This content explores the ethical and moral implications of applying market principles to human reproductive capacities, specifically egg and sperm donation, and commercial surrogacy, questioning whether certain human goods should be commodified.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
today I'd like to turn our attention and
get your views
about an argument over the role of
markets in the realm of human
clinics people advertise for egg
donors and from time to time in the Harvard
Harvard
Crimson ads appear for egg donors have
you seen
them there was one that ran a few years
ago that wasn't looking for just any egg Don
it was an ad that offered a large
Financial incentive for an egg donor
from a woman who was intelligent
athletic at least 5'
10 and with at least 1,400 or above on her
her
SATs how much do you
think the person looking for this egg
donor was willing to pay for an egg from
a woman of that
$1,000
$50,000 for an egg
but only a premium
egg what do you think about
that well there are also sometimes ads
in the Harvard crimson and other college
donors so the market in reproductive
capacities is uh an equal opportunity
Market well not exactly equal
opportunity they're not offering
$50,000 for
sperm but there is a company a large
commercial sperm bank that markets
markets
sperm it's called California cryo bank
company it
imposes exact acting standards on the
recruits and it has
offices in Cambridge between Harvard and
Stanford cryo bank's marketing
materials play up the prestigious source
sperm here is uh from the
website of
information here they talk about the
compensation although compensation
should not be the only reason for
becoming a sperm donor we are aware of
the considerable time and expense
[Applause]
so do you know what they offer donors
will be reimbursed
$75 per
specimen up to $900 a month if you
donate three times a week and then they
add we periodically offer
as [Applause]
[Applause]
or gift certificates for the extra time
and effort
expended by participating
donors it's not easy to be a sperm donor
they accept fewer than 5% of the donors who
who
apply their admission criteria are more
Harvard's the head of the sperm bank
said the ideal sperm donor is 6 feet
tall with a college degree brown eyes
dimples for the simple reason that these
are the traits that the market has shown
the customers want quote quoting the
head of the sperm bank if our customers
wanted High School dropouts we would
the market in eggs for donation and the
market in
sperm that raise a
question a question about whether eggs
and sperm should or should not be bought
money as you ponder that I want you to
consider another
case involving a market
and in fact a
contract in human reproductive in the
human reproductive capacity and this is
the case of commercial surrogate
motherhood and it's a case that wound up in
in
court some years ago it's the story of baby
baby
M it began with William and Elizabeth
Stern a professional couple wanting a
baby but they couldn't have one on their
own at at least not without medical risk
to Mrs
Stern they went to an infertility
Clinic where they met Mary Beth
Whitehead a 29-year-old mother of two
the wife of a sanitation worker she had
replied to an ad that the center had
placed seeking the service of a surrogate
mother they made a deal they signed a
contract in which William Stern
agreed to pay Mary Beth Whitehead a
$110,000 fee plus all
expenses in exchange for which Mary Beth
White had agreed to be artificially
inseminated with William Sterns sperm to
Bear the child and then to give the baby
to the
Sterns well you probably know how the
story unfolded Mary Beth gave birth
and changed her mind she decided she
wanted to keep the baby the case wound
up in court in New Jersey so let's take
put aside any legal questions and focus
on this issue as a moral
question how many believe that the right
thing to
do in the BBM
case would have been through a hold the
contract and and how many think the
right thing to do would have
contract so it's about the majority say
enforce so let's now hear the reasons
that people had either for enforcing or
refusing to enforce this contract first
from those I want to hear from someone
in the majority why do you up hold the
contract why do you enforce it who can
reason
up it's a binding contract all the
parties involved knew the terms of the
contract before any action was
taken if it's a voluntary agreement the
mother knew what she was getting
into the all four intelligent adults
regardless of formal education
whatever so it makes sense that if you
know what you're getting into beforehand
and you make a promise you should uphold
that promise in the end okay a deal is a
deal in other words exactly and what's
your name Patrick it's Patrick's reason
the reason that most of you in the
majority favored upholding the contract
yes all right let's hear now someone who
would not inform for the
Patrick why
not yes well I mean I agree I think
contracts should be upheld when when all
the parties know all the information but
in this case I don't think there's a way
a mother before the child exists could
actually know how she's going to feel
about that child so I don't think the
mother actually had all the information
she didn't know the person that was
going to be born and didn't know how
much she would love that person so
that's my argument so you would not and
what's your name Evan Wilson Evan says
he would not uphold the contract because
when it was entered
into the surrogate mother
couldn't be expected to know in advance
how she would feel so she didn't really
have the relevant information when she
made that contract
uh who else who else would not uphold the
yes um I think I also think that a
contract should generally be uphold but
I think um that the child has an
inalienable right to uh its actual
mother um and I think that if that
mother wants it then that child should
have that the right to that mother you
mean the biological mother not the
adoptive mother right and why is that
first of all tell me your name Anna Anna
why is that Anna um because I I think
that um that bond that is created by
nature is stronger than any bond that is
created by you know a
contract good thank you who else
yes I disagree I don't think that a
child has a inalienable right to her
biological mother I think that adoption
and Cy are both legitimate tradeoffs um
and I agree with the point made um that
it's a voluntary agreement uh an
individual made it's a voluntary
agreement and I you can't apply coercion
to this argument you can't apply the
objection from coercion to this argument
correct what's your name Kathleen
Kathleen what do you say to Evan that
though there may not have beened Evan
claimed that the consent was tainted not
by coercion but by lack of adequate
information she couldn't have known the
relevant information namely how she
would feel about the child what do you
say to that I don't think the emotional
content of her feelings plays into this
I think in you know in a case of law in
the Justice of this scenario her her
change of feelings are not relevant if I
give up my child for adoption and then I
decide later on that I really want that
child back too bad it's it's a tradeoff
it's a trade-off that the mother has
made so a deal is a deal you agree with
Patrick I agree with Patrick a deal deal
is a deal yes
good yes I would say that though I'm not
really sure if I agree with the the idea
that the child is right to their mother
I think the mother definitely has a
right to her child and I also think that
there are some areas where Market forces
shouldn't necessarily penetrate I think
that the whole surrogate mother area
smacks a little bit of dealing in human
beings seems dehumanizing and it doesn't
really seem right so that's my main
reason and what is could tell us your
name I'm Andrew Andrew what is dehumanizing
dehumanizing
about buying and selling the right to a
child for money what is dehumanizing
about it well because you're you're
buying someone's biological right I mean
you you can't in the law as it as it say
you can't sell your own child like were
you to have a child I believe that the
law prohibits you selling it to another
person or selling like Babys selling
right to a certain extent I mean though
though there is a contract with another
person you've made agreements and
whatnot there is an undeniable emotional
bond that takes place between a mother
and a child and it's wrong to Simply
ignore this because you've written out
something contractually all right you
want to reply to Andrew stay there uh
you point out that an undeniable
emotional bond um I feel like we're in
this situation we're not necessarily
arguing against adoption or surrogacy in
itself we're just sort of pointing out
the emotional differences well but but
wait I mean it's it's easy to break
everything down to numbers and say oh we
have contracts like you're buying and
selling a car but there are underlying
emotions I mean you're dealing with
people I mean these are not objects to
be bought and sold all right what about
what about Andrew's claim that this is
like baby selling I believe that
adoption and surrogacy should be
permitted whether or not I actually will
partake in it is is not really relevant
but I think that the government should
it the government should give it
citizens the rights to allow for
adoption and surrogacy but adoption
adoption is not according to to is
adoption baby
selling well do you think you should be
able to to bid for a baby that's up for
adoption that's Andrew's challenge do I
think I should be able to bid for a baby
sure it's a market I mean I I feel like
the extent the W to which it's been
applied I'm I'm not sure if the
government should be able to permit it
and I have to think about it more but
all right fair enough are you satisfied
Andrew well yeah I mean I just I think
surrogacy should be permitted I think
that people can do it but I don't think
that it should be forced upon people
that once the contract is signed it's
it's absolutely like the end
I think that it's unenforceable so
people should be free Andrew to enter
into these contracts but it should not
be enforcable in a court not in a court
no who would like to join on one side or the
the
other yes um I think I have an
interesting perspective on this because
my brother was actually one of the
people who donated to a sperm bank and
he was paid a very large amount of money
he was 6 feet tall but not blonde he had
dimples though so he actually has I'm an
aunt now and he has a daughter he
donated his FM to a lesbian couple in
Oklahoma and um he has um been contacted
by them and he has seen pictures of his
daughter but he still does not feel an
emotional bond to his daughter he just
has a sense of curiosity about what she
looks like and what she's doing and how
she is he doesn't feel love for his
child so um from this experience I think
the Bond between a a mother and a child
cannot be compared to the bond between
the father and the child that's really
interesting what's your name Vivien
Vivien so we've got the case of
surrogacy commercial
surrogacy and it's been compared to Baby
selling and we've been exploring whether that
that
analogy is
apt and it can also be compared as you
point out to sperm celling m but you're
saying that sperm
celling and baby celling or even
surrogacy are very different because
they're unequal Services they're unequal
services and that's because Vivian you
say that the tie the
bond yes and also the time investment
that's given by a mother N9 months
cannot be compared to a man you know
going into a sperm bank looking at pornography
pornography
you know depositing into a cup I don't
think those are
equal good all right so we cuz that's
bank all right
so this is really interesting we
have right notice the arguments that
have come out so far the objections to
surrogacy the objections to enforcing
that cont contract are of at least two
kinds there was the objection about
tainted consent this time not because of
coercion or implicit
coercion but because of imperfect or flawed
flawed
information so tainted or flawed consent
can arise either because of coersion or
because of a lack of relevant
information at least according to one
argument that we've heard and then a
second objection to enforcing the
surrogacy contract was that it was somehow
somehow
dehumanizing now when this case was
decided by the
courts what did they say about these
arguments the Lowa Court ruled that the
contract was
enforcable neither party had a superior bargaining
bargaining
position a price for the service was
struck and a bargain was reached one
side didn't force the other neither had
disproportionate bargaining power then
it went to the New Jersey Supreme Court
and what did they
do they said this contract is not
enforceable they did Grant custody to Mr
Stern as the father because they thought
that would be in the best interest of
the child but they
restored the rights
of Mary Beth Whitehead and left it to
lower courts to decide exactly what the
visitation rights should be they invoked
two different kinds of
reasons along the lines that Andrew
proposed first there was not
sufficiently informed consent the court
argued under the contract the natural
mother is irrevocably committed before
she knows the strength of her bond with
her child she never makes a truly volunt
AR informed decision for any decision
prior to the baby's birth is in the most
important sense uninformed that was the
court then the court also made a version
of the second argument against
commodification in this kind of
case this is the sale of a child the
court said or at the very least the sale
of a mother's right to her
child whatever idealism May motivate the
participants the profit motive
predominates permeates and ultimately
governs the transaction and so
regardless the court said regardless of
any argument about consent or flawed
consent or full information there are
some things in a civilized society that
money can't buy that's what the court
said in voiding this
contract well what about these two
arguments against the extension of markets
markets
reproduction how persuasive are
they there was it's true a voluntary
agreement a contract struck between
William Stern and Mary Beth
Whitehead but there are at least two
ways that consent can be other than
truly free first if people are pressured
or or coerced to give their agreement and
and second
second
if their consent is not truly
informed and in the case of surrogacy
the Court
said a mother can't know even one who
already has kids of her own what it
would be like to Bear a child and give
pay so in order to assess criticism
objection number one we have to figure
out just how
free does a voluntary exchange have to
be with respect to the bargaining
power and equal information question
number one how do we assess the second
objection the second
objection is more elusive it's more
difficult Andrew acknowledge this
right what does it mean to say there is
something dehumanize izing to make
childbearing a market
transaction well one of the
philosophers we read on this subject Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Anderson tries to give some bring some
philosophical Clarity to the
unease that Andrew
articulated she said by requiring the
surrogate mother to repress whatever
parental love she feels for the child
surrogacy contracts convert women's
labor into a form of alienated labor the
surrogate labor is alienated because she
must divert it from the end from the end
which the social practices of pregnancy
rightly promote namely an emotional bond
with her
child so what Anderson is suggesting is
is
that certain
Goods should not be treated as open to
use or to profit certain goods are
properly valued in ways other than
use what are
other ways of valuing and
treating Goods that should not be open
to use Anderson says there are many respect
respect
appreciation love honor awe sanctity
there are many modes of valuation Beyond
use and certain goods are not properly
valued if they're treated simply as
objects of
use how do we go about evaluating that
argument of Anderson in a way it takes
utilitarianism is use the only is
utility is use the only proper way of
treating Goods including life military
service procreation
childbearing and if not how do we figure
out how can we determine what modes of
valuation are fitting or
appropriate to those
goods several years ago there was a
scandal surrounding a doctor an
infertility specialist in Virginia named Cil
Cil
Jacobson he didn't have a donor
catalog because unknown to his patients
all of the sperm he used to inseminate
his patients came from one donor Dr Jacobson
Jacobson
himself at least one woman who testified
in court was unnerved at how much her
him now it's possible to condemn Dr
jacobsson for failing to inform the
women in advance that would be the
argument about consent the columnist
Ellen Goodman described the bizarre
scenario as follows Dr Jacobson she
wrote gave his infertility business the personal
personal
touch but now the rest of us she wrote
are in for a round of second thoughts
Goodman concluded that fatherhood should
be something you do not something you
donate and I think what she was
doing and what the philosopher Elizabeth
Anderson is doing and what Andrew was
suggesting with his argument about
dehumanization is pondering whether
there are certain Goods that money
shouldn't buy not just because of
Tainted consent but also perhaps because
certain goods are properly
valued in a way higher than mere use
those at least are the questions we're
going to pursue with the help of some
philosophers in the weeks to come [Applause]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
