 Gerrits T. Reproductive travel to Ghana: testimonies, transnational relationships, and stratified reproduction. Med Anthropol 2018; 37 (02) 131-144
- 163 Shenfield F, de Mouzon J, Pennings G, Ferraretti AP, Nyboe Andersen A, de Wert G. et al; ESHRE Taskforce on Cross Border Reproductive Care. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (06) 1361-1368
- 164 Deonandan R. Recent trends in reproductive tourism and international surrogacy: ethical considerations and challenges for policy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2015; 8: 111-119
- 165 Pérez Navarro P. Surrogacy wars: notes for a radical theory of the politics of reproduction. J Homosex 2020; 67 (05) 577-599
- 166 König A, Jacobson H. Reprowebs: a conceptual approach to elasticity and change in the global assisted reproduction industry. Biosocieties 2021; •••: 1-23
- 167 Gürtin ZB. Banning reproductive travel: Turkey's ART legislation and third-party assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 23 (05) 555-564
- 168 O'Callaghan E. Surrogacy reform and its impact on the child's right to birth registration. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2021; 13: 46-50
- 169 Hibino Y. Non-commercial surrogacy in Thailand: ethical, legal, and social implications in local and global contexts. Asian Bioeth Rev 2020; 12 (02) 135-147
- 170 Raposo VL. The new Portuguese law on surrogacy - The story of how a promising law does not really regulate surrogacy arrangements. JBRA Assist Reprod 2017; 21 (03) 230-239
- 171 Nakash A, Herdiman J. Surrogacy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007; 27 (03) 246-251
- 172 Whittaker A. From ‘Mung Ming’ to ‘Baby Gammy’: a local history of assisted reproduction in Thailand. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2016; 2: 71-78
- 173 Attawet J. Mapping transnational commercial surrogacy arrangements in South and Southeast Asia. Med Leg J 2021; 89 (02) 128-132
- 174 Chaudhuri M. New Indian visa rules exclude single people and gay couples from child surrogacy. BMJ 2013; 346: f475
- 175 Alabi OJ. Perceptions of surrogacy within the Yoruba socio-cultural context of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. F1000 Res 2020; 9: 103
- 176 Ahmad N. An international view of surgically assisted conception and surrogacy tourism. Med Leg J 2011; 79 (Pt 4): 135-145
- 177 Nazari Tavakkoli S. Personhood and moral status of the embryo: it's effect on validity of surrogacy contract revocation according to Shia jurisprudence perspective. Int J Fertil Steril 2017; 11 (03) 226-233
- 178 Bokek-Cohen Y, Tarabeih M. What do Sunni Muslims think about religiously forbidden reproductive options?. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2021; •••: 1-12 ; [ ahead of print ]
- 179 Aramesh K. Iran's experience with surrogate motherhood: an Islamic view and ethical concerns. J Med Ethics 2009; 35 (05) 320-322
- 180 Muaygil RA. Reexamining the prohibition of gestational surrogacy in Sunni Islam. Developing World Bioeth 2017; 17 (02) 112-120
- 181 Saadeh R, Abdulrahim N, Alfaqih M, Khader Y. Attitude of Jordanian health care workers toward surrogacy. J Family Reprod Health 2020; 14 (01) 5-13
- 182 Mustafa AG, Alzoubi KH, Khabour OF, Alfaqih MA. Perspectives and attitudes of Jordanian medical and paramedical students toward surrogate pregnancy. Int J Womens Health 2018; 10: 617-622
- 183 Salehi K, Shakour M, Pashaei Sabet F, Alizadeh S. The opinion of Iranian students about the society's perception on using surrogacy as an infertility treatment in the future community. Sex Reprod Healthc 2015; 6 (01) 19-22
- 184 Wolowelsky JB, Grazi RV. Maternal identity for Orthodox Jewish couples using donor oocytes or surrogacy is not well established. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020; 37 (05) 1261
- 185 Deonandan R. Thoughts on the ethics of gestational surrogacy: perspectives from religions, Western liberalism, and comparisons with adoption. J Assist Reprod Genet 2020; 37 (02) 269-279
- 186 Roth AE, Wang SW. Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020; 117 (33) 19792-19798
- 187 Yamamoto N, Hirata T, Izumi G, Nakazawa A, Fukuda S, Neriishi K. et al. A survey of public attitudes towards third-party reproduction in Japan in 2014. PLoS One 2018; 13 (10) e0198499
- 188 Petitfils C, Munoz Sastre MT, Sorum PC, Mullet E. Mapping people's views regarding the acceptability of surrogate motherhood. J Reprod Infant Psychol 2017; 35 (01) 65-76
- 189 de Costa C. Compensated surrogacy - What do Australians think?. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 56 (06) 549-551
- 190 Tremellen K, Everingham S. For love or money? Australian attitudes to financially compensated (commercial) surrogacy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 56 (06) 558-563
- 191 Suzuki K, Hoshi K, Minai J, Yanaihara T, Takeda Y, Yamagata Z. Analysis of national representative opinion surveys concerning gestational surrogacy in Japan. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 126 (01) 39-47
- 192 Stenfelt C, Armuand G, Wånggren K, Skoog Svanberg A, Sydsjö G. Attitudes toward surrogacy among doctors working in reproductive medicine and obstetric care in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97 (09) 1114-1121
- 193 Essén B, Johnsdotter S. Transnational surrogacy - reproductive rights for whom?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94 (05) 449-450
- 194 Bruce-Hickman K, Kirkland L, Ba-Obeid T. The attitudes and knowledge of medical students towards surrogacy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 29 (03) 229-232
- 195 Merchant J. Dead-end in sight: France struggles with surrogacy and cross-border practices. New Bioeth 2020; 26 (04) 314-327
- 196 Creux H, Diaz M, Grynberg M, Papaxanthos-Roche A, Chansel-Debordeaux L, Jimenez C. et al. National survey on the opinions of French specialists in assisted reproductive technologies about social issues impacting the future revision of the French Bioethics laws. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2020; 49 (09) 101902
- 197 Musavi S, Mashhadi Abdolahi H, Ghojazadeh M, Abbasalizad Farhangi M, Nikniaz Z, Nikniaz L. Infertile women's opinion concerning gestational surrogacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health 2020; 49 (08) 1432-1438
- 198 Baykal B, Korkmaz C, Ceyhan ST, Goktolga U, Baser I. Opinions of infertile Turkish women on gamete donation and gestational surrogacy. Fertil Steril 2008; 89 (04) 817-822
- 199 Maftei A, Holman AC. Moral women, immoral technologies? Romanian women's perceptions of assisted reproductive technologies versus adoption. New Bioeth 2020; 26 (03) 253-272
- 200 Kian EM, Riazi H, Bashirian S. Attitudes of Iranian infertile couples toward surrogacy. J Hum Reprod Sci 2014; 7 (01) 47-51
- 201 Rahmani A, Howard F, Sattarzadeh N, Ferguson C, Asgari A, Ebrahimi H. Viewpoints of fertile women on gestational surrogacy in East Azerbaijan Province, Iran. Indian J Med Ethics 2014; 11 (01) 29-33
- 202 Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Levine AD, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM. Differences in the utilization of gestational surrogacy between states in the U.S. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2017; 5: 1-4
- 203 Baylis FO. Canada's prohibition on payment for surrogacy, eggs, and sperm. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018; 40 (12) 1569-1570
- 204 Chen M. Wombs for rent: an examination of prohibitory and regulatory approaches to governing preconception arrangements. Health Law Can 2003; 23 (03) 33-50
- 205 Cabra R, Alduncin A, Cabra JR, Ek LH, Briceño M, Mendoza PB. Gestational surrogacy. Medical, psychological and legal aspects: 9 years of experience in Mexico. Hum Reprod Open 2018; 2018 (01) hox029
- 206 Torres G, Shapiro A, Mackey TK. A review of surrogate motherhood regulation in south American countries: pointing to a need for an international legal framework. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2019; 19 (01) 46
- 207 Gianaroli L, Ferraretti AP, Magli MC, Sgargi S. Current regulatory arrangements for assisted conception treatment in European countries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 207: 211-213
- 208 Calhaz-Jorge C, De Geyter CH, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Montrenko T. et al. Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020 (01) hoz044
- 209 Guerra-Palmero MJ. Contra la llamada gestación subrogada. Derechos humanos y justicia global versus bioética neoliberal. Gac Sanit 2017; 31 (06) 535-538
- 210 März JW. Challenges posed by transnational commercial surrogacy: the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Eur J Health Law 2021; 28 (03) 263-280
- 211 Mulligan A. Identity rights and sensitive ethical questions: the European convention on human rights and the regulation of surrogacy arrangements. Med Law Rev 2018; 26 (03) 449-475
- 212 Griffith R. Surrogacy: why the Law Commission is reviewing current arrangements. Br J Nurs 2018; 27 (03) 164-165
- 213 Ramsey J. Regulating surrogacy–a contravention of human rights?. Med Law Int 2000; 5 (01) 45-64
- 214 Depadt V. La GPA: vers la légalisation?. J Int Bioethique Ethique Sci 2015; 26 (03) 139-151, 267–268
- 215 Foret F, Bolzonar F. How the European Union deals with surrogacy. Birth without borders as a driver of value conflicts?. Gend Technol Dev 2021; 25 (02) 131-145
- 216 de Montgolfier S, Mirkovic A. Maternité pour autrui : du désir d'enfant à l'enfant à tout prix. Med Sci (Paris) 2009; 25 (04) 419-422
- 217 Samuels A. Surrogacy and the law: Possible reforms. Med Leg J 2020; 88 (03) 144-147
- 218 Dickens BM. Paid surrogacy abroad does not violate public policy: UK Supreme Court. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2020; 150 (01) 129-133
- 219 Jadva V, Prosser H, Gamble N. Cross-border and domestic surrogacy in the UK context: an exploration of practical and legal decision-making. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2021; 24 (02) 93-104
- 220 Fenton-Glynn C. Outsourcing ethical dilemmas: regulating international surrogacy arrangements. Med Law Rev 2016; 24 (01) 59-75
- 221 Dyer C. UK should change law on surrogacy to help commissioning parents, report says. BMJ 2015; 351: h6302
- 222 Calvo Caravaca AL, Carrascosa González J. Gestación por sustitución y derecho internacional privado. Más allá del Tribunal Supremo y del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Cuad Derecho Transnac. 2015; 7 (02) 45-113
- 223 Marre D, San Román B, Guerra D. On reproductive work in Spain: transnational adoption, egg donation, surrogacy. Med Anthropol 2018; 37 (02) 158-173
- 224 Stuvøy I. Accounting for the money-made parenthood of transnational surrogacy. Anthropol Med 2018; 25 (03) 280-295
- 225 Pande A. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters?. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 23 (05) 618-625
- 226 Menezes RG, Bhagavath P, Adiga PK. Surrogacy in India. J Forensic Leg Med 2007; 14 (05) 307
- 227 Saran J, Padubidri JR. New laws ban commercial surrogacy in India. Med Leg J 2020; 88 (03) 148-150
- 228 Patel NH, Jadeja YD, Bhadarka HK, Patel MN, Patel NH, Sodagar NR. Insight into different aspects of surrogacy practices. J Hum Reprod Sci 2018; 11 (03) 212-218
- 229 Timms O. Ending commercial surrogacy in India: significance of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016. Indian J Med Ethics 2018; 3 (02) 99-102
- 230 Howard S. Proposed ban on foreigners using Indian surrogacy services sparks protests. BMJ 2015; 351: h5854
- 231 Heng BC. Proposed ethical guidelines and legislative framework for permitting gestational surrogacy in Singapore. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 15 (Suppl. 01) 7-11
- 232 Li HWR, Tank J, Haththotuwa R. Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Updated status of assisted reproductive technology activities in the Asia-Oceania region. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018; 44 (09) 1667-1672
- 233 Stasi A. Protection for children born through assisted reproductive technologies act, B.E. 2558: the changing profile of surrogacy in Thailand. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health 2017; 11: 1179558117749603
- 234 Kisu I, Banno K, Mihara M, Iida T, Yoshimura Y. Current status of surrogacy in Japan and uterine transplantation research. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 158 (02) 135-140
- 235 Chiang WT, Chou TY. A survey of judicial decisions concerning surrogacy disputes in Taiwan. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 57 (04) 517-521
- 236 Tang Q. Surrogacy in China: public opinion, litigations, and court rulings. Asian Soc Sci 2019; 15 (10) 84
- 237 Ding C. Surrogacy litigation in China and beyond. J Law Biosci 2015; 2 (01) 33-55
- 238 Setabouha F. Surrogacy in Australia and Middle Eastern Countries [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/40552161/Surrogacy_in_Australia_and_Middle_Eastern_Countries
- 239 Newson AJ. Compensated transnational surrogacy in Australia: time for a comprehensive review. Med J Aust 2016; 204 (01) 33-35
- 240 van Zyl L, Walker R. Surrogacy, compensation, and legal parentage: against the adoption model. J Bioeth Inq 2015; 12 (03) 383-387
- 241 Stuhmcke A. The criminal act of commercial surrogacy in Australia: a call for review. J Law Med 2011; 18 (03) 601-613
- 242 Kirkman M, Bourne K, Fisher J, Johnson L, Hammarberg K. Gamete donors' expectations and experiences of contact with their donor offspring. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (04) 731-738
- 243 Stuhmcke A. Looking backwards, looking forwards: judicial and legislative trends in the regulation of surrogate motherhood in the UK and Australia. Aust J Fam Law 2004; 18 (01) 13-40
- 244 Scherer L, Curran M, Alvarez M. Expanding Kenya's protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity to maximize coverage of plant diversity. Conserv Biol 2017; 31 (02) 302-310
- 245 Feiglin J, Savulescu J. A new ethical model of commercial surrogacy arrangements for Australia. J Law Med 2018; 25 (04) 919-928
- 246 Millbank J. Rethinking “commercial” surrogacy in Australia. J Bioeth Inq 2015; 12 (03) 477-490
- 247 Shalev C, Moreno A, Eyal H, Leibel M, Schuz R, Eldar-Geva T. Ethics and regulation of inter-country medically assisted reproduction: a call for action. Isr J Health Policy Res 2016; 5: 59
- 248 Kapfhamer J, Van Voorhis B. Gestational surrogacy: a call for safer practice. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (02) 270-271
- 249 Sifris R, Ludlow K, Sifris A. Commercial surrogacy: what role for law in Australia?. J Law Med 2015; 23 (02) 275-296
- 250 Schover LR. Cross-border surrogacy: the case of Baby Gammy highlights the need for global agreement on protections for all parties. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (05) 1258-1259
- 251 Drabiak K, Wegner C, Fredland V, Helft PR. Ethics, law, and commercial surrogacy: a call for uniformity. J Law Med Ethics 2007; 35 (02) 300-309