Idiot rulings : surrogate mothers not recognized

[den4]

Idiot rulings

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apasia_story.asp?category=1104&slug=Japan Surrogate

It's stuff like this that gives Japan a "backwards nation" image....

maybe the couple should move to Hawaii....but the J-media wouldn't leave them alone, I bet..

 

[Maciamo]

It's stuff like this that gives Japan a "backwards nation" image....

maybe the couple should move to Hawaii....but the J-media wouldn't leave them alone, I bet..

Why, would they fit better into the Hawaiian society.

Japanese law doesn't prohibit surrogate births, which involve removing an egg for fertilization and implanting it into another woman, who carries the baby until birth. But the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology sets ethical standards restricting in-vitro insemination to married couples and opposing any surrogate births, and lawmakers want to impose a ban on surrogate births and penalize those who violate it.

2 things here. First, the law does not prohibit surrogate births, BUT lawmakers want to impose a ban on it and penalize those who violate it.

Secondly, it is the doctors themselves who restrict in-vitro insemination to married couples for ethic reasons. What kind of ethic is that ? I knew that Japanese were bad when it came to philosophical or moral reflection (ex. you can't drink even a beer legally before 20, but anybody can go to love hotels as teenagers). I can't understand why Japanese insist so much on couples being married to recognise children. In Western countries, children of unmarried couples have been recognised since the DNA tests became accesible a few decades ago. In Japan, even with a DNA test proving who is the father, if the parents are not married there is no way to legitimate the father. Very backwards indeed.

Lawmakers in Japan's conservative ruling Liberal Democratic Party have long opposed most fertility treatments because they fear legal custody battles and other possible repercussions for the traditional family unit.

But what if a couple uses in-vitro insemination to have a child (without surrogate mother) and are not married ? Japanese may not understand that some people do not wish to get married even though they want to live with one particular person and have children with him/her (that is surely beyond most Japanese's imagination ). I was told, "but why would you like to do that ?", "why living and having chidlren with someone and refusing to get married ?". For lots of Europeans, the reason is obvious. "marriage" is associated with religion, and they do not want to be involved in religious ceremonies or traditions. Furthermore, marriage is troublesome, especialy in case of divorce, and people do no want to have to deal with slow tribunals and expensive lawyers when they could settle things by themselves. I guess there are other personal reasons not to want to get married.

Then,

The Japanese government has rejected a popular television actress' request that her twin sons - delivered by a surrogate mother in the United States - be recognized as her own, the justice minister said Friday.

But don't Japanese laws accept surrogate births ? (see first qutote) I thought it was Japanese doctors who were opposed, which would explain why the couple went to the USA to do it. The problem here is that the Japanese government does not recognise "adoption" at all. I knew that adoptions were not common in Japan, but I didn't know they were illegal, especially when adopting your own genes !

 

[Hachiko]

2 things here. First, the law does not prohibit surrogate births, BUT lawmakers want to impose a ban on it and penalize those who violate it.

Secondly, it is the doctors themselves who restrict in-vitro insemination to married couples for ethic reasons. What kind of ethic is that ? I knew that Japanese were bad when it came to philosophical or moral reflection (ex. you can't drink even a beer legally before 20, but anybody can go to love hotels as teenagers). I can't understand why Japanese insist so much on couples being married to recognise children. In Western countries, children of unmarried couples have been recognised since the DNA tests became accesible a few decades ago. In Japan, even with a DNA test proving who is the father, if the parents are not married there is no way to legitimate the father. Very backwards indeed.



But what if a couple uses in-vitro insemination to have a child (without surrogate mother) and are not married ? Japanese may not understand that some people do not wish to get married even though they want to live with one particular person and have children with him/her (that is surely beyond most Japanese's imagination ). I was told, "but why would you like to do that ?", "why living and having chidlren with someone and refusing to get married ?". For lots of Europeans, the reason is obvious. "marriage" is associated with religion, and they do not want to be involved in religious ceremonies or traditions. Furthermore, marriage is troublesome, especialy in case of divorce, and people do no want to have to deal with slow tribunals and expensive lawyers when they could settle things by themselves. I guess there are other personal reasons not to want to get married.

Then,



But don't Japanese laws accept surrogate births ? (see first qutote) I thought it was Japanese doctors who were opposed, which would explain why the couple went to the USA to do it. The problem here is that the Japanese government does not recognise "adoption" at all. I knew that adoptions were not common in Japan, but I didn't know they were illegal, especially when adopting your own genes !

Good points, Maciamo.
This should be fodder for Serious Talk.

 

[france]

Hi everyone,

I'm a french lady trying to legalise surrogacy in France.

I saw today a news about a woman carrying a child for her daughter.

the news said that surrogacy was legalised in japan ? is it really legalised or it is just "not fordidden" as you wrote ?

I'm very interested in any news about surrogacy in japan,

thanks,

 

[dreamer]

Hum... as far as I know, Surrogacy is not illegal in Japan but the Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology prohibits it. Now as to see how the government will react to the last piece of news...well...we'll see...
here's the story:

Monday, Oct. 16, 2006

Acting as surrogate, woman in her 50s gives birth to her own grandchild
Kyodo News

A woman in her 50s gave birth last year to a baby she had carried for her daughter, who is unable to bear children, the head of a maternity clinic in Nagano Prefecture announced Sunday.

The revelation could stir further debate about births by surrogate mothers, which are opposed by both the health ministry and the nation's obstetrician association.

Yahiro Netsu, director of the Suwa Maternity Clinic in Shimosuwa, Nagano Prefecture, made the announcement at a news conference in Tokyo.

He said the woman gave birth in spring 2005 using an egg from her daughter, whose uterus was removed due to cancer, and sperm from the daughter's husband, effectively giving birth to her grandchild. The husband and wife are both in their 30s.

It is the first time a woman in Japan has acted as a surrogate mother for her daughter, Netsu said.

The Suwa Maternity Clinic performed in vitro fertilization and implanted a fertilized egg in the woman's womb in 2004.

Netsu said the woman was given hormone injections before the implantation of the fertilized egg as she had reached menopause and had uterine atrophy.

The baby was registered as a child of the surrogate mother and was later adopted by the daughter and her husband, Netsu said.

The surrogate mother and the child, whose gender has not been released, are in good health, he said.

The woman visited the clinic about four years ago and offered to be a surrogate mother for her daughter, Netsu said, adding his clinic conducted the surrogate birth after confirming that the woman had no health problems and obtaining approval from the in-house ethics committee.

About a grandmother acting as a surrogate mother, Netsu said, "This is the most trouble-free way, I think, as we can avoid such trouble as a surrogate mother refusing to give up the child she delivered."

Netsu, who in the past has defied guidelines imposed by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and helped other couples have children through surrogate mothers, said he wants a public debate on the issue.

"I know I will face criticism (for performing the surrogate birth), but I want everyone to discuss it" as an issue that could affect them personally, he said.

During the news conference, Netsu said he handled two other surrogate births recently, in which sisters became surrogate mothers.

The three cases follow two other surrogate births announced by Netsu in the past, including the nation's first, revealed in May 2001. It involved a woman who gave birth to a child using the egg of her elder sister, who had undergone a uterus operation.

After the 2001 announcement, a council of the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry compiled a report in April 2003 suggesting a legal ban on surrogate births and punitive measures against violators, out of concern that such births may impose physical and mental strain on surrogate mothers and cause complications in family relationships. No legislative measures have been introduced, however, due to opposition among lawmakers in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology released guidelines in April 2003 banning surrogate births.
The Japan Times

 

[france]

thanks,

surrogacy is banned in france with sanctions against parents and surrogate...no matter, it's just practised in clandestinity...

the best way is to adopt a clear law, prtecting everybody, mainly the child, as in several countries !

 

[Nana007]

you would think a country with a declining population wouldn't care the hows? what's? and why's? about how the child was born. But that a child has been born.

You know if they changed some of the laws then maybe they wouldn't have a declining population. Especially the whole if the parents aren't married then the child isn't recognized thing.

Trends and polls are showing that the younger Japanese really don't care for marriage they find it troublesome and other things. What if a couple who don't want to get married want to have a child together but they don't because the baby will be seen as illegitimate in Japanese society.

 

[Mars Man]

One of the probably very numerious problems holding back any more realistic public (and especially governmental) view of surragacy here in Japan is the family register system. We notice in the story provided by dreamer, above, the following:

The baby was registered as a child of the surrogate mother and was later adopted by the daughter and her husband...

This very same wording is used in an article on that in The Daily Yomiuri, Oct. 16 issue, p. 3.

This is the problem: the law does not recognize the scientifically and most naturally correct understanding of who gave birth to the child. The article in the Yomuri shows this in the following sentences:

Netsu performed in vitro fertilization with the daughter's egg and son-in-law's sperm, and implanted the fertilized egg into the mother's (now grandmother) womb in 2004

.

The woman's mother acted as a carrier, but had almost nothing to do with the genetical build of the child, and most likely an immaterial degree of prenatal development (after having considered the usual). It's the old, and scientifically behind system of registering people with the government that is the problem. Even the issues of 'social and or ethical problems' can be said to exist due the norms of ethical considerations that have lagged in keeping up with the expansion of knowledge about the world. (world used here in the sense of percieved cosmos)

Of course there would have to be some guidelines in a legal way, but to make surrogacy illegal across the board, no questions asked, is, in my opinion, just as the thread's title says: stupid.