Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Two questions about surrogacy and exploitation.

Alan Wertheimer

    Philosophy & Public Affairs
    |July 1, 1992
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Why is Coerced Consent Worse Than No Consent and Deceived Consent?

    The Journal of medicine and philosophy·2017
    Same author

    When and Why Is Research without Consent Permissible?

    The Hastings Center report·2016
    Same author

    (Why) should we require consent to participation in research?

    Journal of law and the biosciences·2015
    Same author

    The ethics of promulgating principles of research ethics: the problem of diversion effects.

    Journal of law and the biosciences·2015
    Same author

    The social value requirement reconsidered.

    Bioethics·2014
    Same author

    In defense of bunkering.

    The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2014
    Same journal

    Valuing health.

    Philosophy & public affairs·2006
    Same journal

    Principled compromise and the abortion controversy.

    Philosophy & public affairs·2006
    Same journal

    Global health and the scientific research agenda.

    Philosophy & public affairs·2005
    Same journal

    Identity, killing, and the boundaries of our existence.

    Philosophy & public affairs·2003
    Same journal

    The real tragedy of the commons.

    Philosophy & public affairs·2003
    Same journal

    Brain death and spontaneous breathing.

    Philosophy & public affairs·2003
    See all related articles

    This article explores whether surrogacy is exploitative, arguing that mutually advantageous arrangements may not be harmful. If surrogacy is voluntary and beneficial, contracts should generally be permitted and enforceable.

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Social Sciences
    • Philosophy of Law

    Background:

    • Surrogacy involves complex ethical considerations regarding exploitation.
    • Existing debates often assume exploitation must be harmful, overlooking mutually beneficial scenarios.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To analyze whether surrogacy constitutes exploitation.
    • To determine the moral implications of exploitation in surrogacy.
    • To examine the conditions under which surrogacy contracts should be legally recognized.

    Main Methods:

    • Philosophical argumentation on the definition of exploitation.
    • Analysis of potential harms and benefits to surrogates.
    • Examination of legal and ethical frameworks for state interference.
    Keywords:
    Analytical ApproachGenetics and Reproduction

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Surrogacy's exploitative nature hinges on defining exploitation as necessarily harmful versus potentially mutually advantageous.
    • Lack of empirical evidence on surrogacy's impact complicates definitive conclusions.
    • The moral weight of exploitation depends on the chosen definition and views on harm.

    Conclusions:

    • If surrogacy is viewed as voluntary and mutually advantageous exploitation, a strong presumption favors permitting and enforcing surrogacy contracts.
    • This presumption may be rebutted by other ethical or legal considerations.
    • Further empirical data and philosophical clarity on 'harm' are needed.