Legal Surrogacy in question Discussing with ChatGPT

Main Article Content

Enrico Maestri

Keywords

discussion on bioethics, surrogate motherhood, Generative Chatbot, balancing approach, ethical pluralism

Abstract

This paper is a faithful translation of a discussion between ChatGpt and the author on the ethical and legal implications of surrogacy. ChatGPT’s responses to my doubts or questions show that the OPEN AI chatbot tends to favour the method of accommodation. This is the hermeneutical method used by the High Courts to decide whether the legal rule or precedent to be applied in the case before them is constitutionally correct. ChatGPT prefers to consider controversial issues on the basis of “all things considered” rather than “all or nothing”. In this sense, ChatGPT can be seen as the computational realisation of Ronald Dworkin’s Judge Hercules.
Abstract 234 | PDF Downloads 19

References

1. European Parliament. Surrogacy in the European Union. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
2. Igareda González, N. Regulating surrogacy in Europe: Common problems, diverse national laws. European Journal of Women’s Studies 2019; 26(4), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506819835242
3. Trimmings, K., & Beaumont, P. (Eds.). International surrogacy arrangements: legal regulation at the international level. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2013.
4. Shenfield, F., de Mouzon, J., Pennings, G., Ferraretti, A. P., Goossens, V., & ESHRE Taskforce on Cross Border Reproductive Care. Cross border reproductive care in six European countries. Human Reproduction 2010; 25(6), 1361-1368.
5. Brunet, L., King, D., Davaki, K., McCandless, J., Marzo, C., & Carruthers, J. Comparative study on the regime of surrogacy in the EU member states. European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
6. Lozanski, K. Transnational surrogacy: Canada’s contradictions. Social Science & Medicine 2015; 124, 383-390. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.003
7. White, P. M. Canada's surrogacy landscape is changing: Should Canadians care?. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2017; 39(10), 932-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.06.017
8. Swanson, K., Ayala, N. K., Barnes, R. B., Desai, N., Miller, M., & Yee, L. M. Understanding gestational surrogacy in the United States: a primer for obstetricians and gynecologists. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222(4), 330-337. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.037
9. Sunder Rajan, K. Biocapital: the Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham NC: Duke University Press; 2006.
10. Sullivan, J. Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother-worker. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2013; 35(4), 969-992. https://doi.org/10.1086/651043
11. Cooper, D., & Trowse, P. Have Indian Surrogates Been Harmed by Commercial Surrogacy Transactions?. Journal of law and medicine 2020; 27(4), 914–927.
12. Nadimpally, S. For Motherhood and for Market: Commercial Surrogacy in India. In Rainhorn, J., & El Boudamoussi, S. (Eds.), New Cannibal Markets: Globalization and Commodification of the Human Body. Paris: Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, 2015; https://doi.org/10.4000/books.editionsmsh.10753
13. Gerber, P., & O'Byrne, K. Surrogacy, Law and Human Rights. London: Routledge; 2016.
14. Hargreaves, K. Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociol Health Illn 2006; 28(3), 261-283. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00502.x
15. Zadeh, S., Ilioi, E. C., Jadva, V., & Golombok, S. The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod 2018; 33(6), 1099-1106. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey102
16. Alfano, L., Fontana, P., Lorettu, L., & Ciliberti, R. Donation of the body and its parts in the construction of parenthood. Acta Biomed 2023; 94(1), e2023008. doi: 10.23750/abm.v94i1.11807
17. Hovav, A. Cutting out the surrogate: Caesarean sections in the Mexican surrogacy industry. Soc Sci Med 2020; 256, 113063. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113063
18. März, J. W. Challenges Posed by Transnational Commercial Surrogacy: The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Eur J Health Law 2021; 28(3), 263-280. doi: 10.1163/15718093-12634P04
19. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Using family members as gamete donors or surrogates. Fertility and Sterility 2012; 98(2), 474-478. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.053
20. Zimmerman, A. L. Thailand’s Ban on Commercial Surrogacy: Why Thailand Should Regulate, Not Attempt to Eradicate. Brooklyn Journal of International Law 2016; 41, 917.
21. Pande, A. Revisiting surrogacy in India: domino effects of the ban. J Gender Stud 2020; 1-14. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2020.1830044
22. Gilman, L. Toxic Money or Paid Altruism: The Meaning of Payments for Identity-Release Gamete Donors. Sociol Health Illn 2018; 40(4), 707-717. doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12718
23. Steinbock B. Payment for egg donation and surrogacy. The Mount Sinai journal of medicine 2004; 71(4), 255–265.
24. European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs. A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States; 2013.
25. Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. (2022). Judgment n. 38162/2022.
26. Powell, G. Funding Illegal Surrogacy. Public Discourse 2020; https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/63958/
27. Gunnarsson Payne, J., Korolczuk, E., & Mezinska, S. Surrogacy relationships: A critical interpretative review. Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences 2020; 125(2), 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2020.1725935
28. McDonald, C. (1991). Changing the Facts of Life: The Case of Baby M. SubStance 1991; 20(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3684881
29. Pande, A. Wombs in Labor: Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014.
30. Ahlberg, J., & Cholbi, M. (Eds.). Procreation, Parenthood, and Educational Rights: Ethical and Philosophical Issues. London: Routledge; 2017.
31. Cahn, N. The new "art" of family: Connecting assisted reproductive technologies & identity rights. University of Illinois Law Review 2018; 1443-1471.
32. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
33. Pande, A. Commercial Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a Perfect Mother-Worker. Signs 2010; 35(4), 969–992. https://doi.org/10.1086/651043
34. Saxena, P., Mishra, A., & Malik, S. Surrogacy: Ethical and legal issues. Indian Journal of Community Medicine 2012; 37(4), 211-213. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.103466
35. Aznar, J., & Tudela, J. Gestational surrogacy. Ethical aspects / Maternità surrogata. Questioni etiche. Medicina e Morale 2018; 67(3), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.4081/mem.2018.539
36. Golombok, S., Casey, P., Readings, J., Blake, L., Marks, A., & Jadva, V. Families created through surrogacy: Mother-child relationships and children's psychological adjustment at age 7. Developmental Psychology 2011; 47, 1579-1588.
37. Bracken, L. Surrogacy and the genetic link. Child and Family Law Quarterly 2020; 303.
38. Kitalong-Will, A. Rhetoric of Surrogacy: Re-Considering Agency through Embodied Performance [Open Access Dissertation, Michigan Technological University]; 2022. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etdr/1418
39. Behm, L. L. Legal, Moral & International Perspectives on Surrogate. DePaul Journal of Health Care Law 2015; 2(3), 1-49.
40. Söderström-Anttila, V., Wennerholm, U. B., Loft, A., Pinborg, A., Aittomäki, K., Romundstad, L. B., & Bergh, C. Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families-a systematic review. Human reproduction update 2016; 22(2), 260–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv046
41. Rudrappa, S. Reproducing Dystopia: The Politics of Transnational Surrogacy in India, 2002–2015. Critical Sociology 2018; 44(7–8), 1087-1101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517740616
42. Ferolino, A. P., Camposo, M. A. D., Estaño, K. C. L., & Tacbobo, J. M. R. Mothers for Others: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Gestational Surrogates’ Child Relinquishment Experiences. Journal of Patient Experience 2020; 7(6), 1336-1340. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373519892415
43. Aparisi Miralles, Á. Maternidad Subrogada y Dignidad de la Mujer [Surrogate Motherhood and Woman Dignity]. Cuadernos de bioética: Revista oficial de la Asociación Española de Bioética y Ética Médica 2017; 28(93), 163-175.
44. Parks, J. A., & Murphy, T. F. So not mothers: Responsibility for surrogate orphans. Journal of Medical Ethics 2018; 44(8), 551-554. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104747
45. Van Niekerk, A., & Van Zyl, L. The ethics of surrogacy: Women's reproductive labour. Journal of Medical Ethics 1995; 21(6), 345-349. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.21.6.345
46. Teman, E. The social construction of surrogacy research: An anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood. Social Science & Medicine 2008; 67(7), 1104-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.026
47. Holmstrom-Smith, A. Free market feminism: Re-reconsidering surrogacy. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 2021; 24(3), 443.
48. Wilkinson, S. Exploitation in International Paid Surrogacy Arrangements. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2016; 33(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12138
49. Pande, A. "It May Be Her Eggs but It's My Blood": Surrogates and Everyday Forms of Kinship in India. Qualitative Sociology 2009; 32(4), 379-397.
50. Corea, G. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row; 1986
51. Spar, D. L. For Love and Money: The Political Economy of Commercial Surrogacy. Review of International Political Economy 2005; 12(2), 287–309. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25124020
52. Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can't buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2012.
53. Piersanti, V., Consalvo, F., Signore, F., Del Rio, A., & Zaami, S. Surrogacy and “Procreative Tourism”. What Does the Future Hold from the Ethical and Legal Perspectives? Medicina (Kaunas) 2021; 57(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57010047
54. Parks J. A. Care ethics and the global practice of commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 2010; 24(7), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01831.x
55. Kimbrell, A. (1993). The Human Body Shop: Engineering and Marketing Life. San Francisco: Harper; 1993.
56. Klein, R. Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation. Victoria (AU): Spinifex Press; 2017.
57. Habermas, J. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press; 2003.
58. Krügel, S., Ostermaier, A., & Uhl, M. ChatGPT’s Inconsistent Moral Advice Influences Users’ Judgment. Scientific Reports 2023; 13(1), 4569.
59. Dworkin, R. Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard (MA): Harvard University Press; 2013.
60. Dworkin, R. Law’s Empire. Harvard (MA): Harvard University Press; 1986.