Parenthood and IVF babies

Great Debates
1

Dominating the news right now in the UK is the story of a white couple, Mr and Mrs W(hite) (for argument’s sake, we’re not allowed to know their names, or indeed the name of the clinic involved) who went for IVF treatment at a clinic at which a black couple (Mr and Mrs B) were also undergoing treatment. The treatment worked, Mrs W became pregnant. She carries the children to term, and gives birth to two black children. See here for the full story.

They’re also reporting a similar case in the US where a woman conceived two babies, gave birth, one was black and one white. The black baby was, genetically, the child of a black couple. It went to court, the black baby was given to the black parents, the mother that carried the child to term was not (as I understand it) even given visiting rights.

My point is this: the whole idea of IVF means, surely, that the genetic basis of parenthood is less important that who carries that child. This implies that someone can donate their eggs, someone else carries the child to term and then the donor can claim ‘their’ child back. Surely this is wrong? There may be issues with mixed-race families for some people, but that issue is surely long since redundant.

Yes, it would be awful for Mr and Mrs B, who have, I believe, so far failed to be successful in their quest for a family, to know that ‘their’ child has been born to someone else, but it’s surely worse for the woman who’s carried those chidren to have to return them? (I should say here that the facts are as above, I’m assuming that there’s been a mix-up somewhere along the line but we don’t as yet know that to be the case.)

So, Dopers, what do you think: should biological parenthood take precedence over who’s carried the child? Surely, take it any other way and we’re into surrogacy, which is not why people go to an IVF clinic. Any other thoughts?

N

2

Actually, the genetic basis of parenthood is most important for those who choose IVF. Otherwise they would adopt.

Regarding the legal mess (strictly IMO):
In the British case, we don’t know what IVF scenario was used (a black couple’s misplaced embryo; third party sperm or egg, either one possibly coming from a black donor) so it’s difficult for someone not in the know to make a determination. In the US case, since it was clear from the get-go that the embryo was from the black couple, biological parenthood was easy to establish.

I would imagine there is a surrogacy option at some IVF clinics, if the mother is unable to carry the child and a genetic child is important to the couple.

I don’t think a woman who donates her eggs to a couple and then claims the child would stand much of a chance of winning that claim, IMO.

3

AFAIK, IVF and other assisted conception techniques don’t necessarily involve either sperm or eggs from a third-party donor. The husband’s sperm and the wife’s eggs may be used, with the intention that the resulting child will be, genetically, the child of both of them, exactly as if “normal” conception had occurred between them.

So far as I can see, that was the understanding and expectation in this case, but due to an error of some kind third-party sperm, or third-party eggs, or both, were used. And it may well be that the third parties whose sperm or eggs were used were also exepcting that their sperm and eggs would be used to conceive a child which they themselves would carry and deliver. In other words, neither couple was expecting either to be donors of sperm or eggs, or to receive donated sperm or eggs. They both wanted to conceive and bear their own genetic offspring.

4

Ooh! Oooh! I just wrote a 120-page paper on this!

In the U.S., this is pretty much an ongoing legal debate, because there isn’t a lot of caselaw at present on what defines a “mother.” Most states presume that a “father” is simply the husband of the woman who gave birth, and there’s legal mechanisms in place that allow him to get that status even if it’s biologically impossible. (I.e., a man can have his name put on the birth certificate.)

But back to the mother thing…there’s increased confusion here because there really are two aspects to motherhood: genetics and gestation. It’s a philosophical problem of whether motherhood is a genetic, a physical, or a social function. It’s whether one woman is donating an egg or another woman is donating a womb. Unfortunatley, it’s largely a bunch of legal theories floating around out there, because only a few states have actually had rulings on this specific issue.

The most popular theory right now is that “intent” controls, meaning that if you “intend” to raise a child, it’s yours regardless of your connection to the child. There was a wacky case out in California back in 1998, In re Buzzanca (don’t have the cite handy, sorry) where a court ruled that the child of a sperm donor, egg donor, surrogate, and two adopting parents (who then divorced) belonged to the adopting mother, since she was the “intended” recipient. [N.B.: she was the only person suing for that declaration. The case was actually over whether her ex-husband was liable for child support; the court said he was.)

The conclusion I reached in my paper (God willing, it’ll get published this fall) is that biology should take precedence only because I thought that was the best result under the circumstances. I did put a strict limitation on the theory: that the biological parent be fit, and that it happen within a reasonable time of the birth, say, 1-3 months. (Obviously, we don’t want a drunken, abusive parent trying to reclaim the child at age 6.)

I’m open to another party being declared a child’s parent, so long as we consider that the IVF child is an individual human being with its own needs and rights. One of the problems I dealt with in my paper was something you mentioned, Nerrie, about the expectant parents:

The implied problem here is that the surrogate mother somehow “earned” the children by her gestation. I don’t mean to belittle the gestational role of women; I can’t imagine how difficult a pregnancy or birth is. It just disturbs me to think that a child is somehow the work product of a mother, because the parent-child relationship is one of stewardship, not ownership. The fact that the surrogate mother “feels bad” after surrendering a child isn’t sufficient reason to give it back to her.

*This, by the way, doesn’t mean I’m opposed to a legal theory in which a surrogate, non-genetic parent does get custody. It just means that I consider human dignity a line that shouldn’t be crossed, so I need a better reason to favor the surrogate.

5

Having done IVF (unsuccessfully), I can tell you that I would be devastated to have given birth only to find out that the child was not mine–NOT because the genetics were the all-important thing, but because of the very real possibility that the child whom I had carried and loved would be taken away from me.

[hijack]
There are more reasons for not pursuing adoption than just wanting to have a child who is genetically linked to you. Some people can’t get approved for adoption, some don’t have the money to pursue it, some situations may involve one partner who wants to adopt and one who doesn’t, some may just feel that it’s not the right thing for their family. I would adopt in a heartbeat if it were possible, but all things considered, it’s not. And I’m not going to feel bad about pursuing IVF if that’s my only option right now (besides living child-free, which I may end up doing if my next IVF doesn’t work).
[/hijack]

Also, bear in mind that when someone goes through an IVF procedure, it takes a tremendous amount of sorrow, pain, and money to get there. You don’t just go and have IVF done right off the bat. So yeah, to have paid $15,000, gotten pregnant, carried a child to term and delivered it–only to find out that it’s someone else’s baby, yeah, I’d have an amazingly big problem with that!!!

I’ve been married for over ten years now, I’m in my late 30’s, have severe endometriosis and have been told by my doctors that after another IVF attempt I’m going to have to get a hysterectomy in a last-ditch effort to halt the endometriosis and the constant pain I’m experiencing. If I in good faith went through an IVF procedure, that baby’s mine.

Sorry, I’m feeling very emotional about this.