Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Journal of Reproduction & Infertility

Openness about a Child's Origins in Surrogacy in Comparison with Adoption & ART

Authors
Behzad Ghorbani 1
Zohreh Behjati Ardakani 2
1 Reproductive Biotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
2 Avicenna Infertility Clinic, Avicenna Research Institute (ACECR), Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: The question of parents informing their offspring of their origins is a critical point. The surrogacy triad is composed of the intended mother, surrogate mother and the offspring and disclosure of facts to the offspring, family and friends is an important issue for discussion. Materials & Methods: In this review article, we attempt to address this concern by Van den Akker's studies of sub-fertile populations: adoptive, IVF and intended mothers of surrogacy. Then, we try to review the attitude and preferences of the general population in similar presumptive situations by Chliaoutakis questionnaire. Results: Intended mothers using gestational surrogacy are much more likely to tell the child it was conceived using third party involvement. ART mothers are most willing to tell the child it was conceived using IVF, and adoptive mothers are most likely to tell the child how it was conceived regardless of the third party involvement used. The general population preferred involvement of a healthy stranger to family members or friends when receiving gametes or a surrogate child, whereas the respondents preferred being a surrogate mother or donate oocytes to a sibling or a close relative; although the picture was different for being a sperm donor. They appear not to be too likely to involve their friends in any of the third party option. Conclusion: It is possible that pragmatic and altruistic factors compete with each other and that close genetic links from ones family are in competition with the social factors involved in rearing such a child. Appropriate counseling must continue to be advocated to assist parents in making decision to reveal the origin of the child but it is imperative to remind oneself that: “The right to a child should not be achieved at the expense of the rights of the child".
Keywords
Adoption child
Assisted Reproductive Techniques
donation
Gamete
Genetic surrogacy
Gestational surrogacy
Reveal
Surrogate
Van den Akker OB. Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:53-62.
Van den Akker OB. Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers, experience of surrogacy. J Repord Infant Psychol. 2003;21:(2)145-61.
Hanafin H. Surrogate parenting: reassessing human bonding. Paper presented at the American Psycholo-gical Association Convention, New York. 1987.
Franks D. Psychiatric evaluation of women in surrogate mother program. Am J psychiatry. 1981;138:1378-9.
Baslington H. Anxiety overflow. Women?s Studies Int Forum. 1996;19(6):675-84.
Ragone H. Suurrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA. 1994;pp: 114-8.
Blyth E. I wanted to be interesting. I wanted to be able to say Ive done something interesting with my life. Interviews with surrogate mothers in Britain. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1994;12(3):189-98.
McWhinnie A. A study of parenting of IVF and DI children. Med Law. 1995;14(7-8):501-8.
Siddiqui A, Hagglof B, Eisemann M. An exploration of prenatal attachment in Swedish expectant women. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 1999;17:369-80.
Edelmann R. Surrogacy: the psychological issues. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2004;22(2):123-36.
Fisher S, Gilman I. Surrogate motherhood: attachment, attitudes and social support. Psychiatry. 1991;54:13-20.
Van den Akker OB. The importance of a genetic link in
Van der Akker OB. Coping quality of life and psychia-tric morbidity in 3 groups of sub-fertile women: Does process or outcome affect psychological functioning?. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:183-9.
Van der Akker OB. A longitudinal pre pregnancy to post delivery comparison of genetic and gestational surrogate and intended mothers: confidence gyneco-logy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26(4):277-84.
Golombok S, Murray C. Families created through surrogacy: Parent-child relationship in the first year of life. Fertil Steril. 2004;80(3,Suppl S 50), 133.
Van den Akker OB. functions and responsibilities of organizations dealing with surrogate motherhood in the UK. Hum Fertil. 1998;1:10-3.
Van den Akker OB. The complete guide to infertility: Diagnosis, treatment, options. Free association books, UK. 2002;pp:92-101.
Nelson L. Truth and surrogate child. In Biyth E, Craw-shaw M, Spiers J (Editors). Truth and Child: Informa-tion Exchange in Donor Assisted Conception. BASW, UK. 1998;pp:231-9.
Van den Akker OB. Adoption in the age of reproduce- tive technology. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2001;19(2): 147-59.
Van den Akker OB. The acceptable face of parenthood:
Chliaoutakis J, Koukouli S, Papadakaki M. Using attitudinal indicators to explain the publics intention to have recourse to gamete donation and surrogacy. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(11):2995-3002.
Van den Akker OB. HFEA Commissioned Report. Review: Psychosocial, moral and ethical issues involved in Donor, Surrogacy and Adoption Triads: A Graded Evaluation. Human Fertilisation and Embryo-logy Association, London. 2002;pp:238-43.
Wiess. Public attitudes about surrogate motherhood. Michigan Sociol Rev. 1992: 6;15–27.
Connolly KJ, Edelmann RJ, Cooke ID, Robson J. The impact of infertility on psychological functioning. J Psychosom Res. 1992;36(5):459-68.
Brazier M, Campbell A and Golombok S. Surrogacy: review for health ministers of current arrangements for payment and regulation. Report of the Review team. Cm 4068. Department of Health, London. 1998;pp:81-92.
Kopfensteiner T. Ethical aspects of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Biomed Pharmacother. 1998;52: 204-7.
Hill M, Shaw M. Signposts in Adoption. BAAF, Lon-don, UK. 1998;pp:333-4.
Journal of Reproduction & Infertility
Volume 9, Issue 2
Summer 2008
Pages 130-136