Position paper on the preliminary draft resolution on the theme:
"For recognition and supervision of surrogacy as an alternative to
sterility" of the
Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe.
The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE) cannot agree with the arguments utilized by Council of Europe delegate Michael Hancock (GB) to justify the "recognition and supervision of surrogacy as an alternative to sterility."
1. There is no need for a European-wide Regulation
The draft document gives the false impression of a necessity to regulate surrogate motherhood across Europe. In fact, the accompanying materials provided by Mr. Hancock name only three member states of the Council of Europe in which surrogate motherhood is allowed under certain conditions (Greece, UK, and Russia), while in 11 member states surrogate motherhood is expressly forbidden. Especially in the case of ethical questions as controversial as this one, one ought to respect the sovereignty of member states and their respective systems of values. The legal solution of this problem should be left to the individual states.
2. A balanced discussion has been blocked from the beginning
In paragraph 8 of the draft document, Hancock asserts that negative reactions
to surrogacy "hinge on stereotypes and fixed ideas which skew public
perceptions and make dispassionate debate difficult" In fact, with
this assertion Hancock himself makes all thoughtful discussion impossible;
neither proponents nor opponents of Surrogate motherhood could express
their position without utilizing ethical arguments. Moreover, Hancock
himself appeals to the emotional conscience of the public when he presents
the example of a couple who yearns for a child and for whom no other medical
solution is possible: Who would want to deny them the fulfilment of their
deep wish?
In addition, no justification of the legalization of surrogate motherhood
follows from the argument based on the negative consequences resulting
from illegal surrogate motherhood. A well-balanced discussion is only
possible if both sides accept that they may make ethical as well as emotional
arguments. We already know as a result of similarly situated discussions
that this will not happen.
3. The Factual State of Affairs does not justify legal permission
The entire system of criminal law is based on the idea that there are factual states of affairs that are not desired. It is precisely through legal restriction and lawful punishment that a system of law transmits its system of values. Here also the sovereignty of member states should be respected. In addition, the socio-political effects of normative laws should not be underestimated.
4. The fact that the laws of member states are not harmonized does not
justify such a legalization.
Also the fact that the laws of the individual member states are not harmonized does not justify the recognition of such an ethically controversial measure as surrogate motherhood. The legal recognition of the newborn child can without difficulty be secured by means of international or multilateral agreements. The same applies for individual questions of law, which arise through the division of generations. The necessity for the individual member states therefore to permit surrogate motherhood itself does not arise from this.
5. Neither the information society, nor a possible tourism in surrogate
motherhood justify this legalization.
Neither can the argument based on the information society and an ensuing tourism in surrogate motherhood serve as the basis of justifying its European-wide legalization. Otherwise we would have the situation with other difficult questions, for example, cloning or designer babies, in which the laws of the individual states would be thrown into question and subsumed under the dictate of the lowest common denominator.
6. Danger for sick and/or handicapped people
The increasing "technologizing" of the act of conception and pregnancy has the effect of reducing a child more and more to the status of a product. It would be an illusion to believe that deviations from initial selection wishes, especially handicaps and illnesses, found in a child conceived with such effort would be accepted by the parents. It would also be very short-sighted to believe that selecting traits at the beginning of life will not have a negative impact on attitudes towards suffering and handicaps and the requisite social solidarity towards those already born with these problems.
7. Expansion of pre-implantation and prenatal diagnosis, in vitro fertilizaion
and egg donation.
Proponents of surrogate motherhood should state clearly that a demand for the (further) legalization of pre-implantation and prenatal diagnosis, in vitro fertilization for all, and egg donation will directly follow the legalization of surrogate motherhood.
8. The distinctive relationship between mother and child during pregnancy
Surrogate motherhood entails the loss of the time of pregnancy for the mother who will raise the child. The distinctive nature of this time for mother and child has recently been intensely discussed and underscored. It should also not be forgotten that pregnancy is an important time of preparation for the mother (as well as the father) for their (new) roll. Even moments of difficulty, which she cannot control, allow the mother to learn about the individuality of her child and to help her to prepare for the future encounter.
9. Absence of knowledge of the causes of sterility
Finally, the discussion of the recognition of surrogate motherhood completely by-passes the actual problem of sterility. Rather than a discussion of surrogate motherhood, what is needed is a discussion of the causes and background of sterility. In particular, the expansion of technical possibilities is thwarting any serious attempt at dealing with those causes of sterility which can be traced back to stress and environmental pressures. These factors often accompany the medical symptoms.
Conclusion
Therefore, The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe (FAFCE)
finds no objective ground on which to base the passage of the draft resolution
by delegate Mr. Hancock. At this time there is no need for a discussion
of a European-wide recognition of surrogate motherhood. We therefore request
that the members of the Social Committee vote against the draft of Mr.
Hancock.