Surrogacy and Adoption: A Case of Incompatibility

This Article explores the public policy doctrine relating to contracts generally and examines specific public policies set forth in state adoption statutes. The Article concludes that surrogate parenting agreements are 1) incompatible with consent provisions of state adoption statutes, 2) inconsistent with state laws prohibiting baby-selling, and 3) inconsistent with state adoption provisions that provide for a thorough investigation of the adoptive parents in order to ensure that the adoption serves the child\u27s best interests. Accordingly, this Article suggests that as state legislatures debate the best means of addressing the issue of surrogate parenting, they should recognize that surrogate parenting agreements must be restructured to avoid violation of adoption statutes. Surrogate parenting agreements that comply with adoption requirements in all respects except for failure to comply with adoption consent provisions should be voidable. Surrogate parenting agreements that violate baby-selling prohibitions or provisions requiring an investigation of the adoptive parents, however, should be void. Part I of this Article examines the public policy doctrine as it applies to traditional contract law. Part II explores the adoption process and the public policies underlying it. Part III examines the incompatibilities between surrogate parenting agreements and the adoption statutes. Part IV describes the modifications required in the surrogate process in order to make surrogate parenting agreements enforceable and concludes by looking at surrogacy in the context of society at large

Biopower and Precarity: Meeting Embodied Self in the Discourses of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Ukraine

In this thesis I examine the connection between female embodiment and subjectivation, technologization of reproduction and rationalities of government in Ukraine, where assisted reproductive technologies (ART) were introduced not so long ago, but have already become part of the lived experience of numerous women and heated a large debate in society about the nature of women, motherhood, national duty, citizenship and demographic crisis. Moreover, the study I accomplish is necessitated by the growing importance of Ukraine as a colonial market of cheap donor egg cells and as a target of transnational reproductive travel engendered by commercial surrogacy industry. I applied the concepts of biopower and precarity to analyse the subjectivation of women who undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and reveal which power technologies act on their bodies and subjects. In order to give an account of a plurality of meanings that constitute the social reality of ART, I have analysed three discourses, in particular the discourses of the state, medical professionals and IVF patients. To gather the necessary data I have conducted semi-structured interviews with directors of infertility clinics and women who completed IVF and considered articles in professional medical journals, ministerial programmes and orders, legal framework with regard to the use of ART

Stealing What\u27s Free: Exploring Compensation to Body Parts Sources for their Contribution to Profitable Biomedical Research

[Excerpt] “At first blush, donating body parts in the name of science appears to be a beautiful solution to the problem of scarce body parts for research advancements. But a closer investigation reveals an ugly fact: the philanthropic donors—referred to as “Sources” in this article—are subjected to physical and financial exploitation. Sources play a crucial and indispensable role in biotechnology. Without human body parts, most medical discoveries would not have been possible. Handsome profits can be derived from successful discoveries. But currently in the United States, when a Source provides body parts for research purposes, the researcher, research foundation, and outside investors are only a few of the parties who may claim a financial stake in the profits of this research. The Source is the only party excluded from being financially compensated for his contribution. Despite being a key player in ground-breaking medical discoveries, legal and political rhetoric block Sources from rightful compensation. In this article, “Source compensation” will refer to a proportionate share of the research profits set aside for the Source as a result of his contribution. Today, Source compensation is prohibited. Laws are slow in reacting to technological change and resulting societal needs. The progress of Source compensation is hampered by stubborn, archaic attitudes about the value of the human body. However, this article will address the subtle movements in the law toward Source compensation and the constitutional soundness of this practice. Furthermore, public policy discussions, ethical implications, and comparisons with other socially embraced practices will highlight variations on Source compensation that are already prevalent in society, and demonstrate that the concept is not so foreign after all.

Motherhood and the Law

Who is a child’s legal mother? Must a child have exactly one mother, can it have two or three, or can it have two fathers, but no mother? Or has the concept of motherhood become obsolete and should we just talk of parenthood in a gender neutral way? Questions such as these would have appeared esoteric only a few decades ago, but as a result of new social developments (such as frequent family reconstitutions, gay and lesbian emancipation or surrogacy) and of technological innovations (such as egg and embryo donations) they have become issues in a vehement debate. The interdisciplinary contributions to this book focus on the legal definition of motherhood, on the way in which legal conceptions structure the social discourse on motherhood (and vice versa), and on the influence of legal rules on power relations between mothers, fathers, children and the state. Among the issues addressed are - the challenges to our understanding of the legal regulation of motherhood by developments in reproductive medicine; - the challenges to our understanding of the legal regulation of motherhood by parental constellations deviating from the mother-father-model (single motherhood by choice, same-gender parenthood, multiple parenthood); - the exercise of parental rights in case of parental separation and the impact of legal rules on the bargaining positions of mothers and fathers

Intimacy and Economic Exchange

The current legal debate about the regulation of economic exchange between intimates mistakenly assumes that the law does not countenance such exchange to any notable extent. This assumption is so widely held that it unites otherwise disparate anticommodification and pro-market scholars. Both groups agree that the law maintains a strict boundary between economic exchange and intimacy, and disagree only on whether to applaud or criticize that boundary. Both overlook or underemphasize the degree to which the law already permits economic exchange within intimate relationships. The current debate\u27s focus on whether the law should enforce economic exchanges between intimates misses at least three critical questions: how the law already regulates such exchanges, for what purposes, and with what consequences. One of the primary ways that the law constitutes an intimate relation as intimate - recognizes its dignity and distinguishes it from other relationships - is by regulating how economic resources are exchanged within the relationship. But efforts to denote the sanctity of intimate relationships through the regulation of economic exchange appear to systematically perpetuate and exacerbate distributive inequality for women and the poor. These distributive consequences suggest a need to reexamine and reform how the legal system establishes the specialness of an intimate relationship. This Article begins that project