Collectively, assess question 3 at the end of this case, then discuss each others' posts. Specifically: A. The first 3 of you write about Kant, the next 2 assess from the point of view of Utilitarianism, etc. using the following theories: Kant,
Act-Utilitarianism, Rule-Utilitarianism, Virtue, Caring, Principles of Bioethics, Ross’ Principles,
Casuistry.
B. Respond to 1-2 posts of your classmates who approached the case using a different theory that what you used.
Who should be recognized as the legal mother of Baby M? Would it make a difference if Mary Beth Whitehead, instead of being both the genetic and gestational mother, had only been the gestational mother?
ReplyDeleteI think that being the genetic mother, Mary Beth has the right to shared custody with the father. If she were to have just been the gestational mother, I might change my opinion to say that without a genetic tie she reserves no right to custody. I would then say that since she was paid $10,000 that money would be for her time and use of her body instead of paying for a child like it might be in the case where she would be the genetic mother as well. It would be like getting paid for testing an experimental drug- she'd be paid for use of her body.
I am not so sure what Kant would say. He says to treat a person as an end instead of as a means only. Well, the Stern's were certainly using Mary Beth Whitehead to carry a child. Being the genetic mother as well, I would think that Kant would award her shared custody over Baby M as well. This would mean that Mary Beth didn’t just use the pregnancy and the child as a means as well to gain $10,000.
I agree with you. I believe Mary Beth had no idea she was going to become so connected to a baby that is technically not even hers. The idea of giving away something that sat in your stomach for 9 months is crazy to me. The baby was physically and mentally connected to her. Regardless of prior engagements, I believe Mary has the right because of the ethics of virtue. The virtuous thing to do is to give her rights to see the baby that she gave the family the ability to have.
DeleteI agree with you that it is hard to decide what Kant would say in this situation because the categorical imperative says that you cannot use people as a means for yourself, therefore the Sterns would be using Mary Beth as a means. Kant also says that everyone has the duty to tell they the truth and lying violates the categorical imperative, so Mary Beth should have told the Sterns that she would like shared custody instead of running away.
DeleteI also think that Kant would have had a lot of problems with this case. He would say it was immoral of the Sterns to use Mary Beth as a means, but he would tell Mary Beth it was immoral not to honor her contract with the Sterns.
DeleteFrom a Kantian perspective, this case never would have happened, as it treats the child as a means to an end as opposed to an end in and of herself. Because of this, the concept of surrogacy would be unacceptable for Kant. However, if he were weighing in on the case after it had already occurred, he would almost certainly award Mary Beth Whitehead parental visitation rights, as he would argue that the Sterns should not have treated Mary as a means to an end (carrying a baby for them), and rather as an end in and of herself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you because of Kant's firm position about treating humans as a means to an end. Kant believes that no one should be seen as a means to an end without being an end of itself. With Mary Beth holding the baby, she has now developed a relationship with the baby making it her means to happiness. It would not be right to Kant to strip that happiness from her because of the selfishness of the other parents.
DeleteI think you got Kant's position perfectly summed up. Mary was used strictly as a means and Kant would disagree with that. He would definitely give visitation rights so that she is also treated as an end in and of herself.
DeleteIt should also be considered though that Kant would probably see it as immoral for the Stern family to treat Emily as a means to the end of creating a baby.
DeleteThe concept of surrogacy would not exist to Kant. Mary Beth has the right to have shared custody for the child because she is the mother. Regardless of the $10,000 (even though it means a lot) her time and body were used for the child. To treat a person as a mean to ends in itself means that Mary Beth must be treated as a means in herself and not to an end. To pay off someone to have your child and not allow them contact or custody or anything to Kant would be treating that person as a means to an end.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Kant believes that we are to treat humanity as ends, never as a means only. Using Mary Beth to have this child would be using her to benefit this couple even though she was paid. According to Kant, the legal mother should be Mary Beth.
DeleteKayla and Nicole, your arguments from a Kantian point of view make sense. People should be an end in themselves instead of a means alone. The whole surrogacy idea would not exist or stand up in a Kantian court. Mary would be seen as the biological mother and not as the surrogate.
DeleteI agree that Mary Beth should receive shared custody of the child. Kant believes that to treat people as having a value all their own rather than merely as useful tools or devices by means of which they can satisfy our own goals or purposes. Mary Beth has her own value within herself. This being said, I believe that Kant would not allow surrogacies to occur.
DeleteUtilitarianism or consequentialism is based on the ultimate value or happiness and pleasure of the people. The surrogacy would create the ultimate value for both since the surrogate mother would get paid and the parents would get a child. the final outcome would be a result of utilitarianism since the surrogate mother would still be allowed to see the child while the parents are awarded custody. While there is a compromise and both parties do not get exactly what they want this result provides the best outcome in regard to both parties.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, from a Rule Utilitarian perspective, if people can break contracts with little to no repercussions, it violates the rule set down so that people do hold to them.
DeleteI do believe that with using Utilitarianism or consequentialism, both Mary Beth and Elizabeth Stern would achieve their own goals, where Mary Beth would get $10,000 and Elizabeth would become a mother after adoption.
DeleteFrom a utilitarian perspective I believe Elizabeth should be the legal mother. The utilitarian believes that a right action is one that maximizes pleasure or minimizes pain for the greatest number. In this case the couple wanting the child would be the greatest number. They also had a contract and following through with that would be the "right action." Mary Beth was paid and the couple would have the child they wanted. The utilitarian would agree with the trial courts decision, finding the surrogacy contract valid and awarding custody to William Stern and the adoption by Elizabeth Stern.
ReplyDeleteI agree with maximizing the pleasure of the Sterns, but what about the long term pain associated with Mary, yes she was in the wrong for leaving with Baby M, but she was also trying to maximize her happiness even if she did take the Stern's pain into consideration.
DeleteI agree with Megan. Mary and her family would suffer pain as well.
DeleteFrom the perspective of Ross's principles, I believe that Elizabeth Stern should be the birth mother. The duties of fidelity state that ethical people keep their promises or contracts when they have given the word to do so. With the $10,000 agreement, Mary Beth agreed to hand over the baby under no circumstances. The fact that she tried to flee to keep the baby just proves the fact that she knew she was in the wrong for trying to keep the baby from her rightful owners. Also the egg and sperm were from the Sterns so biologically the baby still belongs to them. Mary Beth was technically just the holder of the baby for the family that she agreed to. So by her word and duty, the mother of the baby is Elizabeth Stern.
ReplyDeleteInteresting perspective...although Mary birthed the child, she would not be considered the biological mother. I can agree that Mary was used as a host, was paid to do, and should have abided by the contract. I also think that once Mary kidnapped the child, her parental rights should have been revoked.
DeleteFrom a utilitarian perspective it is hard to answer this question based on the information given. The concept of do no harm can only be used here if at some point in the child's life it is harmful for one or the other women to legally be her mother. Also, it is not clear which set of parents would be "harmed" more by not being the legal mother. There is no way with the current information to say which woman being the legal mother would result in more pleasure and less pain for the child. There is also no way to say which woman would gain the most pleasure and result in the least pain if they were deemed the legal mother.
ReplyDeleteI think the surrogacy agreement should be upheld to ensure the maximum utility but the biological mother should also be allowed to visit the child even though she unethically broke the agreement prior to court.
DeleteI agree that this is a very confusing perspective to go by. I believe that there is no way to determine who should get the child. But if it was in the case of who is right and wrong than both these ladies would stick to the contract.
DeleteLooking at this from Ross' Principle of Bioethics, it needs to be looked at through all of his points. Some of the bigger points that can be looked at is Gratitude, Fidelity, Justice, and Reparation. For gratitude, Elizabeth should be grateful to Mary that she was willing to be the genetic and gestational mother of Baby M. Fidelity tells us that Mary should have been honest and told the Sterns the truth about not wanting to give up Baby M instead of running away to Florida. Looking at justice, the Sterns paid Mary for exactly what she did which was be the genetic and gestational mother of Baby M. they both signed the contract therefore it should be respected. Finally with reparation, Mary should admit she was in the wrong and apologize to the Sterns. With Ross' Principle of Bioethics, you can't meet all of the points all of the time. Taking the points into consideration, I would say that Elizabeth Stern is the legal mother and there would be no difference if Mary was just the gestational mother.
ReplyDelete1. Using Principles of Bio Ethics, I would say that the New Jersey provided the best overall response, because they respected the autonomy of all three parents in their decision.
ReplyDelete2. Using Principles of Bio Ethics, I would say that commercial surrogacy should be valid and legally enforceable. For starters, it’s fair for the couple who paid money to a surrogate mother, to bear the child. It does well (aka good), since the child will have two parents. They could also allow visitation rights to the surrogate mother, which respects her autonomy as well and prevents harm.
3. a. Biologically, the mother is Mary (surrogate mother) and the father is William. Using Principles of Bio Ethics, I would say that the legal mother is Elizabeth. She paid and has a contract with Mary. Mary should be allowed visitation rights. That way, everyone’s autonomy is considered.
b. To some people, it will make a difference. To others, it won’t matter. Elizabeth would be the biological mother and would have more rights than Mary. It’s still respectful to Mary to grant her visitation rights.
New Jersey had a professional outlook on the situation but I think the dishonesty of not giving up the child was not ethical since they had a prior agreement. This thought applies to fidelity in Ross's principles of bioethics. With that being said, since the biological mother deserves the right to her autonomy, according to Kant she should decide who has custody. One could also argue that she gave up her autonomy regarding the surrogacy agreement.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at Ross's principles I believe that Mary was in the wrong. The agreement was for her to deliver the baby and then give it to Elizabeth who would be considered the birth mother under the contract that they had originally agreed up on. Under Ross's rule it is saying that each person should stick or hold to their word. In this case Mary is not doing that and she even fled with the baby and that I kidnapped. This shows that Mary is in the wrong and now it should not even be a discussion to who gets the baby.
ReplyDeleteBased on casusitry:
ReplyDeleteI believe that Mary Beth should have the right to be the legal mother and have the say to whether or not Elizabeth sees the baby. They have paid and have an agreement with Elizabeth. She was well aware of the risks of getting attached to the baby early on and should be prepared to give the baby up. I believe that the court made a wise decision, although they bring up one or two claims that may change this decision in the future. I believe that in this case, the contract should be valid because she knows what she is doing and is being payed beforehand. In both cases ( if Mary was the genetic and gestational mother or gestational mother) she should not be the legal guardian.
Mary Beth Whitehead shares the genetic makeup of the baby with William Stern. She therefore is the biological mother and as the surrogacy she provided proper nutrition to the baby as it developed in the womb. If Mary Beth was only the gestational mother, she would not be the mother of the baby. She only provided a place for the baby to grow. But with that being said, anyone who is pregnant will become attached to the baby. Using principles of biomedical ethics, Mary Beth has patient autonomy and has the right to self-determination. Therefore, she can pursue her goal of having partial custody of the child. She also has justice and since she is the genetic mother, it is just for her to have partial custody or at least visiting hours.
ReplyDeleteEven though she may be the biological mother of the child, what about the legal contract she signed before she was pregnant and the 10,000 grand she accepted. Through Ross' principles the duty of Fidelity she would have to honor her promises to the Sterns. Also what about the duty of Justice that Elizabeth could not get pregnant because of MS, so they seeked to have a child through surrogacy and Mary Beth agreed to.
DeleteI think out of all the ethical schools, the ethics of care/feminist ethics would be the most likely to agree with Whitehead in this situation. The ethics of care would put great value on the relationship between the baby and its birth mother (Whitehead) who carried the baby for 9 months and then cared for it for a short time after. They would probably agree with the New Jersey ruling that Whitehead had no means of knowing how attached to the baby she would be so she was not overall informed fully.
ReplyDeleteI think that through Ross' principles that the mother of Baby M would be Elizabeth Stern. Through the duty of fidelity, Mary Beth Whitehead needs to keep her promise in signing the baby over to the Sterns before the pregnancy took place. I think if it was Elizabeth's egg it would only affirm this contract more because there wouldn't be any doubt in people's minds. Also through the duty of gratitude Elizabeth is the mother. Mary Beth signed the contract and was given $10,000 dollars that she agreed upon. By making this agreement then she has to give the baby to the Sterns.
ReplyDeleteKant would have been against the surrogacy to begin with. He would have been against Mary Beth's decision to keep the baby as she is not honoring the promise she made to the Sterns, but I think that
ReplyDeleteKant would have sided with the New Jersey Supreme Court over the trial court. He would have agreed that Mary Beth would have been unable to make an informed choice, as she would have gotten closer to the baby after feeling it grow and move. He would always be against surrogate pregnancies. I think that he would also agree that the Sterns should have the primary custody rights, as it would be better for the baby and it would honor the promise Mary Beth made to the Sterns. He would also have allowed for Mary Beth to be the child's legal mother. She did have the baby, and if she was denied visitation rights, then she would simply be a means for the Sterns, but if she has visitation rights and is the child's legal mother, then she can also be viewed as an end in herself.
I think that if an egg had been provided by Elizabeth Stern then it would have been a different case. I think this would have made Mary Beth more inclined to give up the baby because there was no biological relation to it.