Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:12:01.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surrogate Motherhood and Children's Interests: An NCBA discussion paper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Julie Martin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The issue of surrogacy has attracted spirited and concerned public and professional debate. For some commentators even the term itself is considered a misnomer. In the midst of forceful opposition from feminists, churches, and groups concerned with preserving the “traditional family”, together with powerful support from sections of the medical establishment, certain academics and other high profile individuals, the future of surrogacy in Australia is uncertain. What is certain is that surrogacy challenges people's ideas about acceptable means of family formation both on a personal moral level and from the broader perspective of public policy.

Type
Surrogacy
Information
Children Australia , Volume 15 , supplement 4: The State of Australia's Children , 1990 , pp. 40 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albury, R. 1988. In Surrogate Motherhood. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Sydney.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, M. Surrogacy proposals violate children's rights. The Australian, Nov. 11, 1990.Google Scholar
Charo, R.A. 1988. Infertility: Medical and Social Aspects. Office of Tech Assessment, US Congress.Google Scholar
Dietrich, H. 1990. In Surrogacy Report 1 National Bioethics Consultative Committee.Google Scholar
Dunne, R. 1990. In Surrogacy Report 1. National Bioethics Consultative Committee.Google Scholar
Evatt, E. 1989. Children's Rights and the Legal Regulation of Families. Paper presented at AIFS conference, Ballarat.Google Scholar
Gamble, H. Fathers and the new reproductive technologies: Australian Journal of Family Law, July 1990 4 (2), 131–144.Google Scholar
Holbrook, S. Adoption, infertility and the new reproductive technologies: problems and prospects for social work and welfare policy. Social work, 35(4), 1990, 333–337.Google ScholarPubMed
Humphrey, M & H. 1986. A fresh look at genealogical bewilderment. British Journal of Medical Psychology 59, 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, H & H. 1988. Families with a difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leeton, J. & Backwell, J. 1982. A preliminary psychosocial follow-up of parents and their children conceived by artificial insemination by donor. Clinical Reproduction and Fertility. 307–310.Google Scholar
Leitch, D. 1984. Family secrets. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Learner, E. 1986. Social issues common to adoption and the new reproductive technologies. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 11 (4), 37–42.Google Scholar
McFadden, T. 1988. The baby machine: commercialisation of motherhood. McCullock: Melbourne.Google Scholar
Meggit, M. 1990. Repeating the errors of the past - surrogacy. Paper presented at the Vincents Bioethics Conference.Google Scholar
Muller, P. 1986. I am the son of a surrogate mother. Parents and Children, 39–40.Google Scholar
Picton, C. 1982. Adoptees in search of origins. Adoption and Fostering 6 (2), 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piontelli, A. 1989. A study of twins before and after birth. International review of psycho-analysis, vol.16 (4), 43–426.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. 1987. The role of the psychiatric consultant in an artificial insemination by donor program. Psychiatric Annals, vol. 17 (2) 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reame, N. & Parker, P. 1990. Surrogate pregnancy: clinical feature of forty-four cases. American Journal Obstet Gynecol 162, 1220–1225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parseral, G. & Fargot-largeault, A. The status of artificially procreated children: international disparities (trans. M. Charlesworth). >Bioethics. vol. 2 (2) 136–150.CrossRefBioethics.+vol.+2+(2)+136–150.>Google Scholar
Purdy, L. 1989. Surrogate mothering: exploitation or empowerment? Bioethics News, 19–31.Google Scholar
The National Bioethics Consultative Committee, August 1989. Reproductive technology. Record keeping and access to information. Birth certificates and birth records of offspring born as a result of gamete donation.Google Scholar
Surrogacy report 1. April 1990 Google Scholar
Discussion paper on surrogacy - implementation, October, 1990 Google Scholar
New South Wales Law Reform Commission. Artificial conception: surrogate motherhood, December, 1988.Google Scholar
Rowland, R. Response to the draft report: surrogacy NBCC, September, 1989 Google Scholar
Rowland, R. 1985. The social and psychological consequences of secrecy inartificial insemination by donor (AID) programs. Social Science Medicine, vol. 21, (4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, R. & Ruffin, C. 1983. Community attitudes to artificial insemination by husband or donor, in vitro fertilisation and adoption. Clinical reproduction and fertility, vol. 2.Google ScholarPubMed
Sants, H.J. 1964. Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, vol. 37, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saulwick, I. The surrogacy question. The Age, 9 July, 1990 Google Scholar
Schuker, E. 1987. Psychological effects of the new reproductive technologies. Women-Health, 13. 141–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scutt, J. 1988. The baby machine: commercialisation of motherhood. McCullock: Melbourne.Google Scholar
Snowden, R., Mitchell, G., Snowden, E. 1983. Artificial reproduction: a social investigation. Allen & Unwin: London.Google Scholar
Toynbee, P. 1985. Lost children: the story of adopted children searching for their mothers. Hutchinson: London.Google Scholar
Triseliotis, J. 1973. In search of origins: the experience of adopted people. London: Routledge Keagan Paul.Google Scholar
Van Keppel, M. 1990. At whose expense? The psychological and social costs of creating children through gamete and surrogacy arrangements. Paper presented at the New Zealand adoption conference, Wellington.Google Scholar
Wade, J. 1987. Balancing the interests of parents, children, experts and the state. Paper presented at AIFS conference.Google Scholar
Winkler, R. and Van Keppel, M. 1984. Relinquishing mothers in adoption: their long term adjustment. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne.Google Scholar
Winkler, R. and Midford, S. 1986. Biological identity in adoption, artificial insemination by donor and the new birth technologies. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 11(4).Google Scholar