Should surrogate mothers in Canada be allowed to charge a fee?


SLM
+1
#1
Should surrogate mothers in Canada be allowed to charge a fee?




Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro will introduce a private member's bill Monday that would legalize the practice of paying surrogate mothers to carry a child.
Section 6 of Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act says "no person shall pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother" and "no person shall accept consideration for arranging for the services of a surrogate mother."
Oddly enough, it is completely legal for Canadians to pay a surrogate in a foreign country (e.g. in the United States) and to bring that child back to Canada as a citizen.
Del Mastro hopes to change those "hypocritical" laws.
In a telephone interview with Yahoo Canada News on Friday, the MP from Peterborough said that this is a personal issue for him.
"My heart was really changed on [this issue]. I had friends that could not have children on their own and they went through this process. They actually contracted the services of a surrogate in the United States," Del Mastro said, adding that 10 per cent of Canadian women cannot conceive a child.
"It was really expensive. Really difficult because even though they were established as Canadians born abroad, the steps that you had to go through in order to bring them home...the additional difficulty that people shouldn't have to go through."

According to the National Review, many countries in the world actually ban the practice of surrogacy; a lot of other countries — including Australia and Japan — prohibit commercial surrogacy.
But in the United States, as explained by Surrogatemothers.com, the average "for-fee" surrogate mother in the U.S. earns approximately US$20,000 to $25,000. There are also other costs (agency fees, legal fees, medical and insurance costs) that can boost the price of having a baby to between $100,000 and $150,000.
Surrogacy has become a $3-billion industry south of the border.


The concern — and probably the reason for the current laws in Canada — is that allowing commercial surrogacy could facilitate fraud and exploitation of women, especially lower-income women.
But Del Mastro advises Canadian provinces — whose purview surrogates would fall under — to look to Californian laws, which have checks and balances tackling those problems as well as strict rules about surrogacy contracts.
"If you allow the system to be built similar to the one that they have in California... I think you bring some of this out of the shadows," he said.
"Secondly I think you put in place a very structured system that protects against potential exploitation."

Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, a former surrogate mother who runs the website Surrogacy in Canada Online, says that she's thrilled with Del Mastro's initiative.
"It would increase the number of surrogate mothers willing to help and [increase the number of] intended parents being able to build the family they long for," she told Yahoo.
"Commercialization would see surrogate mothers receive payment for not only their expenses but for their time and the time taken away from their own children and spouses. It would give surrogate mothers the opportunity to stay home if they desire for an extra year with their own children while helping to bring the next generation of Canadians into the world.
"Since the current legislation has been in place we have unfortunately seen surrogate mothers being left with dissolved relationships with intended parents due to expense disputes, expenses not being reimbursed by intended parents and even bankruptcy. Surrogate mothers dedicate a year of their life when they decide to help… repeated trips to IVF clinics, appointments, medications/injectables, bloodwork as well as pregnancy/birth/post partum."
What do you think?
Should surrogates in Canada be commercialized?


ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canad...153931837.html (external - login to view)
 
gerryh
+1
#2
Yes, why not.
 
Goober
+1
#3
I see no reason why not.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#4
I had no idea it was illegal or that there was a reason for it to be illegal.
 
Walter
#5
The gubmint should keeps its nose out of this.
 
BornRuff
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

I had no idea it was illegal or that there was a reason for it to be illegal.

Probably the same reason why they don't allow people to pay organ donors.

I think it mostly has to do with ensuring that all of these arrangements are completely altruistic. When money gets involved, it creates incentive for fraud and exploitation.

Obviously that is a risk in pretty much every transaction, but the potential harm is greater in these circumstances so many governments don't want to get involved with trying to police it.
 
Kreskin
#7
Actually it's not illegal to charge a fee. Only illegal to arrange the services for a surrogate. It's illegal to pay it or even offer to pay it, and that is subject to a fine of up to $100,000 or 20 years in prison.

Many go elsewhere, like Eastern Europe. That's what creates more incentive for fraud and exploitation.

This is long overdue.
 
BornRuff
#8
The fact that people will go elsewhere to do things that are illegal(or effectively illegal as it may be) in Canada is certainly something to consider, but since it applies to literally everything that is illegal, it isn't a sufficient reason in itself.
 
Goober
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Probably the same reason why they don't allow people to pay organ donors.

I think it mostly has to do with ensuring that all of these arrangements are completely altruistic. When money gets involved, it creates incentive for fraud and exploitation.

Obviously that is a risk in pretty much every transaction, but the potential harm is greater in these circumstances so many governments don't want to get involved with trying to police it.

Kidneys, liver transplant, go to India or China or other Asian countries. Do you think the rich go without?
 
Kreskin
+1
#10
The rules are just too strict right now. Even if you get a volunteer it's illegal to buy them anything except pay for pregnancy expenses. Any kind of a gift is considered compensation. A bouquet of flowers is considered compensation. People involved in this often just want to show some appreciation without the RCMP breathing down their backs.
 
gopher
+4
#11  Top Rated Post
Interesting topic for discussion.

Under the common law, a contract is valid unless there are historical rulings or decrees which prohibit its terms. In the past, royalty and nobility contracted with surrogates in order to have male heirs which guaranteed familial succession of title and/or property. Examples exist in the Bible to show that this was perfectly legal under the ancient Mosaic law which served as the basis for the Anglo-Saxon common law. On that basis the use of surrogates should be legal under codified law. Therefore, Canadians, who like Americans and those countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, are heirs to common law, and should be free to contract with surrogates in order to have future heirs and guarantee succession.
 
BornRuff
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Interesting topic for discussion.

Under the common law, a contract is valid unless there are historical rulings or decrees which prohibit its terms. In the past, royalty and nobility contracted with surrogates in order to have male heirs which guaranteed familial succession of title and/or property. Examples exist in the Bible to show that this was perfectly legal under the ancient Mosaic law which served as the basis for the Anglo-Saxon common law. On that basis the use of surrogates should be legal under codified law. Therefore, Canadians, who like Americans and those countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, are heirs to common law, and should be free to contract with surrogates in order to have future heirs and guarantee succession.

I don't think that Moses really holds all that much authority over modern Canadian law.

Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Kidneys, liver transplant, go to India or China or other Asian countries. Do you think the rich go without?

That is kind of what people are afraid of happening here though. They don't want it to be something that poor people do just because they are poor and need money. The idea of rich people literally buying the bodies of poor people is pretty dense with ethical issues.
 
lone wolf
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

That is kind of what people are afraid of happening here though. They don't want it to be something that poor people do just because they are poor and need money. The idea of rich people literally buying the bodies of poor people is pretty dense with ethical issues.

Isn't contract employment something the same?
 
gerryh
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post


That is kind of what people are afraid of happening here though. They don't want it to be something that poor people do just because they are poor and need money. The idea of rich people literally buying the bodies of poor people is pretty dense with ethical issues.


but, but, but, aren't women allowed to do what ever they want with their body's? Or does that only apply to killing baby's, not bringing live baby's into the world?
 
gopher
+1
#15
Quote:

BornRuff,

I don't think that Moses really holds all that much authority over modern Canadian law.


The highest principle under the Anglo-Saxon common law always was the idea of precedence and its consistent application. If the use of surrogates (which goes way back to biblical times) has always been legal, and society feels it must be banned, then there must be some compelling reason for society to disallow what has always been an acceptable practice. I see no compelling reason for suddenly changing a law that has been in use for thousands of years and which has been profitable since time immemorial.
 
BornRuff
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Isn't contract employment something the same?

The difference would be that you are paying for their work, not for their body.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

but, but, but, aren't women allowed to do what ever they want with their body's? Or does that only apply to killing baby's, not bringing live baby's into the world?

Nobody is saying that you can't be a surrogate. You just can't pay people to do it.

Paying someone to have an abortion would have the same ethical issues.

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

The highest principle under the Anglo-Saxon common law always was the idea of precedence and its consistent application. If the use of surrogates (which goes way back to biblical times) has always been legal, and society feels it must be banned, then there must be some compelling reason for society to disallow what has always been an acceptable practice. I see no compelling reason for suddenly changing a law that has been in use for thousands of years and which has been profitable since time immemorial.

Precedence is related to how to interpret the law. It doesn't just create laws that don't exist on the books.

Mosaic law is not the legal system that we live by in Canada. We live by Canadian law.
 
gopher
+1
#17
Quote:

Precedence is related to how to interpret the law. It doesn't just create laws that don't exist on the books.


Correct. But the use of surrogates goes back to biblical times and was always viewed as legal under common law as it was practiced by royalty and nobility.


Quote:

Mosaic law is not the legal system that we live by in Canada. We live by Canadian law.


Canadian law is influenced by common law.
 
gerryh
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Correct. But the use of surrogates goes back to biblical times and was always viewed as legal under common law as it was practiced by royalty and nobility.





Canadian law is influenced by common law.


The law in Canada, at this time, is that surrogates can NOT demand payment, nor can they be offered payment, of any kind, beyond medical bills.
 
BornRuff
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Correct. But the use of surrogates goes back to biblical times and was always viewed as legal under common law as it was practiced by royalty and nobility.

How do you go from saying I am correct to completely ignoring that in the next sentence?

Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Canadian law is influenced by common law.

This statement makes no sense. Canada has a common law legal system. The term "common law" does not refer to some centralized list of laws that all common law countries follow. It refers to how laws are created and interpreted within that legal system.
 
gopher
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

The law in Canada, at this time, is that surrogates can NOT demand payment, nor can they be offered payment, of any kind, beyond medical bills.


Yes, I do understand that. Common law can be overruled by codified law, depends on what the courts ultimately say.
 
gerryh
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Yes, I do understand that. Common law can be overruled by codified law, depends on what the courts ultimately say.

If you already know what the law is, then what the fu ck are you going on about Mosaic law for? It really doesn't matter what the hell Moses allowed in the middle of the fu cking desert.
 
gopher
+2
#22
Quote:

BornRuff,

The term "common law" does not refer to some centralized list of laws that all common law countries follow. It refers to how laws are created and interpreted within that legal system.


I have a doctorate on the subject - Common law refers to the case or precedential law created by judges over the centuries and its influence is far reaching:



Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)
 
petros
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Should surrogate mothers in Canada be allowed to charge a fee?

Looks like he is due any day now. I wonder who the father is?
 
Kreskin
+1
#24
Presently the law applies to everyone except the surrogate. It's really a screwy set of laws, as it is right now.
 
gopher
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

If you already know what the law is, then what the fu ck are you going on about Mosaic law for? It really doesn't matter what the hell Moses allowed in the middle of the fu cking desert.



See post 11.
 
BornRuff
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

I have a doctorate on the subject - Common law refers to the case or precedential law created by judges over the centuries and its influence is far reaching:



Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

You have a doctorate in common law? Are you saying you are a lawyer?

Do you honestly believe that a judge sitting here in Canada would hear a case based on this, look at the Canadian law saying that this is illegal, but rule the other way because English nobility did this?
 
gerryh
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Interesting topic for discussion.

Under the common law, a contract is valid unless there are historical rulings or decrees which prohibit its terms. In the past, royalty and nobility contracted with surrogates in order to have male heirs which guaranteed familial succession of title and/or property. Examples exist in the Bible to show that this was perfectly legal under the ancient Mosaic law which served as the basis for the Anglo-Saxon common law. On that basis the use of surrogates should be legal under codified law. Therefore, Canadians, who like Americans and those countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, are heirs to common law, and should be free to contract with surrogates in order to have future heirs and guarantee succession.


No law against using surrogates. Only a law against paying a surrogate, or a surrogate charging for her "services". So your entire babble about Mosaic law and Common law is moot.
 
Kreskin
+1
#28
The law says nothing about accepting payment. It's only about offering to pay, arranging or acting as an intermediary to advertise the services.


(1) No person shall pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise that it will be paid.

(2) No person shall accept consideration for arranging for the services of a surrogate mother, offer to make such an arrangement for consideration or advertise the arranging of such services.

(3) No person shall pay consideration to another person to arrange for the services of a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise the payment of it.

(4) No person shall counsel or induce a female person to become a surrogate mother, or perform any medical procedure to assist a female person to become a surrogate mother, knowing or having reason to believe that the female person is under 21 years of age.


This is what is very dangerous about the existing law. The penalties for such an arrangement apply to everyone but the surrogate. There are known cases where surrogates have not attempted to fulfill their end of the bargain. Have even heard of situations where they have intentionally created the conditions for spontaneous abortion (no intention to be pregnant, just make money), and even working with multiple intended parents at the same time (again, no intention to do anything but make money). In the end the intended parents have no recourse because the illegality only applies to them. They are in no position to report scams, extortion or theft.

While the existing law might have the best of intentions, the law makes things worse. All parties need to protection. The best way to protect everyone is put it above board where there is transparency and accountability.
 
gopher
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

You have a doctorate in common law? Are you saying you are a lawyer?

Do you honestly believe that a judge sitting here in Canada would hear a case based on this, look at the Canadian law saying that this is illegal, but rule the other way because English nobility did this?






A juris doctorate.

I've tried to explain what the hell I mean but you do not understand law or how it is argued in court. Therefore, there is no further use in trying to discuss it.
 
BornRuff
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

A juris doctorate.

I've tried to explain what the hell I mean but you do not understand law or how it is argued in court. Therefore, there is no further use in trying to discuss it.

That is why I asked. I have never heard someone with a JD refer to it in that way. Most people would refer to a "doctorate" as a Phd and that is a very different designation. You don't call someone with a JD "Dr."

You avoided the questions though, are you actually a lawyer?

Do you honestly believe that a judge sitting here in Canada would hear a case based on this, look at the Canadian law saying that this is illegal, but rule the other way because English nobility did this?

It really doesn't sound like something that would be considered persuasive precedent. When laws get struct down in Canada, it tends to be a charter issue, not practices of historical nobility.
 

Similar Threads

34
39
Canada Now Admits It Allowed Torture
by JBeee | Dec 23rd, 2009
14
Who's in Charge of Canada?
by darkbeaver | Oct 10th, 2008
0
where Whites are not allowed to go in Canada
by Dreadful Nonsense | Sep 23rd, 2007
no new posts