Select Page

10.- Gestation pour autrui / Surrogacy — CHURCH OF FRANCE / — États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

10.- Gestation pour autrui / Surrogacy — CHURCH OF FRANCE /  — États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…
Advertisement

Status of the issue

Sur­ro­ga­cy (GS) is the name giv­en to the tech­nique known as “sur­ro­ga­cy”. It belongs to Assist­ed Human Reproduction[1]. With its own char­ac­ter­is­tics, it is part of an inter­na­tion­al repro­duc­tive mar­ket. It is pro­hib­it­ed in France and many oth­er countries.

GPA uses a woman to car­ry the child dur­ing preg­nan­cy so that the so-called “inten­tion par­ents” can recov­er the child once born, so that it is con­sid­ered their own. This is reflect­ed in an agree­ment between this woman and the par­ents of intent. The child is almost always giv­en to them for a price. Pri­vate inter­me­di­aries have been set up to estab­lish these agree­ments and guar­an­tee their execution.

GPA comes in sev­er­al forms: insem­i­na­tion of the sur­ro­gate moth­er with the sper­ma­to­zoa of the inten­tion father who will also be the bio­log­i­cal father, or with those of a donor; in vit­ro con­cep­tion of a human embryo, from the gametes of the inten­tion par­ents, or from one of the par­ents with one donor, or from two donors, which will be implant­ed in the uterus of the sur­ro­gate mother.

Appli­cants are male/female cou­ples whose wives can­not bear chil­dren, sin­gle men or cou­ples of men, or even fer­tile women who, refus­ing the “incon­ve­nience” of ges­ta­tion and child­birth, resort to GS “for rea­sons of con­ve­nience” (CCNE, Opin­ion 126).

The Court of Cas­sa­tion (judg­ment of 31 May 1991) stat­ed as a prin­ci­ple that “the agree­ment by which a woman under­takes, even free of charge, to con­ceive and bear a child in order to aban­don it at birth con­tra­venes both the prin­ci­ple of the unavail­abil­i­ty of the human body and the prin­ci­ple of the unavail­abil­i­ty of the state of per­sons”. The Act of 29 July 1994 intro­duced arti­cle 16–7 into the Civ­il Code: “Any agree­ment con­cern­ing pro­cre­ation or ges­ta­tion on behalf of anoth­er is null and void.

To cir­cum­vent the French ban, French peo­ple go abroad, to a state where GS is autho­rised. On their return to France, they request that the child’s birth cer­tifi­cate, drawn up in the coun­try of birth, be tran­scribed in the French civ­il sta­tus reg­is­ters. Since 2015, the Court of Cas­sa­tion has accept­ed the tran­scrip­tion when this act says real­i­ty: the par­ents are the “sur­ro­gate moth­er” and the bio­log­i­cal father, accord­ing to the prin­ci­ple cer­ta mater is[2]. In three judg­ments of 5 July 2017, the Court extend­ed this prin­ci­ple by spec­i­fy­ing that if the moth­er is not the “sur­ro­gate moth­er”, tran­scrip­tion can­not be authorised.

The father’s spouse can then apply to adopt the child. Since a fourth judg­ment of 5 July 2017, the Court of Cas­sa­tion has accept­ed adop­tion (in this case sim­ple) while the courts on the mer­its have not fol­lowed it and have reject­ed appli­ca­tions for adop­tion (in this case in ple­nary ses­sion) (Paris Court of Appeal, 30 Jan­u­ary 2018). Until this deci­sion of July 5, 2017, the Court of Cas­sa­tion refused adop­tion, sim­ple or ple­nary, since the GPA, by orga­niz­ing the removal of the sur­ro­gate moth­er — the woman who gave birth — in order to make the child adopt­able, diverts adop­tion from its mean­ing: giv­ing par­ents to a child who has been deprived of it (by the mis­for­tunes of life and not by a contract).

Although French law inval­i­dates any GPA agree­ment, its effects are, to a large extent, accept­ed in France by the courts[3]. There­fore, it is dif­fi­cult for France to fight against GS.

Questions this raises

The Nation­al Con­sul­ta­tive Ethics Com­mit­tee stress­es that “of all MPA pro­ce­dures, GS is the only one that sep­a­rates the child from the woman who bore it, and the only one also capa­ble of com­plete­ly dis­so­ci­at­ing bio­log­i­cal trans­mis­sion (genet­ic via gametes, epi­ge­net­ics via preg­nan­cy) and social trans­mis­sion (parental care of the child at birth), since par­ents of inten­tion may not par­tic­i­pate in any stage of pro­cre­ation and gestation[4]”.

GPA estab­lish­es a rup­ture of the ges­ta­tion­al bond con­tract­ed between the child and the woman who bore it. If the sur­ro­gate moth­er has been insem­i­nat­ed, there is a dis­junc­tion between the bio­log­i­cal ges­ta­tion­al moth­er and the edu­ca­tion­al moth­er of inten­tion. If the moth­er of inten­tion has donat­ed her oocyte so that the embryo can be con­ceived and implant­ed in the uterus of the sur­ro­gate moth­er, there is a dis­junc­tion between the ges­ta­tion­al moth­er and the moth­er of inten­tion, who is also the bio­log­i­cal moth­er. The dis­junc­tion is even stronger when GS is per­formed for the ben­e­fit of a cou­ple of men: the child, sep­a­rat­ed from its ges­ta­tion­al moth­er, is also moth­er­less. It would be ille­git­i­mate to legal­ize the birth of chil­dren with­out mothers.

How­ev­er, ges­ta­tion can­not be erased in the con­struc­tion of the child. Epigenetics[5] shows that the bio­log­i­cal (and psy­cho­log­i­cal) envi­ron­ment dur­ing ges­ta­tion is not with­out impor­tance for the child who will be born and devel­op. The child aban­doned by the sur­ro­gate moth­er imme­di­ate­ly after birth there­fore suf­fers harm. More­over, child aban­don­ment is pro­hib­it­ed by law.

To avoid an exces­sive link between the sur­ro­gate moth­er and the child, con­ven­tions favour or even oblige that the oocyte does not come from the sur­ro­gate moth­er, and impose (in the Unit­ed States) that the par­ents of inten­tion be rec­og­nized as the par­ents before the birth, which caus­es an admin­is­tra­tive act of birth not cor­re­spond­ing to the real­i­ty of the facts: the reg­is­tered moth­er is not the woman who gave birth. Again, this is harm­ful to the child.

GPA uses a wom­an’s body dur­ing the nine months of ges­ta­tion, most of the time for remu­ner­a­tion or finan­cial com­pen­sa­tion, with­out always ensur­ing her phys­i­cal and psy­cho­log­i­cal integri­ty (espe­cial­ly in Asia). They are often poor women who need mon­ey. This “use” of a woman is con­trary to her dig­ni­ty and the prin­ci­ple of the unavail­abil­i­ty of the body.

We speak of “eth­i­cal GPA”: it would be real­ized free of charge thanks to a woman friend or mem­ber of the fam­i­ly, who offers her body to car­ry the child of a cou­ple who could not. In fact, GS always has a cost, which claims either com­pen­sa­tion or com­pen­sa­tion. In addi­tion to the seri­ous eth­i­cal ques­tions, there are also risks due to the prox­im­i­ty of the two moth­ers in every­day life: will the sur­ro­gate moth­er not be intru­sive in the cou­ple’s life by con­sid­er­ing that the child is also hers?

GS makes a child’s parent­age unread­able if more than two adults are involved (up to five adults) in its exis­tence and devel­op­ment before and after birth.

It is ille­git­i­mate to pay a sum to have a child, accord­ing to a con­tract. Even if GS were free, there would still be a con­tract orga­niz­ing the dis­po­si­tion of the child as prop­er­ty. How­ev­er, “in the GS con­tract, the body and the per­son of the child are in a posi­tion of object of the con­tract, incom­pat­i­ble with the gen­er­al prin­ci­ples of law. This object posi­tion has effect because the con­tract must pro­vide for what hap­pens if the object of the con­tract does not con­form to what is expected.

The desire for a child is com­mend­able and the suf­fer­ing due to med­ical infer­til­i­ty is to be accompanied[7]. But this desire can­not become a “right to the child”, espe­cial­ly in the face of the seri­ous harm that GS creates.

Since 1987, the Church has been neg­a­tive­ly dis­cernible about GS: “Sur­ro­ga­cy rep­re­sents an objec­tive breach of the oblig­a­tions of mater­nal love, con­ju­gal fideli­ty and respon­si­ble moth­er­hood; it offends the dig­ni­ty of the child and his right to be con­ceived, borne, brought into the world and edu­cat­ed by his own par­ents; it cre­ates, to the detri­ment of fam­i­lies, a divi­sion between the phys­i­cal, psy­cho­log­i­cal and moral ele­ments that con­sti­tute them (8).

—————————————————–

[1] Voir J.-R. Binet, Droit de la bioéthique, LGDJ, 2017, p. 174–176.

[2] La femme qui accouche est la mère. Ce principe ne rend pas compte de la dis­so­ci­a­tion entre géné­tique et gestation.

[3] Voir J.-R. Binet, « Ges­ta­tion pour autrui : le droit français à la croisée des chemins », n. 9 – sep­tem­bre 2017, LEXISNEXIS.

[4] Avis n. 126 du 15 juin 2017. Voir aus­si les Avis n. 90, du 24 novem­bre 2005 et n. 110, du 1er avril 2010.

[5] Par la géné­tique, on étudie le génome et son envi­ron­nement biologique. Cet envi­ron­nement a une telle influ­ence sur l’expression des gênes (et non sur leur struc­ture interne) qu’il mérite d’être étudié pour lui-même : c’est l’épigénétique.

[6] Comité Con­sul­tatif Nation­al d’Éthique, Avis n. 126, p. 34. Cet avis expose quelques sit­u­a­tions dra­ma­tiques sur la GPA.

[7] L’accompagnement d’un cou­ple hétéro­sex­uel infer­tile n’est pas le même pour un cou­ple homo­sex­uel. Voir l’arrêt de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, du 15 mars 2012, n. 25951/07, qui ne juge pas dis­crim­i­na­toire le refus de la France à la demande d’un cou­ple de femmes pour pou­voir recourir à la PMA. (Voir fiche sur l’assistance médi­cale à la procréation).

[8] L’accompagnement d’un cou­ple hétéro­sex­uel infer­tile n’est pas le même pour un cou­ple homo­sex­uel. Voir l’arrêt de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, du 15 mars 2012, n. 25951/07, qui ne juge pas dis­crim­i­na­toire le refus de la France à la demande d’un cou­ple de femmes pour pou­voir recourir à la PMA. (Voir fiche sur l’assistance médi­cale à la procréation).

ADLAUDATOSI INTEGRAL ECOLOGY FORUM WEBINARS

OUR MISSION:

THE PURPOSE IS TO SHARE BEST PRACTICES AND PROMOTE ACTIONS AGAINST HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

WE MAKE AVAILABLE TO YOU GUIDES AND RESEARCH ON TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE MOST RECOGNISED LEGAL AND OPERATIONAL ACTORS.

Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking

FRANCE — BLOG DU COLLECTIF “CONTRE LA TRAITE DES ÊTRES HUMAINS”

Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking

Holy See — PUBLICATION OF PASTORAL ORIENTATIONS ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING 2019

RIGHT TO LIFE AND HUMAN DIGNITY GUIDEBOOK

Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

That Moment Your Inner Activist Awakens: Nobel Peace Prize winner Kailash Satyarthi

Pope Francis joins religious leaders of different faiths, in fight against modern slavery

Michel Veuthey talks about the Order of Malta’s involvement in fighting human trafficking

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking

 
 

You have successfully registered !