|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > 1. Surrogate Motherhood: A National Survey
Research Report 2 (1987) - Surrogate Motherhood: Australian Public Opinion
1. Surrogate Motherhood: A National Survey
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The New South Wales Law Reform Commission is currently working on a reference covering all aspects of human artificial conception. The work on this reference has been divided into three parts: human artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood arrangements. The Commission issued a Discussion Paper on human artificial insemination in December 1984, and completed work on this topic with the publication of its Report on Human Artificial Insemination in July 1986.1 A Discussion Paper on in vitro fertilization will be released soon and work is well advanced on a Discussion Paper on surrogacy arrangements.
1.2 The Commission is specifically required by its terms of reference to study “surrogate mothering” arrangements, which are defined as “arrangements under which a woman agrees to bear a child for another person or persons”. Under the most common form of surrogate mothering or surrogacy arrangement, a woman (the surrogate mother) agrees to become pregnant, to bear a child and to hand the child over after birth to a married couple (the commissioning couple) to be brought up as their own. The surrogate mother usually becomes pregnant by artificial insemination (AID) with sperm from the husband, although other means of conception (including natural insemination) might be used. Couples typically make use of surrogacy arrangements in order to overcome medical problems the woman may experience in having children.
1.3 The preparation of the Commission’s Discussion Paper on surrogacy arrangements has involved extensive research in legal and non-legal fields. The Commission’s research staff has prepared a number of original papers for the Commission’s internal use on particular aspects of surrogacy arrangements. These papers include a comparative analysis of the official studies conducted in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada, West Germany and by the Council of Europe, and an analysis of the existing common law and legislation relevant to surrogacy arrangements, as well as proposed and implemented legislation addressing surrogacy arrangements.
1.4 The Commission has done a good deal of work to obtain a clear picture of the use of, and attitudes to, surrogacy arrangements in Australia, but has not been able to gain accurate information about the incidence of surrogacy arrangements in Australia. At the present time no statistics on the incidence of such arrangements are compiled in this country, either at a federal or state level. Nevertheless, press reports indicate that at least seven children were born in Australia during the period 1983-85 as a result of surrogacy arrangements.
1.5 In formulating its tentative proposals, the Commission wished to obtain information on Australian attitudes to the use of surrogacy arrangements. Again, little information was available on attitudes to surrogacy. Public opinion polls have previously been conducted on the subject of artificial conception, including human artificial insemination2 and in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer.3 Questions relating specifically to surrogate motherhood were included in a poll undertaken in July 1982.4
1.6 The Law Reform Commission decided to undertake a nationwide public opinion poll on surrogate motherhood. The principal aspects of surrogacy arrangements on which public opinion was sought were the following:
- General attitudes to surrogate motherhood itself;
- Payment of the surrogate mother;
- Involvement of intermediaries in surrogacy arrangements;
- The enforcement of such arrangements,
- Disclosure of the identity of the surrogate mother;
- Availability of surrogacy arrangements to persons other than married couples;
- Availability of surrogacy arrangements for reasons other than medical difficulties.
1.7 Members and officers of the Artificial Conception Division of the Commission, together with Concetta Rizzo, a Consultant Statistician to the Commission, drafted the questions to be asked in the survey. These questions, in the form in which they were eventually asked, appear as Appendix A to this report. The Commission retains copyright in the questions.
1.8 The questions were arranged so that interviewees were first asked to give their opinion on various aspects of surrogate motherhood arrangements for married couples who could not have children because of medical problems. Subsequent questions canvassed the availability of such arrangements to people other than married couples, and for reasons unrelated to medical conditions.
1.9 The Commission selected the Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd to conduct the survey on its behalf . The Roy Morgan Research Centre had conducted earlier public opinion polls on aspects of artificial conception.5
1.10 This survey was made possible by the generous assistance of the Law Foundation of New South Wales. The grant made available by the Law Foundation covered the cost of the preparation and conduct of the survey, the analysis of the results, and the preparation of this Research Report. The Commission wishes to acknowledge the financial assistance provided by the Law Foundation.
II. TIMING
1.11 The national opinion poll was conducted on two consecutive weekends, November 1-2 and November 8-9, 1986. It should be noted that since the survey was undertaken, two developments have occurred which might possibly have a bearing on attitudes to the issues canvassed in the present survey:
In February 1987, the Vatican issued a statement concerning artificial conception.6 In that statement, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, the Vatican urged that surrogate motherhood should be prohibited by legislation. Given that the attitudes reported in this survey were not influenced by this statement, the survey results might prove to be a helpful benchmark against which later studies can be assessed. Further discussion on the influence of religious affiliation is contained in Chapter 9.
- Recent Surrogacy Litigation.
Recent decisions of courts in the United States and England on surrogacy arrangements have attracted widespread publicity in Australia. In March 1987, an English High Court judge granted an adoption order to a commissioning couple with the surrogate mother’s consent. In April 1987, following protracted litigation between a surrogate mother and prospective parents who commissioned a child, Judge Sorkow of the Superior Court in Hackensack, New Jersey, awarded custody of a child (Baby M) born as a result of the surrogacy arrangement to the commissioning couple. This decision is now the subject of an appeal. The media attention given to these decisions, and to prospective surrogate mothers since identified in Australia, might also have a significant effect on attitudes to the issues discussed here.7
III. METHODOLOGY
1.12 Questions on surrogate motherhood were asked of 2476 people aged 14 and over in all States of Australia. The questions for the Commission’s survey were included in “Consumer Opinion Trends”, an omnibus survey conducted weekly throughout Australia by the Roy Morgan Research Centre. Interviewing for the survey was conducted on two consecutive weekends by trained interviewers sent to randomly selected cluster points spread over the city and country areas of the six States and two Territories of Australia. Ten dwellings were visited at each cluster point. People were selected for interviewing at the pre-selected dwellings by a method which produces accurate cross-sections of each sex by age. The face-to-face interviews were conducted on Saturdays and Sundays between 9.00 am and 4.00 pm. To ensure the authenticity of responses, a sample of respondents was recontacted and asked to confirm their answers.8
IV. PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS
1.13 The results of that national opinion poll are presented in this report. They are analysed according to a number of demographic and other relevant factors (listed in Appendix B). The survey results presented in this report are the overall results for Australia. Where appropriate, results for New South Wales are given separately, and are compared with the national response. In each table of this report the actual numbers of respondents interviewed in each category are recorded. The percentages reported in the text and in the tables are weighted percentages, and are estimates relating to the Australian population. In accordance with standard survey procedure, the raw numbers were weighted to ensure that correct proportions of sex, age and locality groups (as measured by the latest estimates available for the Australian population aged 14 and over) were represented in the survey results.
1.14 When using survey results as population estimates in this way, it should be remembered that all sample surveys are subject to sampling variance. That is, results obtained from a sample survey may differ to some extent from results which would be obtained if the whole population had been interviewed. The size of such sampling variance depends largely on the number of interviews.
1.15 In this survey, there were 2476 interviews of respondents across Australia and this number included 847 in New South Wales. Table 1.1 shows the allowances for sampling variance which should be made when reporting a percentage based on these samples as estimates of the population. For example, in Table 2.1 it is reported that 33% of Australians objected to surrogacy arrangements for married couples. Use of the sampling variances in Table 1.1 allows the following statement to be made:
Very probably (9S chances out of 100) the average of repeated samplings would be within the range 33 +2 (that is, between 31% and 35%) with the most likely figure being the 33% obtained.
Table 1.1
Allowances for Sampling Variance of a Percentage (at 95 in 100 confidence level)
| Sample Size |
Percentage near | Australia
2476 | New South Wales
847 |
10 | 1 | 2 |
20 | 2 | 3 |
30 | 2 | 3 |
40 | 2 | 3 |
50 | 2 | 3 |
60 | 2 | 3 |
70 | 2 | 3 |
80 | 2 | 3 |
90 | 1 | 2 |
Footnotes
1. New South Wales Law Reform Commission Report on Human Artificial Insemination July 1986, LRC 49.
2. Graeme Rawson Australian Attitudes to Human Artificial Insemination The New South Wales Advisory Committee on Human Art-ificial Insemination (1984).
3. Gabor T Kovacs, Carl Wood, Gary Morgan and Margaret Brumby “The Attitudes of the Australian Community to Treatment of Infertility by In Vitro Fertilization and Associated Procedures” (1985) 2(4) Journal of in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer 213.
4. Margaret Brumby “Australian community attitudes to in vitro fertilization” (1983) 2 Medical Journal of Australia 650.
5. See the surveys referred to by Rawson (note 2) and Kovacs and others (note 3).
6 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (1987).
7. Press reports of recent English cases include: “Couple to adopt baby in key case” The Times 12 March 1987 at 1.
“Adoption sanctioned in surrogacy agreement” The Times 12 March 1987 at 27.
“Surrogate mother can keep twins” The Sydney Morning Herald 14 March 1987 at 24.
The Baby M decision was very widely publicised in Australia. Press reports include:
“Court gives tug-of-love baby to dad” The Daily Telegraph 2 April 1987 at 13.
“Surrogate mother loses Baby M” The Sydney Morning Herald 2 April 1987 at 1.
“The contract that made a baby” The Australian 2 April 1987 at 1.
“Surrogate mother groups Welcome Baby M verdict” The Australian 2 April 1987 at 9.
“The dehumanisation of our species” (Editorial) The Australian 2 April 1987 at 10.
“I’ll bear your baby, says Tracey” The Sydney Morning Herald 3 April 1987 at 1.
“Surrogate motherhood: for love or money?” The Sydney Morning Herald 3 April 1987 at 15.
“West Germany bans surrogate motherhood in wake of Baby M case” The Australian 3 April 1987 at 6.
“Surrogacy is booming after Baby M case” The Sydney Morning Herald 4 April 1987 at 20.
“The question of surrogacy” The Sydney Morning Herald 4 April 1987 at 28.
“Willesee’s little dividend” The Sydney Morning Herald 8 April 1987 at 24.
“SA ban proposed on surrogacy for money” The Sydney Morning Herald 14 April 1987 at 7.
8. Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd Specifications of “Consumer Opinion Trends” (August 1986).
|
