home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
082790
/
0827620.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
4KB
|
89 lines
<text id=90TT2296>
<title>
Aug. 27, 1990: And Baby Makes Four
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Aug. 27, 1990 Talk Of War
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
ETHICS, Page 53
And Baby Makes Four
</hdr>
<body>
<p>A new custody battle intensifies the debate over surrogacy
</p>
<p> Her belly swollen with the child she will soon bear, Anna
Johnson looks like any other expectant mother. But there is a
big difference: the Garden Grove, Calif., nurse, who is seven
months pregnant, has no genetic claim to the baby she is
carrying. The egg and sperm came from Cris and Mark Calvert,
an Orange County, Calif., couple who hired Johnson to bear
their "test-tube" baby for $10,000 because Cris had a
hysterectomy and is unable to carry a baby. Last week, in a
ground-breaking case, Johnson sued to keep the as-yet-unborn
child.
</p>
<p> The dispute highlights the changes that surrogacy has
undergone since the landmark Baby M. decision in 1987. In that
case, Mary Beth Whitehead, the surrogate mother, was
impregnated through artificial insemination by the husband of
the couple who hired her. Though her fight to keep Baby M. was
unsuccessful, Whitehead was the genetic mother. In the present
case, however, the Calverts' egg and sperm were joined together
in a laboratory Petri dish, producing a fertilized embryo that
was implanted in Johnson's womb. The technique, known as
gestational surrogacy, is on the rise; there have been nearly
80 such births worldwide in the past three years. The procedure
is still less prevalent than Baby M.-style surrogacy, which has
produced some 2,000 U.S. births over the same period.
</p>
<p> But these technological advances have left vexing legal and
ethical questions in their wake. Central to the Johnson-Calvert
tug-of-war is the very notion of parenthood. "Just because you
donate a sperm and an egg doesn't make you a parent," argues
Richard Gilbert, one of Johnson's lawyers. "Anna is not just
a machine, an incubator." Counters Christian Van Deusen, the
Calverts' lawyer: "That child is biologically Cris and Mark's.
That contract is valid."
</p>
<p> Despite the Calverts' genetic claim, the legal outcome is
uncertain. "Biology does not give us an answer in this case,"
says Mary Coombs of the University of Miami Law School. "Both
women--the one who bore the child and the one who provided
the egg--have some biological claim to the child." George
Annas of the Boston University School of Medicine maintains
that "the gestational mother is the legal mother for all
purposes. Biologically she's taken the majority of the risks."
</p>
<p> Some question the ethics of gestational surrogacy on class
grounds, arguing that poor women risk being exploited by
affluent couples. "We feel strongly that surrogacy should be
limited to medical need and should not be for profit," says
Richard Rawlins of Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center
in Chicago. "We might have to deal with professional women who
simply want to rent a uterus." But William Handel of the
Beverly Hills-based Center for Surrogate Parenting disagrees:
"That is a science-fiction scenario. I've been doing this for
10 years, and I've never met a woman who wanted to do this for
convenience only."
</p>
<p> The court's decision in Johnson v. Calvert may serve as a
guidepost for future surrogacy battles, but the ruling will
offer no clear-cut answer to the questions raised by the
technology of conception. As scientists come up with new
techniques, the ethical arguments over who creates and who
controls a human life are certain to multiply like cells in a
Petri dish.
</p>
<p>By Andrea Sachs. Reported by Christine Gorman/New York and
Sylvester Monroe/Los Angeles.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>