|
|
 |
Where am I now? Lawlink > Law Reform Commission > Publications > 7. Eligibility for Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements
Research Report 2 (1987) - Surrogate Motherhood: Australian Public Opinion
7. Eligibility for Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements
I. OVERALL RESPONSE
7.1 The Commission’s survey was so designed that surrogate motherhood was defined in a non-controversial sense. Accordingly, interviewees were first asked to give their opinion about the availability of surrogate motherhood for married couples who could not have children because of medical problems. This initial definition, once given, was implicit in the questions which followed concerning payment of the surrogate mother, the involvement of intermediaries in making surrogacy arrangements, enforcement of the surrogacy arrangement, and disclosure of identifying information about the surrogate mother. The purpose of the initial definition was to seek opinions that would, as far as possible, be uninfluenced by considerations of what might prove to be more controversial aspects of surrogacy arrangements.
7.2 Once views on these other matters had been recorded, the survey went on to seek opinions concerning the availability of surrogacy arrangements to people other than married couples. Respondents were asked which, if any, of the following people should be forbidden to make surrogate motherhood arrangements:
- A single woman;
- A single man;
- People who already have children;
- A female homosexual couple in a stable domestic relationship;
- A male homosexual couple in a stable domestic relationship;
- An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship;
- An elderly couple;
- People under 18;
- People who could not financially support a child;
- Other persons suggested by the respondents.
7.3 At least one-third of Australians considered that persons in each of the nine categories should be forbidden to make a surrogate motherhood arrangement. By contrast, some 4% believed that no such arrangement should be forbidden. Very few respondents suggested any other categories of persons to whom surrogate motherhood arrangements should be forbidden. At least two-thirds considered that people in the four following categories should be forbidden to make a surrogate motherhood arrangement:
- A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship;
- A female homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship;
- People under 18; and
- People who could not financially support a child.
7.4 About half the population considered that people in the following three groups should be so forbidden:
- An elderly couple;
- A single man; and
- A single woman.
7.5 A somewhat lower proportion (38%) would have forbidden an unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship to make a surrogacy arrangement. It was the view of 35% of Australians that people who already had children should likewise be forbidden to make such arrangements. While a consistently greater proportion of women than men exhibited disapproval of surrogacy arrangements in all the given categories, the margin was not substantial. Further information appears in Table 7.1 and Figure 6.
Table 7.1
Prohibition of Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements Overall and by Sex
| | Total | Males | Females |
| A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 72.6 | 72.3 | 72.8 |
| People under 18 | 71.2 | 68.8 | 73.6 |
| A female homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 70.2 | 69.7 | 70.6 |
| People who could not financially support a child | 66.7 | 65.0 | 68.3 |
| An elderly couple | 51.0 | 45.7 | 56.2 |
| A single man | 49.9 | 47.9 | 51.9 |
| A single women | 45.0 | 44.3 | 45.7 |
| An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 37.5 | 35.6 | 39.3 |
| People who already have children | 34.7 | 33.2 | 36.1 |
| Other | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| None | 4.3 | 4.7 | 4.0 |
| Total gave answer | 93.6 | 93.3 | 93.8 |
| Can’ t say | 6.4 | 6.7 | 6.2 |
| Number of respondents | 2476 | 1158 | 1318 |
7.6 The pattern observed in New South Wales is similar to that for Australia. Higher proportions of people living outside Sydney considered that each of the groups should be forbidden to make surrogate motherhood arrangements. Some 31% of people living in Sydney would have forbidden people who already had children to enter surrogacy arrangements, a view shared by 35% of people living outside Sydney. While some 69% of people living in Sydney would have forbidden male homosexual couples to make surrogacy arrangements, 81% of those living elsewhere in New South Wales took that view. A similar difference emerged concerning female homosexual couples. Some 66% of Sydney residents, as against 79% of other New South Wales residents, would have forbidden female homosexual couples to make such arrangements.
7.7 In a 1984 national opinion poll1 on human artificial insemination, it was found that 62% of people felt that artificial insemination should not be made available at all to unmarried women, 16% considered it should be made available only if the unmarried woman was living with a man in a long-term relationship and 15% considered it should be available to any unmarried woman on request, while 7% did not know. Compared with the overall 70% approval rate for the use of artificial insemination by married couples found in that survey, there was little support for artificial insemination for unmarried women.
7.8 In the present poll, 38% of Australians considered that people in a stable de facto relationship should be forbidden to make a surrogate motherhood arrangement, and 45% considered that single women should be so forbidden. Compared with the proportion overall objecting to surrogate motherhood found in this survey (33%), these rates of disapproval are not considered to be high. In summary, the rates of disapproval for the availability of surrogate motherhood to de facto couples and single women are not much higher than the rates of disapproval for surrogate motherhood generally.
II. AGE AND FAMILY STATUS
7.9 In general, the proportion of people who considered that surrogate motherhood arrangements for persons other than married couples should be forbidden increased with age. By contrast, the proportion who considered that surrogacy arrangements for people who could not financially support a child should be forbidden decreased with age. Although never large, the proportion of Australians who considered that none of the groups should be forbidden from making surrogate motherhood arrangements increased with age from 2% to 6%. Further details appear in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2
Prohibition of Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements by Age
| | 14 - 24 | 25 - 34 | 35 - 49 | 50+ |
| | % |
| A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 67.7 | 72.6 | 76.3 | 73.3 |
| People under 18 | 70.1 | 75.3 | 75.4 | 66.0 |
| A female homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 66.2 | 68.3 | 74.0 | 71.3 |
| People who could not financially support a child | 70.4 | 67.5 | 68.6 | 61.7 |
| An elderly couple | 35.3 | 47.5 | 57.4 | 60.5 |
| A single man | 37.8 | 47.8 | 56.2 | 55.7 |
| A single women | 35.0 | 44.6 | 49.9 | 49.2 |
| An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 27.1 | 31.0 | 40.1 | 47.9 |
| People who already have children | 29.2 | 32.0 | 37.2 | 38.7 |
| Other | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | - |
| None | 2.3 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 5.9 |
| Total gave answer | 94.3 | 96.5 | 95.1 | 89.7 |
| Can’t say | 5.7 | 3.5 | 4.9 | 10.3 |
| Number of respondents | 478 | 577 | 659 | 762 |
7.10 When the results were analysed by both age and family status, it emerged that people under 35 who were either single, or married with no children, were less inclined than other groups to prohibit persons in most of the categories listed to make surrogacy arrangements. On the other hand, married people aged 35 or over (with or without children) tended to be more in favour of prohibition. Married people aged 14-34 with children expressed views which were closer to those expressed by older married people, rather than to the views of married people in the same age group who did not have children. Some variation from this pattern was noticed in the opinions recorded concerning two categories:
- people under 18; and
- people who could not financially support a child.
Further details appear in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3
Prohibition of Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements 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+ |
| | % |
| A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 65.8 | 66.9 | 78.4 | 77.4 | 77.0 | 66.7 |
| People under 18 | 70.1 | 72.4 | 76.7 | 74.3 | 69.9 | 65.2 |
| A female homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 63.4 | 63.1 | 75.3 | 75.7 | 74.3 | 65.0 |
| People who could not financially support a child | 68.0 | 70.9 | 70.0 | 66.3 | 64.4 | 63.2 |
| An elderly couple | 35.6 | 32.6 | 53.6 | 56.4 | 63.3 | 55.2 |
| A single man | 38.0 | 39.8 | 51.0 | 56.9 | 58.8 | 49.2 |
| A single women | 36.1 | 36.8 | 46.2 | 51.7 | 52.1 | 41.9 |
| An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 26.4 | 19.9 | 37.0 | 41.9 | 47.7 | 41.7 |
| People who already have children | 26.7 | 28.1 | 38.0 | 37.7 | 39.1 | 36.4 |
| Other | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.6 | - | 0.4 |
| None | 3.2 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 6.3 |
| Total gave answer | 93.8 | 96.9 | 97.2 | 93.1 | 92.8 | 89.7 |
| Can’t say | 6.2 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 6.9 | 7.2 | 10.3 |
| Number of respondents | 521 | 141 | 393 | 467 | 622 | 332 |
III. EDUCATION
7.11 The survey results did not reveal a consistent pattern of responses on this question when analysed according to the level of education of respondents. It emerged that people with tertiary education were more favourably disposed to surrogate motherhood arrangements for homosexual couples and de facto couples. Those with secondary education viewed surrogate motherhood arrangements for single people and elderly couples more favourably.
IV. OCCUPATION
7.12 Analysis of the results according to the occupational category of the respondents also revealed considerable variety of opinions. Those classified as “Professionals, Managers, Owners of a business or Farm Owners” were more favourably disposed to surrogacy arrangements for homosexual couples. “Skilled tradesmen”, on the other hand, were less inclined to bar single people, elderly couples, and people who already had children from making surrogacy arrangements. Details of the occupational categories used in the survey appear in Appendix B.
V. RELIGION
7.13 Some patterns emerged in relation to the religion of respondents and their attitude to the availability of surrogacy arrangements. Those people who were classified as having no religion were generally less disposed to forbid persons in most of the categories to enter surrogacy arrangements. There were, however, two notable exceptions. More than 70% of Australians with no religion considered that people under the age of 18, and people who could not financially support a child, should be forbidden to enter surrogacy arrangements. People described as “Non Christian” recorded the lowest of all rates of disapproval, but, since only 22 persons in this group were interviewed, the sample is too small to justify further comment.
7.14 Of the members of the various Christian denominations, those classified as “Other Protestants” (Presbyterian, Uniting, Methodist and Baptist) were more disposed than their fellow Christians to prohibit surrogacy arrangements in eight of the nine categories listed. Catholics exhibited the lowest rates of disapproval (among Christian respondents) of surrogacy arrangements in five of the nine categories listed, while “Other Christians” showed the least disapproval in the remaining four categories. These results appear in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4
Prohibited of Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements by religion
| | Catholic | Anglican | Other
Protestant | Other Christian | Non
Christian | No
religion |
| | % |
| A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 73.6 | 74.3 | 78.2 | 72.3 | 57.5 | 64.1 |
| People under 18 | 68.9 | 73.1 | 73.9 | 67.5 | 53.0 | 72.8 |
| A female homosexual couple living in a stable relationship | 71.5 | 71.1 | 77.6 | 69.4 | 53.6 | 61.4 |
| People who could not financially support a child | 65.2 | 66.2 | 69.3 | 63.1 | 47.1 | 71.3 |
| An elderly couple | 46.2 | 53.3 | 59.3 | 50.5 | 41.9 | 48.0 |
| A single man | 48.2 | 52.0 | 57.0 | 54.0 | 23.3 | 42.2 |
| A single women | 42.7 | 46.5 | 53.4 | 47.5 | 31.1 | 38.3 |
| An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 36.7 | 41.5 | 41.5 | 46.1 | 32.4 | 23.4 |
| People who already have children | 34.9 | 36.0 | 37.6 | 35.9 | 23.2 | 29.2 |
| Other | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.9 | - | 0.4 |
| None | 3.5 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 4.2 |
| Total gave answer | 91.7 | 94.7 | 94.7 | 93.8 | 91.1 | 93.8 |
| Can’t say | 8.3 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 6.2 | 8.9 | 6.2 |
| Number of respondents | 673 | 706 | 408 | 262 | 22 | 386 |
VI. FEDERAL VOTING INTENTION
7.15 Responses were analysed according to federal voting intention. In general, a lower proportion of people who intended to vote for the Australian Democrats considered that surrogate motherhood arrangements should be forbidden to persons other than married couples. indeed, 7% of people intending to vote for the Australian Democrats replied that none of the groups mentioned should be prohibited from making these arrangements. However, those intending to vote for the Australian Democrats gave the highest disapproval rates for two categories: people under 18, and people who could not financially support a child.
7.16 For five of the nine categories, a higher proportion of people intending to vote for the National Party considered that surrogate motherhood should be forbidden. In the other categories, responses were similar among people intending to vote for the National Party, the Australian Labour Party and the Liberal Party.
7.17 Those intending to vote for the Australian Labour Party exhibited disapproval at rates generally lower than people intending to vote for the Liberal and National Parties. An exception to this general pattern was observed in the attitudes recorded to surrogacy arrangements for people who could not financially support a child. There were only minimal differences of views in this category among people intending to vote for the Australian Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. These results appear in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5
Prohibition of Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements by Federal Voting Intentions
| | ALP | Liberal | National | Liberal*
National | Aust
Democrat |
| | % |
| A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 72.2 | 74.9 | 78.3 | 75.6 | 66.1 |
| People under 18 | 70.9 | 72.7 | 69.0 | 71.9 | 73.5 |
| A female homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 70.2 | 73.0 | 72.6 | 72.9 | 61.0 |
| People who could not financially support a child | 67.0 | 65.4 | 66.7 | 65.7 | 69.1 |
| An elderly couple | 48.8 | 54.6 | 52.9 | 54.2 | 50.9 |
| A single man | 48.8 | 51.6 | 57.4 | 52.9 | 45.3 |
| A single women | 44.4 | 45.2 | 55.9 | 47.5 | 40.7 |
| An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 35.2 | 41.2 | 45.5 | 42.1 | 26.6 |
| People who already have children | 33.5 | 35.0 | 41.9 | 36.5 | 30.4 |
| Other | 0.6 | 0.4 | - | 0.3 | 0.6 |
| None | 3.2 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 7.3 |
| Total gave answer | 94.0 | 93.1 | 93.1 | 93.1 | 95.7 |
| Can’t say | 6.0 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 4.3 |
| Number of respondents | 1033 | 840 | 231 | 1071 | 206 |
* It should be noted that the column headed “Liberal/National” in Table 7.5 groups the separate responses of those intending to vote for the Liberal and National Parties.
VII. ATTITUDE TO SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD ITSELF
7.18 Opinions of respondents on the availability of surrogacy arrangements to particular social groups were related to their attitude to surrogate motherhood for married couples. Not surprisingly, those who objected to surrogate motherhood for married couples showed, generally, the highest rates of objection in respect of the other categories. These results are shown in Table 7.6. The general pattern which emerged from these results is that those who approved of surrogate motherhood for married couples were, generally, less likely to object to its availability to the other specified groups.
7.19 It is appropriate to call attention to the views of Australians on the availability of surrogacy arrangements to unmarried couples living in a stable domestic relationship. Only 26% of people who approved of surrogate motherhood for married couples considered that de facto couples should be forbidden to make such an arrangement. By contrast, 56% of those who objected to surrogate motherhood for married couples similarly objected to its availability for de facto couples.
7.20 On the other hand, two possible applications of surrogacy arrangements evoked quite different responses. Those who said that they did not object to surrogate motherhood for married couples nevertheless registered the strongest rates of disapproval to the propositions that surrogacy be extended to people under 18, or to people who could not financially support a child.
Table 7.6
Prohibition of Surrogate Motherhood Arrangements by Opinion of Surrogate Motherhood for Married Couples
| | Attitude to Surrogate Motherhood for Married Couples |
| | Approve
of | Do not
object | Object
to | Need to know more | No
opinion |
| | % |
| Attitude to surrogate motherhood for: |
| A male homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 70.0 | 74.7 | 76.0 | 70.7 | 31.2 |
| People under 18 | 69.0 | 76.5 | 70.9 | 71.6 | 23.2 |
| A female homosexual couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 66.5 | 70.6 | 75.0 | 70.5 | 30.1 |
| People who could not financially support a child | 66.1 | 72.5 | 64.9 | 65.6 | 25.1 |
| An elderly couple | 46.1 | 49.1 | 58.0 | 50.3 | 22.4 |
| A single man | 43.9 | 47.2 | 58.0 | 50.5 | 22.4 |
| A single women | 34.6 | 41.6 | 55.0 | 47.7 | 17.9 |
| An unmarried couple living in a stable domestic relationship | 25.6 | 28.2 | 55.8 | 35.8 | 14.9 |
| People who already have children | 26.0 | 30.4 | 45.6 | 34.0 | 13.1 |
| Other | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | - |
| None | 2.5 | 3.0 | 7.4 | 1.7 | 7.7 |
| Total gave answer | 95.9 | 98.4 | 92.3 | 91.2 | 48.8 |
| Can’t say | 4.1 | 1.6 | 7.7 | 8.8 | 51.2 |
| Number of respondents | 390 | 870 | 826 | 320 | 70 |
VIII. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF FERTILITY PROBLEMS
7.21 Attitudes to the availability of surrogacy arrangements for groups other than married couples were not greatly influenced by the respondents' experience of fertility problems. Those who knew nobody with a fertility problem were slightly less inclined to forbid people in most of the categories mentioned to enter surrogacy arrangements.
Footnotes
1. Graeme Rawson Australian Attitudes to Human Artificial Insemination The New South Wales Advisory Committee on Human Artificial Insemination (1984) at 21.
|
