769
Subj : Re: Nobody's ... script editor
To   : alt.tv.er
From : kincaid
Date : Sat Oct 01 2005 02:54:02

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

npardue@indiana.edu wrote:

> 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.
> 
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.

eric

.

0