LOS MARGINADOS: Calls for commercial surrogacy in Australia as children get ‘stranded’

sábado, 21 de octubre de 2017

Calls for commercial surrogacy in Australia as children get ‘stranded’

Calls for commercial surrogacy in Australia as children get ‘stranded’

Bioedge

Calls for commercial surrogacy in Australia as children get ‘stranded’

by Xavier Symons | 21 Oct 2017 |

An Australian couple living in the US has discovering that they will not be recognised as the parents of their surrogate-born children if they return home.

David and Naomi Seddon were married in the US and had two baby girls via a commercial surrogate in California. The girls are US citizens, but will not be recognised as children of the Seddon’s under Australian law. Strictly speaking, the girls will only be eligible for a 90-day Australian tourist visa if the Seddons were to be forced to return to Australia for good.

“If we were to not get our visas renewed we can't stay in US, but the girls can't [stay in] Australia — well they could for 90 days as tourists, because legally we're not their parents," Mr Seddon told reporters this week.

"We did not set out to break Australian law. We complied with the laws of the country where we have been living," Ms Seddon said. "We understand surrogacy is complex and needs regulation but for me not to be recognised as the parents of my children is just absolutely disgusting."

Currently all Australian states and territories – except the Northern Territory – only allow altruistic surrogacy (where the surrogate is reimbursed costs of the pregnancy alone). In September, the Family Court of Australia made a ruling that the parents of a child, who was born in India to a paid surrogate, could not be recognised as parents under the Family Law Act.

The court instead made an order of parental responsibility to the couple.

ART pioneer Gab Kovacs has called for immediate law reform, citing the increasing demand for surrogacy in Australia: “In Australia, there is a chronic shortage of gamete (egg or sperm) donors and women undertaking surrogacy, as opposed to an abundant supply of donors and commercial surrogates in countries where financial compensation is permitted.”

Saturday, October 21, 2017

If you are not inclined to be disputatious, don’t visit Australia at the moment. Across the country is a heated debate about same-sex marriage. According to the bookies, the Yes vote is set to win, although the No vote is giving its opponents a good run for the money. Newspapers are full of op-eds for and against; the broadcast media seems to be only “for”; and Twitter is going wild.

But something equally important is being debated: assisted suicide. The lower house of the state of Victoria yesterday voted for a bill which will legalise it. If it passes, other states will almost certainly follow. It will mark a dramatic turn in Australia’s law and medicine. But – compared to same-sex marriage – almost no one is talking about it.

What accounts for the difference? Oxford bioethicist Professor Julian Savulescu, writing in The Conversation, says that people fear death and like talking about sex and that in evolutionary terms, death is less important than reproduction.

It’s an interesting question. I don’t believe that I agree with his answer. I think that people intuitively understand that control of marriage is the hinge of social life and are reluctant to redefine it.

But what do you think? Why is the debate over same-sex marriage so much more engaging than the equally important debate over euthanasia?