|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > 2. Approval of Surrogacy Arrangements
Research Report 2 (1987) - Surrogate Motherhood: Australian Public Opinion
2. Approval of Surrogacy Arrangements
I. OVERALL RESPONSE
2.1 Interviewees were first asked their opinion of surrogate motherhood as a means of providing children for married couples who cannot have children because of medical problems. The question explained that a surrogate mother is a woman who agrees to become pregnant, bear a child, and hand over that child to the married couple to be brought up as their own. it was also explained that the surrogate mother usually becomes pregnant by artificial insemination with sperm from the husband of the commissioning couple.
2.2 At this stage, respondents were shown a card on which there were four possible answers:
- “approve of surrogate motherhood”;
- “do not object to surrogate motherhood”;
- “object to surrogate motherhood”;
- “need to know more”.
It will be seen that the first two options were favourable to surrogate motherhood but differed in degree. The fourth possible answer gave respondents the option of not providing an opinion one way or the other. An analysis of respondents who gave this fourth response, or who actually said that they had no opinion, is contained in Appendix C.
2.3 According to the survey results, 1 6 % of Australians specifically approved of surrogate motherhood as defined in that first question, and more than one-third (35%) did not object to it. Together, these two groups give a total of 51% expressing a view which is not opposed to surrogate motherhood.
2.4 One-third of respondents (33%) did object to surrogate motherhood. A very small proportion (3%) did not have an opinion, while 13% said that they needed to know more. Men and women expressed similar opinions. These results are set out in Table 2.1, and are illustrated in Figure 1.
Table 2.1
Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood Overall and by Sex
| | Total | Males
% | Females |
| Approve of | 15.6 | 16.1 | 15.1 |
| Do not object | 35.4 | 35.6 | 35.2 |
| Object to | 33.0 | 31.9 | 34.0 |
| Need to know more | 13.0 | 13.3 | 12.7 |
| No opinion | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.0 |
| Number of respondents | 2476 | 1158 | 1318 |
2.5 It is instructive to compare this response with the results of a Morgan Gallup Poll conducted in July 1982.1 In that survey, respondents were first asked if they had previously heard of surrogacy. if they had heard of it, they were asked whether they approved or disapproved or whether they needed to know more. More than one third (34%) had not heard of surrogacy, while 25% approved, 31% disapproved, 6% needed to know more and 4% had no opinion. Although the questions asked in the two surveys differed, it is apparent that the proportion of Australians who disapproved of surrogate motherhood in each remained at one-third.
2.6 In earlier surveys which had canvassed surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer and gamete donation, surrogacy was the only subject for which disapproval (31%) exceeded approval (25%).2 This ratio has been reversed in this survey with 51% not objecting, and 33% objecting. However, approval of surrogate motherhood has not reached the levels found for artificial insemination by donor (70%)3 and in vitro fertilization (between 69 % and 77 % in surveys conducted between 1981 and 1984).4
2.7 The pattern of responses in New South Wales was the same as that for Australia overall. While the pattern in Sydney was similar to that outside Sydney, a greater proportion of New South Wales residents living outside Sydney (39%) objected than did people in Sydney (32%).
II. AGE AND FAMILY STATUS
2.8 Table 2.2 presents the overall opinions on surrogacy arrangements for married couples, classified by the age of the respondent. Approval decreased as age increased. Similar patterns have been reported from other surveys on artificial insemination5 and in vitro fertilization.6
Table 2.2
Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood by Age
| | 14 - 24 | 25 - 34 | 35 - 49 | 50+ |
| | % |
| Approve of | 17.6 | 17.6 | 15.5 | 12.7 |
| Do not object | 43.2 | 40.6 | 36.0 | 25.3 |
| Object to | 26.5 | 28.1 | 32.9 | 41.3 |
| Need to know more | 10.3 | 11.4 | 13.3 | 15.9 |
| No opinion | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 4.7 |
| Number of respondents | 478 | 577 | 659 | 762 |
2.9 The results were also analysed according to both age and family status. The results are shown in Table 2.3. Young married men and women without children were, as a group, most favourably disposed towards surrogate motherhood: more than 70% of this group either specifically approved of, or did not object to, surrogate motherhood for married couples, while only 15% objected to it. The favourable attitude of this group to in vitro fertilization has been reported previously.7
Table 2.3
Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood by Age and Family Status
| | Single
14 - 34 | Married
14 - 34
No
Child | Married
14 - 34
Child | Married
35+
Child | Married
35+
No
Child | Single
35+ |
| | % |
| Approve of | 16.4 | 21.1 | 18.1 | 12.5 | 14.4 | 15.1 |
| Do not object | 42.9 | 49.5 | 37.3 | 34.3 | 27.5 | 29.1 |
| Object to | 27.7 | 15.0 | 31.5 | 36.2 | 39.9 | 35.2 |
| Need to know more | 9.8 | 12.4 | 11.9 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 14.7 |
| No opinion | 3.1 | 2.0 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 3.4 | 5.8 |
| Number of respondents | 521 | 141 | 393 | 467 | 622 | 332 |
III. EDUCATION
2.10 Previous studies have reported that approval of artificial insemination by donor8 and in vitro fertilization9 increased with the level of education of the respondent. This is observed to some extent in the present survey regarding attitudes to surrogate motherhood. Favourable opinion increased from 43% for Australians with only primary school education, to 55% for those who had completed high school and 54% for those with a tertiary education. However, outright approval was highest (18%) amongst those with only primary school education, and lowest (12%) f or those with tertiary education. The level of approval shown by the other groups was approximately 16%. These results are presented in Table 2.4. The categories into which education has been coded are defined in Appendix B.
Table 2.4
Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood by Education Level
| | Primary
Only | Some secondary | Inter/
4th
form | 5th/6th
form | Tertiary |
| | % |
| Approve of | 18.0 | 16.0 | 16.2 | 16.5 | 12.4 |
| Do not object | 24.5 | 32.7 | 34.2 | 38.0 | 41.2 |
| Object to | 35.9 | 34.6 | 31.7 | 31.3 | 33.0 |
| Need to know more | 16.3 | 12.6 | 15.5 | 12.7 | 10.2 |
| No opinion | 5.3 | 4.2 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 3.1 |
| Number of respondents | 205 | 535 | 494 | 501 | 515 |
IV. OCCUPATION
2.11 Respondents in each occupational grouping (as defined in Appendix B) gave similar opinions on surrogate motherhood.
V. RELIGION
2.12 The Commission was interested to learn how attitudes to surrogate motherhood varied according to the religion of the respondent. Information given by respondents on their religious affiliation was coded in the following six categories:
- Catholic;
- Anglican;
- “Other Protestant” (that is, Presbyterian, Uniting, Methodist and Baptist);
- “Other Christians” (for example, Christadelphian, Mormon);
- Non Christian;
- No Religion.
2.13 A greater proportion of Australians professing no religion or a non-Christian religion (about two-thirds in each group) gave a favourable opinion than did those who identified themselves as Christians. Amongst the Christian denominations, those identified as “Other Christians” were least in favour of surrogate motherhood. These were followed by the group identifying itself as Catholic. More than half the Anglican expressed a favourable view. Given the recent Vatican statement, it is interesting to note, however, that the proportion of Catholics who expressly approved of surrogate motherhood was not lower than that of other Christian denominations. These results are set out in Table 2. 5, and are also illustrated in Figure 7 in Chapter 9.
Table 2.5
Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood by Religion
| | Catholic | Anglican | Other
Protestant | Other
Christian | Non
Christian | No
religion |
| | % |
| Approve | 14.4 | 13.8 | 13.6 | 13.4 | 33.6 | 22.8 |
| Do not object | 29.5 | 39.5 | 35.6 | 23.6 | 32.3 | 45.2 |
| Object to | 38.7 | 29.7 | 31.5 | 48.7 | 19.7 | 21.4 |
| Need to know more | 13.5 | 14.4 | 17.7 | 11.0 | 4.2 | 7.5 |
| No opinion | 3.9 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 3.3 | 10.2 | 3.2 |
| Number of respondents | 673 | 706 | 408 | 262 | 22 | 386 |
2.14 In the 1983 opinion poll on artificial insemination by donor (AID) it was reported that, although Catholic approval was lower than that of other groups, the level of approval was still high (62% of Catholics, compared with 79% of Anglicans and 78% of respondents with no religion).10 A 1984 opinion poll on in vitro fertilization reported that Catholic approval was lower than the national average, with 68% approval and 20% disapproval compared with 7 2 % approval and 17 % disapproval overall. The authors of that earlier report commented that it was surprising that religion does not appear to be an important factor in the reason for attitudes. Approximately two thirds of the Catholics in all surveys approved of the procedure despite sustained opposition from the Catholic bishops in Australia.11
VI. FEDERAL VOTING INTENTION
2.15 Respondents in this survey were asked who would receive their first preference in the House of Representatives if an election were held at the time of the survey. The respondents’ federal voting intention made little difference to the attitude to surrogate motherhood. Those intending to vote for the Australian Democrats were slightly more in favour, while those intending to vote for the National Party were slightly less in favour, of surrogate motherhood for married couples.
VII. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF FERTILITY PROBLEMS
2.16 The Commission considered it relevant to determine whether or not attitudes to surrogate motherhood were affected by personal experience of infertility. The final question in the survey was intended to obtain this information, and respondents chose from the following options:
- “I have had fertility problems”;
- “My wife/husband/partner has had fertility problems”;
- “Someone in my family has had fertility problems”;
- “A friend, or someone I know, has had fertility problems”;
- “I don’t know anyone who has had fertility problems”.
Given the sensitivity of this issue, the question was not asked directly of respondents. Instead, respondents were given a card and asked to identify which one line best described the respondent and the respondent’s family.
2.17 Those who themselves had, or whose partner had, a ,fertility problem were more favourably disposed towards the use of surrogate motherhood. Over one-fifth (22%) of this group expressly approved of the practice, while another 36% did not object. Those who said that they knew a friend with fertility problems were, as a group, the next most in favour. On the other hand, those with someone else in the family with a fertility problem held noticeably less favourable opinions on surrogate motherhood than these other two groups. These results are set out in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6
Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood by Fertility Problems
| | Fertility problem experienced by |
| | Self/Partner | Someone in the family | A friend | Don’t know anyone |
| Approve of | 21.8 | 14.2 | 17.1 | 14.9 |
| Do not object | 35.8 | 39.1 | 38.9 | 36.4 |
| Object of | 29.4 | 38.0 | 31.5 | 31.9 |
| Need to know more | 12.1 | 8.7 | 11.2 | 14.4 |
| No opinion | 1.0 | - | 1.4 | 2.3 |
| Number of respondents | 142 | 165 | 528 | 1276 |
Footnotes
1. Margaret Brumby “Australian community attitudes to in vitro fertilization” (1983) 2 Medical Journal of Australia 650 at 651.
2. 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 at 216.
3. Graeme Rawson Australian Attitudes to Human Artificial Insemination The New South Wales Advisory Committee on Human Artificial Insemination (1984) at 9.
4. Kovacs and others, note 2 at 214.
5. Graeme Rawson, note 3 at 9.
6. Margaret Brumby, note 1 at 651.
7. Id at 652.
8. Graeme Rawson, note 3 at 10.
9. Margaret Brumby, note 1 at 651.
10. Graeme Rawson, note 3 at 11.
11. Kovacs and others, note 2 at 216.
|
