Once the contract was considered void, it became a custody battle. However, it was pretty obvious who was going to win. Because Ms. Whitehead was seen screaming and crying, it only helped the other parent's case. Others began to see that she was unstable and not fit for raising Baby M. I believe that the other parents deserved to win because they were mature, stable, and loving parents that wanted what was best for their child. They handled the situation as best as they could and didn't make a big scene like Ms. Whitehead. Overall, they just wanted to add a new member to their family and Ms. Whitehead was the one that made this unnecessarily difficult for them.
The Baby M case was very complicated, which is why surrogate mothers that aren't using their own eggs is a safer way to go. I believe that women that voluntarily agree to be a surrogate mother are accepting the challenge of carrying another family's baby and letting them go, once they are birthed. I feel that the surrogate is responsible for being familiar with what they are signing themselves up for. Although it is their body, the signed the contract and should follow it in order to make the situation safer and straightfoward.
I agree with your point that there was infact an official contract signed, meaning that Baby M should not go to Ms. Whitehead. What I found interesting though, was that Ms. Whitehead appealed the court ruling, and then won in the New Jersey Court of appeals a few months later. The court of appeals ruled the contract signed by both parties void meaning that Ms. Whitehead had custody of the child, but then had to make different arangments as she was not in a strong enough financial posistion to pay back Stern's. This then sparked a series new laws being made in states across the country. As we have seen with advancments in technology, this case is shown to be a turning point in the way surrogacy happens. Even though surrogate women today are not using their own eggs and are simply just the carrier of the baby, I think there is still some sense of attachment that can happen as they still have the physical connection to the baby. Now I'm not saying that this means its okay for them to then assume custody of the child, but I do believe this could still pose problems for people if they are trying to have a baby via a surrogate mother.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the idea that Mrs. Whitehead had chosen to relinquish the baby. While she may not have known the full impact of the terms, she should have considered that before hand. Had she negotiated the contract or discussing what certain terms would entail and had proof that the Sterns were out of line, I would have taken her side. I also agree that Whitehead tried to appeal to the emotions of the public, and use public scrutiny to try and win her case. In the end, the child was able to make her own decision on who she considered her mother, but was only capable of doing so once she reached adulthood. If Whitehead had waited before trying to claim the child as her own (say when Baby M was 6 or so), would people still have taken her side?
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to consider today's issues with sperm donations and artificial insemination in cases of women who want to become pregnant. Cases of sperm banks repeatedly using sperm from the same donors over a hundred times are actually quite common which has lead to fear of unintentional inbreeding from the both donors and mothers. There are little to no restrictions on the number of times sperm from a single donor can be used in the U.S, so should this be restricted like in other countries? Furthermore, there have been several instances, including a dutch doctor by the name of Jan Karbaat and Donald Cline, who used their own sperm on their patients who requested artificial insemination. This has left many lesbian and single mothers feeling violated, as they had no knowledge of what these doctors were doing. If these men then use the argument that they are related to these children and claim custody of them, should this be warranted? These men likely have not signed the contract as other sperm donors, so they have not surrendered their parental rights, however they have done so without the consent of the woman involved. While this has not yet occurred, it shows how even now there are still moral and ethical dilemmas related with artificial insemination, even with the technological advances that have been introduced.
Sources:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/14/dutch-fertility-doctor-used-sperm-inseminate-patients/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/fertility-doctor-donald-cline-secret-children/583249/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/05/bachelorette-contestant-114-kids-sperm-donor/589258/
https://www.hrc.org/resources/known-donor-agreement
I agree with your opinion on why Mrs Whitehead could not keep the baby. even tho she was the mother of this baby, she could not care for it. She was not in a position to care for a baby, she had signed the contract, she agreed to the terms, and she got the money. But after birth, the love for that baby she had cared for in her body was true.
ReplyDeleteI agree that with all factors weighed against each other Ms. Whitehead should not earn full custody of the child. However I believe the contract should not hold that much precedent. At the end of the day Baby M was genetically in part Ms. Whiteheads. By the contract forcing her to still essentially sell the child even after she changed her mind makes the case almost like a forced adoption. I feel that because giving up a child can cause a sense of loss that is all-encompassing it is unfair and wrong to pay someone to go through that.
ReplyDeletehttps://adoptionnetwork.com/emotional-and-psychological-effects-of-adoption-on-birth-mother
I agree with your opinion. She knew from the beginning that she was having this baby to give to somebody else. There was never a question about her being able to keep it. The fact that she tried to is morally wrong because she went back on her word. I understand that after carrying and having the child it would have been hard for her to give up but this is what she agreed to and she needed to stick to it. It is also not fair to the parents because they were expecting to have their baby with no problems and now because she went back on what she agreed to she caused these parents a lot of problems and stress and in the end she didn't even get to keep the baby.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Ms. Whitehead should not have been able to keep Baby M. There was a contract signed between all of them that clearly stated what was going to happen and Ms. Whitehead didn't try to negotiate, instead she took the child. The way Ms. Whitehead made her case also put a negative stance on surrogation. Overall considering how the surrogation was done (using Ms. Whitehead's own egg) I think that the entire situation shouldn't have happened. However I think that without the Baby M case, surrogation would not have the medical advances and laws to protect it now. The traditional way of surrogacy (using the surrogates egg and then sperm from the intended father/donor) is uncommon. If people choose to do traditional surrogacy, it is required in some states to do a stepparent adoption of the surrogate child and the surrogates legal rights must be terminated. Now gestational (surrogate is carrier of baby and has no genetic link) surrogacy is available and poses less legal and emotional barriers to families.
ReplyDeletehttps://southernsurrogacy.com/surrogacy-information/gestational-vs-traditional-surrogacy/
I also agree that the other parents had more right in keeping baby M because Ms. Whitehead had signed the contract and she had also got money from when she agreed in not keeping baby M no more. Later on when she decided that she wanted the baby back didnt give her no right t chnage her mind after she had already singed paper work and had agree to giving baby M other parents that were much more better than her because like you said above she wasnt ready to take care of a baby nor was so stable enough for one which shows had she had no right like the actual parents of baby M did.
ReplyDelete