Surrogacy Arrangements: Choices and Matches between "Third Parties" and Italian Gay Fathers

Journal title SALUTE E SOCIETÀ
Author/s Corinna Sabrina Guerzoni
Publishing Year 2018 Issue 2018/2 Language English
Pages 13 P. 106-118 File size 66 KB
DOI 10.3280/SES2018-002008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Surrogacy is prohibited, or not recognized by law, in almost all Western European countries (Smietana, 2016). It is mantled by multiple and articulated social disconfirmation that stresses how it is surrounded by ethical issues at different levels: the commodification of bodily substances, the exploitation of women’s reproductive capabilities and so on (Gross, 2012). It has been argued that surrogacy may exploit women from a more economically disadvantaged background (Blyth, 1994) and that the women may enter into a surrogacy arrangement because of financial hardship without being fully aware of the potential risks (Brazier, 1998). If the common sense generally describes the "third parties" selection like a purchase of material goods, how do the actors involved in this process describe their experiences? Based on the research conveyed in a fertility clinic of Southern California, I will focus my attention on the reproductive choices of Italian gay couples that have used surrogacy to become fathers. If in the study of artificial reproductive technologies (ARTs) the arrangements between parties are generally analyzed only considering one part’s point of view, the ambition of this article is to show the complexity of the practice putting together all the parties involved in the reproductive collaborations: intended fathers, egg donors, surrogates and the fertility industry. The aim is to show how the choice is co-constructed throughout the course of the matching phase, by all the actors involved and by other influences that I will show below.

Keywords: ARTs; Surrogacy; Egg Donation; Gay Parenting; Choice; Fertility Clinics.

  1. Baiocco R., Carone N., Lingiardi V. (2016). Italian gay fathers’ experiences of transnational surrogacy and their relationship with surrogate pre- and post birth. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 34(2): 181-190.
  2. Berend Z. (2014). The social context for surrogates’ motivations and satisfaction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 29(4): 399-401.
  3. Berend Z. (2016). “We Are All Carrying Someone Else’s Child!”: Relatedness and Relationships in Third-Party Reproduction. American Anthropologist, 118(1): 24-36.
  4. Blyth E. (1994). “I wanted to be investigating. I wanted to be able to say ‘I’ve done something interesting with my life’”: Interviews with surrogate mothers in Britain. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 12(3): 189-198. DOI: 10.1080/0264683940840888
  5. Brazier M., Campbell A., and Golombok S. (1998). Surrogacy: review for health ministers of current arrangements for payments and regulation. No. CM 4068. Department of health, London.
  6. Dempsey D. (2015). Relating across international borders. Gay men forming fami-lies through overseas surrogacy. In: Inhorn M.C., Chavkin W., Navarro J.A., Globalized Fatherhood. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  7. Freeman et al. (2014). Relatedness in Assisted Conception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Franklin S. (2013). Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kin-ship. Durham: Duke University Press.
  9. Goffman E. (1959). The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. New York: An-chor.
  10. Gross M. (2012). Choisir la paternité gay. Toulouse: Érès.
  11. Guerzoni C.S. (Doctoral Teshis – not published). «I figli sono frutto di una storia, la nostra». Percorsi riproduttivi e narrazioni di parentela di genitori omosessuali italiani. Dottorato in Antropologia Culturale e Sociale, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca.
  12. Haylett J. (2012). One Woman Helping Another: Egg Donation as a Case of Rela-tional Work. Politics & Society, 40(2): 223-247. DOI: 10.1177/0032329-21244159
  13. Jacobson H. (2016). Labor of Love. Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Mak-ing Babies. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers University Press.
  14. Murphy D.A. (2015). Gay Men Pursuing Parenthood through Surrogacy: Recon-figuring Kinship. Sidney: UNSW Press.
  15. Ragoné H. (1994). Surrogate Motherhood: conception in the heart. Boulder: Westview Press.
  16. Smietana M. (2016). “Families like we’d always known”? Spanish gay fathers’ normalization narratives in transnational surrogacy. In: L. M. N., Assisted Re-production across Borders: Feminist Perspectives on Normalizations, Disrup-tions and Transmissions. London: Routledge.
  17. Smietana M. (2017). Affective De-Commodifying, Economic De-Kinning: Surro-gates’ and Gay Fathers’ Narratives in U.S. Surrogacy. Sociological Research Online, 22(2): 1-13.
  18. Strathern M. (1999). The ethnographic effect I. In: Sthratern M., Property, Sub-stance and Effect. Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things. London: Athlone Press (p. 1-26).
  19. Zelizer V. (2005). The Purchase of Intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Does love make a family? The politics and micro-politics of filiation among same-sex families Alice Sophie Sarcinelli, in L'Année sociologique /2018 pp.367
    DOI: 10.3917/anso.182.0367

Corinna Sabrina Guerzoni, Surrogacy Arrangements: Choices and Matches between "Third Parties" and Italian Gay Fathers in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 2/2018, pp 106-118, DOI: 10.3280/SES2018-002008