Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:57:28.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Surrogacy

Issues, concerns and complexities

from Part I - International, cross-border and global issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2016

By
Vasanti Jadva
Edited by
Susan Golombok ,
Rosamund Scott ,
John B. Appleby ,
Martin Richards  and
Stephen Wilkinson
Susan Golombok
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Rosamund Scott
Affiliation:
King's College London
John B. Appleby
Affiliation:
King's College London
Martin Richards
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Stephen Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Regulating Reproductive Donation , pp. 126 - 139
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agnafors, M. (2014). ‘The harm argument against surrogacy revisited. Two versions not to forget’. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 17, 357–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, J.B., Blake, L. and Freeman, T. (2010). ‘Is disclosure in the best interests of children conceived by donation?’, in Richards, M., Pennings, G. and Appleby, J.B. (eds.), Reproductive Donation: Practices, Policies and Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baor, L. and Blickstein, I. (2005). ‘En route to an “instant family”: psychosocial considerations’. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, 32, 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berend, Z. (2012). ‘The romance of surrogacy’. Sociological Forum, 27, 913–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, K., Rubio, R.J., Green, R.J. and Padron, E. (2010). ‘Gay men who become fathers via surrogacy: the transition to parenthood’. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 6, 111–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn-Starza, A. (2013). ‘International surrogacy arrangements need parental orders’. BioNews, 707. 3 June 2013.Google Scholar
Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V. and Golombok, S. (2013). ‘“I was quite amazed”: donor conception and parent–child relationships from the child's perspective’. Children and Society, doi: 10.1111/chso.12014.Google Scholar
Blyth, E. (1994). ‘“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’. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 12, 189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braverman, A.M. and Corson, S.L. (1992). ‘Characteristics of participants in a gestational carrier program’. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 9, 353–57.Google Scholar
Braverman, A., Casey, P. and Jadva, V. (2012). ‘Reproduction through surrogacy: the UK and USA experience’, in Richards, M., Pennings, G. and Appleby, J.B. (eds.), Reproductive Donation: Practices, Policies and Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazier, M., Campbell, A. and Golombok, S. (1998). Surrogacy: Review for Health Ministers of Current Arrangements for Payments and Regulation. Report of the Review Team. Cmnd: 4068. Department of Health, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
British Medical Association (1996). Changing Conceptions of Motherhood. The Practice of Surrogacy in Britain. London: British Medical Association.Google Scholar
Ciccarelli, J.C. and Beckman, L.J. (2005). ‘Navigating rough waters: an overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy’. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 21–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawshaw, M., Blyth, E. and van den Akker, O. (2012). ‘The changing profile of surrogacy in the UK – implications for national and international policy and practice’. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 34, 267–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everingham, S. (2014). ‘Use of surrogacy by Australians: implications for policy and law reform’, in Hayes, A. and Higgins, D. (eds.), Families, Policy and The Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
Fischbach, R.L. and Loike, J.D. (2014). ‘Maternal-fetal cell transfer in surrogacy: ties that bind’. American Journal of Bioethics, 14, 35–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, T., Golombok, S., Olivennes, F., Ramogida, C. and Rust, J. (2007). ‘Psychological assessment of mothers and their assisted reproduction triplets at age 3 years’. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 15, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamble, N. and Prosser, H. (2013) ‘The “Brilliant Beginnings” of surrogacy reform in the UK’. Bionews. 27 August 2013.Google Scholar
Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., MacCallum, F. and Lycett, E. (2004). ‘Families created through surrogacy arrangements: parent–child relationships in the first year of life’. Developmental Psychology, 40, 400–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golombok, S., Murray, C., Jadva, V., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F. and Rust, J. (2006a). ‘Non-genetic and non-gestational parenthood: consequences for parent–child relationships and the psychological well-being of mothers, fathers and children at age 3’. Human Reproduction, 21, 1918–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golombok, S., MacCallum, F., Murray, C., Lycett, E. and Jadva, V. (2006b). ‘Surrogacy families: parental functioning, parent–child relationships and children's psychological development at age 2’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 213–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golombok, S., Blake, L., Casey, P., Roman, G. and Jadva, V. (2013). ‘Children born through reproductive donation: a longitudinal study of psychological adjustment’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 653–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, D.A. and Seli, E. (2011). ‘Gay men choosing parenthood through assisted reproduction: medical and psychosocial considerations’. Fertility and Sterility, 95, 225–29.Google Scholar
Hibino, Y. and Shimazono, Y. (2013). ‘Becoming a surrogate online: “message board” surrogacy in Thailand’. Asian Bioethics Review, 5, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imrie, S. and Jadva, V. (2013). ‘Surrogacy law: a call for change?’ Bionews. 5 August 2013.Google Scholar
Imrie, S. and Jadva, V. (2014). ‘The long-term experiences of surrogates: relationships and contact with surrogacy families in genetic and gestational surrogacy arrangements’. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 29, 424–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W. and Golombok, S. (2009). ‘The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type’. Human Reproduction, 24, 1909–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V., Blake, L., Casey, P. and Golombok, S. (2012). ‘Surrogacy families 10 years on: relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children's understanding of their surrogacy origins’. Human Reproduction, 27, 3008–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V. and Imrie, S. (2014). ‘Children of surrogate mothers: psychological well-being, family relationships and experiences of surrogacy’. Human Reproduction, 29, 90–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V., Imrie, S. and Golombok, S. (2015). ‘Surrogate mothers 10 years on: a longitudinal study of psychological wellbeing and relationships with the parents and child’. Human Reproduction, 30, 373–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V., Murray, C., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F. and Golombok, S. (2003). ‘Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers’. Human Reproduction, 18, 2196–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karandikar, S., Gezinski, L.B., Carter, J.R. and Kaloga, M. (2014). ‘Economic necessity or noble Cause? A qualitative study exploring motivations for gestational surrogacy in Gujarat, India’. Journal of Women and Social Work, 29, 224–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loike, J.D. and Fischbach, R.L. (2013). New ethical horizons in gestational surrogacy. In Vitro, IVF-Worldwide, Reproductive Medicine, Genetics & Stem Cell Biology. doi:10.4172/jfiv.1000109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCallum, F., Lycett, E., Murray, C., Jadva, V. and Golombok, S. (2003). ‘Surrogacy: the experience of commissioning couples’. Human Reproduction, 18, 1334–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivennes, F., Golombok, S., Ramogida, C., Rust, J. and Follow-Up Team. (2005). ‘Behavioral and cognitive development as well as family functioning of twins conceived by assisted reproduction: findings from a large population study’. Fertility and Sterility, 84, 725–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pande, A. (2009). ‘“It may be her eggs but it's my blood”: surrogates and everyday forms of kinship in India’. Qualitative Sociology, 32, 379–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizitz, T.D., McCullaugh, J. and Rabin, A. (2013). ‘Do women who choose to become surrogate mothers have different psychological profiles compared to a normative female sample?’ Women Birth. 26, e15–20. doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2012.06.003. Epub 2012 Jul 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragoné, H. (1994). Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Scheib, J.E., Riordan, M. and Rubin, S. (2005). ‘Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12–17 year olds’. Human Reproduction, 20, 239–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teman, E. (2010). Birthing a Mother. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trimmings, K. and Beaumont, P. (eds.) (2013). International Surrogacy Arrangements. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
van den Akker, O. (2007). ‘Psychosocial aspects of surrogate motherhood’. Human Reproduction Update, 13, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells-Greco, M. (2013). ‘United Kingdom’, in Trimmings, K. and Beaumont, P. (eds.), International Surrogacy Arrangements. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×