Ethical Aspect of Infertility Treatment through Surrogacy based on Utilitarian Principle

Saeid Nazari Tavakoli, Fatemeh Karachian Sani



Background and Aim: One of the questions that may be raised about infertility treatment through surrogacy is the ethicality of this approach. There are many methods for the ethical clarification of the medical issues. If we accept the utilitarian philosophers’ views stating that an ethical measure is beneficial to the community and individuals, we may come up with the question whether the actions of the infertile couples or surrogate mother are considered ethical since these actions are beneficial for both individuals and community. Regarding this, the present study aimed to evaluate the infertile treatment through surrogacy based on the ethical theories of utilitarianism.

Materials and Methods: This analytical-descriptive research gathered relevant data in a literature search. After a description of the fundamentals and definitions, ethical texts were subsequently analyzed and one of the viewpoints regarding of Infertility Treatment through Surrogacy Based on Utilitarian Principle was selected.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical principles were considered in searching and citing the literature.

Findings: According to the rule utilitarianism, the ethicality of an action is measured based on its collective benefit and its placement in an ethical principle framework. Therefore, we cannot treat surrogacy like an accepted ethical principle, such as sacrifice, and provide a general rule for the determination of the effect of different social, cultural, economic, and political factors on the people involved in this act. However, the use of this method in different situations and for various people could be very beneficial and be considered ethical.

Conclusion: Although the comprehensive investigation of the harmful use of surrogacy has not been accomplished, the various problems and factors affecting the evaluation of the overall profit and loss of this act grab the possibility of determining its morality as a valid rule in the rule-based ethics. However, such a provision is justified in the utilitarian and pragmatic ethical systems.

Citation: Nazari Tavakkoli A, Karachian Sani F. Ethical Aspect of Infertility Treatment through Surrogacy based on Utilitarian Principle. Bioeth Health Law J. 2017; 1(1):1-6.


Infertility; Surrogacy; Infertile Couple and Ethical Utilitarian

Full Text:




Akker Ovd. The acceptable face of parenthood: The relative status of biological and cultural interpretations of offspring in infertility treatment. Psychology, Evolution & Gender. 2001;3(2):137-53.

council Wh. Infertility treatments for women: a review of the Bio-medical Evidence, : The Womens health council. ; 2009, 15.

Brinsden PR. Gestational surrogacy. Human Reproduction Update. 2003;9(5):483-91.

Jadva V, Murray C, Lycett E, MacCallum F, Golombok S. Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction. 2003;18(10):2196-204.

Kleinpeter CHA, Hohman MM. Surrogate motherhood: personality traits and satisfaction with service providers. Psychological reports. 2000;87(3):957-70.

Ciccarelli JC, Beckman LJ. Navigating rough waters: an overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues. 2005;61(1):21-43.

Blyth E. “i wanted to be interesting. 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. 1994 Jul 1;12(3):189-98.

Goldfarb JM, Austin C, Peskin B, Lisbona H, Desai N, de Mola JRL. Fifteen years experience with an in-vitro fertilization surrogate gestational pregnancy programme. Human Reproduction. 2000;15(5):1075-8.

Campbell AV. Surrogacy, rights and duties: a partial commentary. Health care analysis. 2000;8(1):35-40.

William K.Frankena. Ethics New Jersey: Prentice_ Hall Englewood Cliffs; 1963, 9, 137, 30, 32-33, 33.

Holmes RL. Basic moral philosophy. 2nd ed ed: Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub.; c1998, 129, 137, 137-138.

Bowie B, Bowie R. Ethical studies. Cheltenham, UK.: Nelson Thornes; 2001, 36.

Moore, Ethical: the nature of moral philosophy, 7

Gensler HJ. Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. London and newyork: Routledge; 1998, 150.

MacIntyre AC. A short history of ethics: a history of moral philosophy from the Homeric age to the twentieth century. 2nd ed ed. London: Routledge; c1998. 234-235, 238.

Bentham J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.: Batoche Books Kitchener. Ch.1.; 2000, 16

Collinson D. Fifty major philosophers: a reference guide. London: Routledge; 1987, 95-96, 104-105.

Bronowski J, Mazlish B. The western intellectual tradition: From Leonardo to Hegel. England: Penguin Books; 1970, 487-488.

Russell B. Freedom and organization. London: George Allen & Unwin 1952, 114.

Russell B. History of Western philosophy: and its connection with political... London: George Allen and Unwin; 1948, 802.

Copleston FC. A history of philosophy. 1st paperback ed ed: Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates; 1999, v:8, 11-13, 29-31.

Lyons D. Was Bentham a utilitarian? Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures. 1971;5:196-221.

Stearns JB. Bentham on Public and Private Ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1975;5(4):583-94.

Mill js. utilitarianism,. london: parker.son and bourn 1863, 9-10.

palmer m. moral problems toronto university of toronto press acknowledges the financial 1994, 80-83.

Timmons M. Moral theory: an introduction. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; c2002, 112-118.

Crisp R. Routledge philosophy guidebook to Mill on utilitarianism. London; New York: Routledge 1997, 29-32.

Hooker B. Ethical theory(rule-consequentialism). first ed: Black well publishing 2007, 486.

Dabbagh S. The Moral, the Transcendental. Tehran, 2008, 47-50.

Ber R. Ethical issues in gestational surrogacy. Theoretical medicine and bioethics. 2000;21(2):153-69.

British Medical A, Morgan D. Changing conceptions of motherhood: the practice of surrogacy in Britain: British Medical Association; 1996.

Wilkinson S. The exploitation argument against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics. 2003;17(2):169-87.

Smith GP. The Christian religion and biotechnology: a search for principled decision-making: Springer Science & Business Media; 2006, 158-159.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License

This journal is distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC 3.0. Copyright © 2017 Bioethics and Health Law Journal (BHL)All rights reserved.  All credits and honors to PKP for their OJS.

For Author | Online Submission | About Contact