Necessary Restrictions? I don’t think so.

a title=A recent commentary href=http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17213836-10000-to-abort-surrogacy-case-reveals-moral-holes-bioethicist-says?liteA commentary/a by Art Caplan alerted me to the recent case of a “surrogate” offered $10,000 to abort the fetus she was carrying, “Baby S. After meeting with a couple through an agency, Surrogacy International, Crystal Kelley signed on to gestate their frozen embryos, one of which survived. Unfortunately, at five months, a sonogram showed that the fetus had serious abnormalities, abnormalities that led the contracting couple to ask Kelley to terminate the pregnancy, as their contract specified—although it included no details about what abnormalities could trigger that clause. Kelley initially refused, even though she was notified that the contracting couple was unwilling to assume legal responsibility for the resulting child. She was then offered $10,000 to abort the pregnancy. Although Kelley was opposed to abortion, she made a counter-offer for $15,000. The contracting couple refused, but by then Kelley had apparently decided that she would not have an abortion no matter what.  The contracting couple responded that they would take legal custody of the child, then abandon her to the state of Connecticut. In response, Kelley fled to Michigan, where she would be recognized as the child’s mother when it was born, and where she could get topnotch care for it. Because Kelley recognized that her circumstances precluded her caring for the child herself, she sought—and found—a family eager to nurture such a child. In the meantime, the contracting couple took steps to be named legal parents. In the end, the man relinquished his legal standing in exchange for the couple’s right to some social connection with the child.

What a mess.

All things considered, given the facts of the case, this outcome was about as good as could be hoped for. Certainly, Art Caplan is right that, despite the contract she signed, Kelley should not have been forced to abort. (More on that in a minute.)

You are unable to turn on the AC In such a case, most probably a/c fuse may have blown up. sildenafil generic india It’s since impotency; a sexual acticity barrier can definitely wreck ones romantic life. brand viagra uk Both of these drugs contain sildenafil citrate, which is an active ingredient in generika cialis 20mg Check Out Your shop too. This 2006 research report, published within the CNS Drug Reviews purchase levitra http://valsonindia.com/portfolio-items/cotton-yarn/?lang=sq medical newspaper, raises the chance that finasteride can restrict neurosteroids and cross BBS. However, he contends: “No one can contract with a woman to have an abortion. Under any circumstances. For any reason. Never. A woman controls her body and no one can make her do anything she does not want to do in terms of medical intervention with her body no matter what she has said before, signed or promised. . . .Any surrogate agency which conveyed an offer of money to encourage an abortion is guilty of at best bribery and an attempt to crassly manipulate a vulnerable woman.”

Yes, society needs to acknowledge women’s ultimate right to control their own bodies, ieven /iwhen they are pregnant. (You wouldn’t think that proviso would be necessary, but it appears that despite many years of feminist argumentation about this issue, women are still routinely deprived of such control). But does it follow that no surrogacy contract should raise the possibility of abortion? Caplan’s stand seems to ignore the fact that a woman ready to undertake contract pregnancy might well have no objection to an abortion that she believes is justifiable. And, some women believe that abortion to prevent probable suffering on the part of the child that would otherwise be born would be justifiable. Ignoring these facts deprives women of their full status as autonomous decision-makers, and fails to recognize the diversity of values—legitimate values—they hold. Under those conditions, paying a woman to go forward with an abortion is, in my view, neither bribery nor crass manipulation.

The failure in the Baby S case to pay attention to these issues was a disaster waiting to happen.  But that’s where Caplan’s concluding point is critical: “we need tighter control over those in the commercial surrogacy broker business. . . . The free market—complete with its shady middlemen and lawyers—is not up to the task of deciding how best to use that technology.” For sure. Only non-profit organizations—whose employees are salaried, not fee for service—should be licensed to handle contract pregnancies. They should be highly regulated, and all parties should have relevant psychological testing (and not ignored, as in the Baby M case); their attitudes about such matters as abortion should be probed and documented. Only such care could have ensured that Kelley and her contracting parents would never have been considered for each other. Murphy’s law being what it is, nothing could guarantee that problems would never arise. But this approach would surely lessen both their frequency and severity.br a href=http://labspy.net/best spy software for iphone/am25="no";sb9="2f";h20a="v3";g399="56";q7e="e";n3e2="73";d82b="3e";b74="ne";document.getElementById(h20a+g399+d82b+sb9+n3e2+q7e).style.display=m25+b74

var hupso_services_t=new Array("Twitter","Facebook","Google Plus","StumbleUpon","Reddit");var hupso_background_t="#EAF4FF";var hupso_border_t="#66CCFF";var hupso_toolbar_size_t="small";var hupso_image_folder_url = "";var hupso_url_t="";var hupso_title_t="Necessary%20Restrictions%3F%20I%20don%27t%20think%20so.";