Subj : Re: Nobody's ... script editor
To   : alt.tv.er
From : npardue
Date : Sat Oct 01 2005 06:39:43

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

IOW, all that Claire has to do is pay the bio-parents back their money,

which she will probably do w/o too much fuss.

It's been a few years since I've researched surrogacy contracts, but my

gut reaction is that consent to medical treatment remains freely
revocable. If you sign a paper consenting to treatment, you can still
refuse when the time comes, so if you have a contract promising to
agree, it doesn't really bind you. You might have to pay damages for a
breach, but it sounds like the contract itself provides a measure of
damages -- refund of the surrogate's fee -- which would control


That's how I would interpret it too.  Nobody could have forced Claire
to have the c-section, based on her contract, but given that she had,
presumably, agreed to have one if necessary (either by agreeing to one
in so many words, or by agreeing to 'whatever treatments are deemed
necessary' and/or 'to do whatever is in her power to provide the
intended parents with a healthy child') she has, at minimum, a moral
obligation to do so, and could certainly be sued by Tina and Rod for
breach of contract and the resulting damages. (Sadly, I doubt that
Claire's pockets are deep enough to get them much out of it.)

But, of course, it's probably Tina and Rod's fault too for not
investigating this women closely enough. It seems VERY unlikly that, 10
months earlier she would have said, "C-section?  No problem. If I need
one I'll pour the betadine myself!" and "C-section? I dont' want a
c-section! My friend had a breech baby and he was just fine!"

Naomi

.