In Surrogacy, A Deal is Not Always a Deal

Thanks to Kerry for linking to her compelling personal story of the ovum marketplace. As for the question of market forces bearing on gestational surrogacy sticker price, I have two words to illustrate the right circumstance for the right seller: Debby Rowe. $4 million payoffs not withstanding, however, I do sympathize with Kerry’s and Sarah’s observations on the hazy protection surrogacy contracts offer to potentially exploited owners of host wombs.

I remember well the first major legal case exploring rights of the surrogate involved a contract gone awry (in the opposite way of the urban legendary wealthy gay man of Nina’s classic six, were he to renege on the apartment after the baby is born). In that famous 1986 case, the surrogate, Mary Beth Whitehead, made a deal with William Stern to donate her egg and rent her womb to create a child with Stern, by artificial insemination, to be raised by Stern and his wife. Whitehead changed her mind when the little girl was born but what persuaded the New Jersey judge who eventually decided for the Sterns was the contract itself. A deal’s a deal was the thinking. When Whitehead appealed, the contract was disallowed as against public policy. Whitehead was allowed visiting privileges, but the Sterns nevertheless retained custody “in the best interests of the child” (referred to as “Baby M” in all the papers).  When Baby M turned 18, she terminated her genetic mother’s rights and was adopted by Stern’s wife. Big surprise, she stuck with the parents who raised her. In 2007, with a bit of a swipe at poor Mary Beth, the former Baby M, Melissa Stern, a student at George Washington University commented to the New Jersey Monthly, "I'm very happy I ended up with them. I love them, they're my best friends in the whole world, and that's all I have to say about it."

I always felt Mary Beth had been a bit out gunned although, I have to admit, I felt less sorry for her after she wrote a book about her case and then sold it for a TV movie.

Photograph by Stockbyte/Getty Images.

Tags: surrogacy; Baby M; Debby Rowe;

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Bonnie Goldstein Trained investigator, experienced mother and beginning blogger.

Comments

20k might not be too cheap

By: dsll91 | Fri, 07/24/2009 - 10:57

Let me first say that my wife and I paid 20k for surrogacy about 6 years ago, had a wonderful experience that was not poisoned by financial issues, and we are still in close touch with the surrogate. Now that I've said all of that, allow me to do something ugly and reduce this to a crass financial transaction and make an important point. There are vastly more people who want to be surrogates than there are couples who need the services of a surrogate. Yes, this is not exactly a commodity in the strictest sense, but it's not like the laws of supply and demand don't matter either.
Secondly, surrogates offer a product for which there is no substitute. If I can't afford a Mercedes, I buy a Hyundai. If I can't afford a surrogate, I buy a...cabbage patch doll? No. If surrogates raised their prices, a lot of desperately unhappy couples (like we were) would find a way to scrape up more money and pay it. Again, I hate to be crass and commercial here, but surrogates have intended parents over a barrel. And they don't exploit that, even though they could.
I'm not much of a free marketeer in general, but in this case it seems that the market has set a fair price that both parties feel good about. If a surrogate feels that 20k is too low, she doesn't have to do it, or she can negotiate for a higher price. It's that simple.
The various posts here seem a little concerned that the negative side of surrogacy hasn't been fully explored. In the past, the media has focussed almost exclusively on the negative side, on horror stories of the surrogate stealing the baby, or gestating on meth. But in reality the experience is almost always positive and thousands of people have been massively enriched, both financially and psychologically by the process. The price could be higher, but then a lot of women who want to do it for 20k wouldn't be able to, and a lot of couples who can afford 20k but no higher would never have a baby. It seems like it's at the right spot here.
Anyhow, I wrote for Slate about our surrogacy a few years back, and you can read it here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2073166/entry/2073222/