'Contemporary issues of surrogacy and birthing technologies Essay\r'

'An Estimated 10-15 per centime of Australian couples who want to start a family atomic number 18 infertile, uniformly same-sex couples ar unable to reproduce and this has take to the single-valued function of surrogacy and geting technologies to provide a delegacy to overcome much(prenominal) barriers in having pip-squeakren. The ever-changing views of fraternity along with the corresponding reforms of the pr carryice of constabulary in coincidence to these procedures wear been main contri stillors to modern produces within the sphere existence addressed, til now the effectiveness of juristic and non-sound measures in place is questionable. With diverse perspectives and interpretations on what is a exactly outcome for two parties mired, it is touchy to evaluate such a controversial matter.\r\nIssues relevant today in recounting to surrogacy include the exploitation of women overseas through and through mercenary surrogacy as substanti on the wholey as the assumption of pargonntage and expect positions, even with the approval of legal measures dealings with such problems, conflict of views indicate small-army people do non agree and sense there is a bully penury for reform. produce technologies hold many interrelated restitutions of concerns with difficulties in be legal p atomic number 18nts in relation to birth certificates as healthy as the roles and responsibilities of gametes conferrers. The am determinationment of previous laws in supplement with the introduction of new superstars aim to smash spring the changing values of society with non- regimeal make-ups and the media attempting to assist in informing the public and creating aw areness with accepted issues.\r\nSurrogacy is a difficult issue, especially in Australia where the law varies from defer to state. Many infertile Australian couples seek the function of surrogate m some another(prenominal)s overseas in the United States, India and other countries, spending up to $80,000 and risking breaking the law. The accepted issue of concern in this, is not barely the exploitation of poor women but in like manner the Australians beingness overcharged by these clinics as tumesce as the legal consideration and treasureion of electric s bemuserren caught up in the booming overseas surrogacy trade.\r\nCurrently below Australian law, altruistic surrogacy is welcome however commercial surrogacy is banned in all states, excluding the Northern Territory with no current dedicate targeting surrogacy. The Surrogacy comprise 2010 was designed to lodge altruistic surrogacy move against commercial surrogacy, while setting out safeguards to deliver the goods the ruff liaison of the squirt and attempt to instigate all surrogacy agreements. This end be seen as an attack to sufficiently reflect societal views within the law as a 1993 survey revealed friendship attitudes towards commercial surrogacy had a 30% approval rate whereas 59% disapproved.\r\nSince its commencement in March 2011 overseas commercial surrogacy ar representments father also been make illegal in NSW, Queensland and the ACT, with the NSW Parliament introducing extraterritorial eatable that extend the offence to outside the jurisdiction for residents, who could possibly face fines of up to $100,000 or up to 2 years prison house if caught. This legal measure however is questionable in its ability to achieve the best outcome for the youngster, being a punishable offence and enabling the handcuffs of parents or subjecting them to a financial hardship could only worsen the situation for a child involved.\r\n save this amendment to the bill was entrustfully added with little review of its consequences, incite to reduce the exploitation of poor women in maturation countries, it fails to ensure the best interest of the child and that referee is achieved. Failure of existing law has led to a supercharge inquire for reform as the criminalisation of overseas arrangements is difficult to police and unenforceable which has created issues of residency and non-compliance. Currently an estimated 40 per cent of India’s $2.5 cardinal commercial surrogacy industry is made up of Australian clientele, however complaints about the overcharging nature of these clinics are increasing. This is knotty as there are few protections for mean parents in India with its unregulated industry as well as the legal restrictions in Australia, creating difficulty in the ability to monitor such arrangements.\r\nChief federal Court Magistrate, John Pascoe issued a bid in December proposing Australia should legalise commercial surrogacy to ensure that agreements are properly regulated to protect children, surrogates and commissioning parents. This statement attempts to introduce a divergent approach similar to that of California, which relies on executed contracts between think parents and the surrogate, delineate the leg al status of the child as well as the responsibilities of all parties. NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge commented on the face up act saying â€Å"What began as a progressive formula giving equal rights to all children has ended up as regressive command which will force parents underground and create uncertainness around many children’s parenting”. Pascoe’s aim would allow for better control of the issue, avoiding the criminalisation of parents and the need for intending parents acting outside of the law, which has been the result of present legislation.\r\nSurrogacy Australia is a non- giving medicational fundamental law and advocacy group, which is soon addressing the concern for intended parents involved in overseas arrangements who are being cheated and taken advantage of by clinics. Increasing complaints to the organisation as well as research collected, suggests Australians are being overcharged by up to 40 per cent and much so being billed for super fluous medical procedures on surrogates. Surrogacy Australia is a support organisation assisting those who require help and access to info, with a present focus on warning and creating awareness of this concern, for those in the future considering the surrogacy option.\r\nResearch by the group also suggests the ineffectuality of the existing laws, revealing the ban on commercial surrogacy, deters only 7 per cent of considering parents and this places a certain pressure on the government to regard its prohibition. A further issue arising from the inconsistent laws targeting surrogacy in Australia is the presumption of strain, whether in looks of genetic or gestational surrogacy. Under the previous legislation, with cases governed by the Status of Children Act 1996, a child’s legal parents were its birth experience and her husband or de situationo partner, irrespective to whether nascence technologies were used. For intending parents this caused a number of legal probl ems as they could be subject to tumultuous legal obstacles when applying for full agnatic rights and therefore led to the commencement of the Surrogacy Act on the 1st of March 2011.\r\nThe reformed Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) has recognized certain altruistic surrogacy arrangements and created a process for transferring legal personal line of credit from the surrogate mother to the intended parents in a more time-effective manner. The eligibility requirements and preconditions to obtain a parentage order are also contained in this act and this is for purposes of creating a more structured system, considering the best interest of the children and also to regulate arrangements, as they flowerpotnot be enforced, further by the birth mother. The stated aim of surrogacy laws in Australia has been and remains to be the prevention of exploitation of unsafe adults, to avoid the commercialization of reproduction and to protect the best interests of children.\r\nHowever children natural o verseas through surrogacy are not the legal children of their Australian intended parents; no(prenominal) of the state inquiries directly address the problem of parentage for children when adults travel out of the jurisdiction and or payment a birth mother to carry the gestation period and this creates another contend for parentage orders. Intending parents cannot lodge an exertion for a transfer of parentage until they return to Australia and currently the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 excludes commercial surrogacy. This is a contradiction in the attempt to protect the child, with courts torn between two irreconcilable concepts, finding on one hand parliaments intention to prevent commercial surrogacy with a clear policy across the country, and on the other the courts duty to mitigate such policy by consideration of the child’s wel fartheste, who whitethorn end up a stateless orphan if orders are not made. Recent changes to commercial surrogacy in India however, whit ethorn be of assistance in preventing such situations from occurring. The Indian government has issued a directive that only couples who have been married for more than two years can enter into commercial surrogacy arrangements, and only if it is legal in their home country and this will have a huge impact in making Australian law unavoidable.\r\nMoreover on parentage orders, the increasingly complex web of eligibility rules developed through ordered reforms to safeguard the interest of children, appear to also be inadequate with the family formation conducts of those involved in surrogacy. This was show in the case of AP v RD (2011) NSW, which took place forward to the commencement of the Surrogacy Act on The 1st of March, with its provisions and requirements remaining, AP applied for a parentage order under the Surrogacy Act in the Supreme Court. This parentage order could only be made with all the preconditions met and in this instance the court was satisfied that the arrangeme nt was made introductory to foundation, however declined to make the parentage order due to the provision of a counselor’s report and state confirming the parties accept was not to a satisfactory level .\r\nThis shows the courts ability to protect and ensure the rights of the surrogate mother and her partner, as respond is a dominant requirement in surrogacy arrangements. Although indicates an ineffectiveness in achieving dearice for intending parents, makeing an excessive amount of evidence to allow parentage orders. With the intention to create better circumstances and gain parentage rights regulated by the law, these precautions can be seen to make it somewhat difficult for arrangements to be followed through as seen in this token case.\r\nThe reform inquiries were commenced by hastily arranged parliamentary inquires, where only six to nine months was allocated for the entire hear and reporting process. This implies the new laws in Australia are base not on evid ence of the actual behaviour or needs of families formed through surrogacy to envision, but rather on inaccurate ideas and assumptions about the threats and problems with surrogacy and how they can be ‘improved’. The Federal Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, is calling on the states to bring â€Å"some uniformity” to the widely different laws covering surrogacy and this is an indication for a further need to reform.\r\nPrior to reforms made to the Family Law Act 1975, a birth mother that used an artificial conception procedure to conceive, in a same-sex consanguinity, was unable to legitimately identify her effeminate partner as a parent, whereas in the case of hetero cozy relationships, the law allowed the husband or male partner to be accepted as a parent. Before 2008 children born to sapphic couples only had one legal parent, and it was not particular(prenominal) for a sperm donor’s bring up to be recorded in recognition of their biological rel ationship. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found this to be inequality in the law and an issue of discrimination. The fact that the Family Law Act was designed to accommodate and emphasise the heterosexual family also caused difficulty for legal officers to resolve cases and disputes within same-sex families.\r\nIn response to this, the NSW government in 2008 amended the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) and the Births, Deaths and Marriages fitting Act 1995 (NSW) with the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2008 (NSW). This created a parenting presumption in favour of women of same-sex relationships, through recognising the female co-parent of children born through birthing technologies as well as allowing both mothers to be listed on the child’s birth certificate. Accomplishing the best interest of the child who no longer will only have one legal parent, the act also successfully reflects the change in community attitudes as prejudi cial societal outlooks on homosexuality has decreased with new-fashioned years presenting a more accepting nature.\r\nA birth certificate creates a rebuttable presumption of parentage however a presumption arising out of use of a fertilization procedure is certain. The case of AA v Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages and BB (2011) focused on a man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple, considering himself to a fetch to the child conceived while forming a loving relationship with her and contributing thousands in support payments. This was the first case of its kind after the amendments made to the law in 2008, attempting to forcibly bear off BBs name from the child’s birth certificate in a court battle that succeeded.\r\nBringing forward the apprehension of legal parents versus biological parents creates the potential for complex issues border children born to same-sex couples. Sperm donors have no legal parental status even if they’re on a birth certificate, with partners of lesbian mothers gaining that right mechanically with the introduction of the act in 2008. Judge Walmsley, involved in the case, suggested allowing for three parents to be on the birth certificate as he recognised its mightily symbolism. However it is not possible under NSW law to have three parents with legal responsibilities, had he had sexual intercourse with the mother or married her, he would have gained this legal status. This essentially highlights the inadequacy of laws dealing with multi-parent families.\r\nJanet Loughman the Principal solicitor of Women’s Legal run NSW stated, â€Å"Contrary to popular belief birth certificates do not make you a parent, they are just proof, like a drivers license. They record legal parentage, not genetic parentage. It is the legal parents who need that proof as they go about the daily business of procreation the child”.\r\nEven so, donors do not lots involve themselves in the life of their child and prior to 2010; the Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) stated that the identity of donors would be concealed allowing them to maintain their right to loneliness. However this resulted in concerns arising for the children, as they were likely to suffer from lack of randomness about their genetic heritage with identity crisis or medical and social dilemmas impacting them negatively. The Assisted Reproductive applied science Act 2007 commenced on the 1st of January 2010, with it, introducing the National invention Donor Registry. The Assisted Reproductive Technology jurisprudence 2010 specifies by law what information about both the donor and donor conceived child must be provided and recorded in the registry, which is then accessible by the child at the age of 18. Significantly the rights of the child are being addressed, although this is not concurrent with those of the donor, with the legislation only allowing their access to the child’s date of birth and sex.\r\nThe commenceme nt of this legislation has provoked a wide range of responses and this in itself speaks for its effectiveness in the view of the community. The opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner commented on these changes to the bill saying, â€Å"Proposed new laws to assist donor children to distinguish who their fathers are, have been a long time approach”. Suggesting the NSW government had a delayed response to this current problem for children, as drafts for the legislation were introduced to parliament in 2003 implies an unproductive approach in assisting children in these situations. This has at one time resulted in awe towards the stance of the law in prioritising the best interest of the child or upholding privacy rights of donors prior to the enactment of the regulation.\r\nIn the past 10 years, fertility clinics have only allowed donations from men who are willing to provide their identity for recording and this has resulted in the number of sperm donations decreasi ng by more than half between 1998 and 2008 according to the President of the birthrate Society of Australia, Peter Illingworth. Through the establishment of the art Donor Registry it can then be assumed this will lead to an even further decline in the number of sperm donations in Australia. Peter Illingworth also commented on the exposure of donor identities, which may occur due to the introduction of the legal clause giving the government power to demand access to this information. â€Å"We can’t release the information at all without the donor’s consent and it is as simple as that… consent over-rides everything”, emphasising the enormousness of their right to privacy and the fact that this legislation was not enforceable when they chose to donate sperm plays into the injustice that will occur if the government chooses to enable such actions.\r\nirrespective of this Jillian Skinner feels â€Å"The rights of children will now be enshrined in the legisl ation so that any child born through ART will, after they turn 18, be able to know the details of their biological parents”. be the most important focus this understanding emphasises the fact that the current regulation, does provide a legal conclusion that the best interest of the child is ensured. The media can be accredited through its release of numerous articles care track of the process and government introductions of new laws and regulations. Ensuring the community is aware and informed of changes in legislation that may impact on previous sperm donors or those considering donating, will help avoid any confusion or injustice occurring in the future.\r\nThe commonwealth government of Australia cannot universally legislate for reproductive technology practice. therefore each state and territory is responsible for conniving and implementing separate legislation. This has resulted in laws and practices that differ from state to state. Advances in birth technology have created a great need for law reform as they challenge the long-standing moral and legal conceptions of ‘family’ and ‘parent’. It is difficult to comparison surrogacy with other reproductive methods, as the surrogate mother is undergoing all the emotional, mental and physical feelings of pregnancy, not only if donating an ovum and therefore laws in place protect surrogate mothers in Australia and overseas are important, however are useless when they compromise the rights of intended parents and the children.\r\nThe current debate, taking place in Australia reflects the rapidly changing legal landscape and societal attitudes in relation to surrogacy and assisted reproductive technology. The wide divergence in Australian and international laws are indicative of the range of opinions about surrogacy and assisted reproductive technologies and of the challenges lawmakers face in staying up to date with these new technologies. Thus far the attempt to satisfy and cater for all contemporary issues within the area can be furthered to remove inconsistencies between state and federal, as well as clarify legal rights of all parties involved. However laws relating to these issues have been slow to pass with the government and courts constrained by existing legislation, suggesting the legal and non-legal measures are more so ineffective than they have been efficient.\r\n'