Subj : Re: Nobody's ... script editor
To   : alt.tv.er
From : npardue
Date : Fri Sep 30 2005 12:21:54

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er


MauiJNP wrote:

So I did a quick web search, and turned up at least one surrogacy
contract online.

http://www.surromomsonline.com/articles/index.htm

It doesn't specifically address the requirement to have a c-section, in
so many words, but DOES say  that the surrogate "agrees to consent to
any medical tests or procedures deemed necessary or advisible by her
obstetrician or midwife." (And also that she agrees to abstain from
potentially hazardous activies like smoking, drinking alcohol, exposure
to toxins, etc.) AND ... that she agrees to 'deliver to the intended
parents a healthy child, to the fullest extent that she is capable of.'
 (I dont' think a 25% risk of 'major complications' fits that
agreement.)

It further says that the intended parents are required to accept the
child, regardless of gender or health, but if there are birth
defects/injuries that can be determined to be the direct result of the
surrogate's actions (as is clearly the case here) that she is required
to pay back all the money they gave her.

Oh, and if she needs a c-section, she gets an extra $1000 as
compensation.

Naomi



> >
> > This is what really got my ire up.  Obviously these "parents" weren't
> > ready to become parents.  They didn't really want a child, they wanted the
> > perfect HWI(Healthy White Infant).  I think it's disgusting that they
> > would just walk away like that.  That child IS theirs, it was only a
> > surogate carrying the baby to birth.
>
> Though I agree with you that the parents shouldn't have walked away from the
> baby, I do think that it is very unfair for the surrogate to make decisions
> for the baby's health when she won't have to deal with the outcomes of her
> decisions.  If she was planning on raising the kid, then it would be more
> her decision to take the risks involved in not doing a c-section because she
> would be "stuck" with the consequences of her decisions.  But since she was
> not raising the child, she has NO right to tell the biological parents that
> she won't consent to a c-section and then just write the baby off as of
> everything was perfect.  I think it is her responsibility to take care of
> the "mess" that she made not the biological parents (who would have had a
> healthy baby if they would have had the choice to have a c-section).  In
> addition, I think that the surrogate should lose the opportunity to have any
> future children and lose parental rights to her own she had already.  She is
> obviously incapable of putting the life and health of a child before her own
> and that is not acceptable when you are a parent (or an aunt, grandparent,
> godparent, etc but especially a parent).

.