“우리 아이 낙태해줘” 친부모vs대리모…왜?
동아일보 입력 2013-03-11 03:00:00 기사수정 2013-03-11 09:34:08
http://news.donga.com/East/3/all/20130311/53600926/1
친부모의 낙태 요청에도 기형아 출산한 대리모 “구세주냐 악마냐” 美전역 논란
그녀는 구세주인가 악마인가.’
선천성 기형을 가진 아이를 친부모의 낙태 요청에 응하지 않고 출산한 대리모를 둘러싼 논란이 미국 전역에서 일고 있다.
최근 CNN방송에 따르면 코네티컷 주에 살던 크리스털 켈리 씨(31)는 2011년 8월 불임 부부를 돕는 것도 괜찮다고 생각해 2만2000달러를 받고 대리모가 되기로 결심했다. 두 딸을 둔 이혼녀였던 켈리 씨는 경제적으로 곤궁한 상태였다.
켈리 씨는 대리모 주선 회사를 통해 같은 주에 사는 한 부부와 연결됐다. 이미 3명의 자녀를 두고 있었던 의뢰인 부부는 4번째 아이를 원했지만 더이상 임신이 불가능하다는 판정을 받은 상태였다. 냉동보관 중이던 의뢰인 부부의 수정란은 2011년 10월 8일 켈리 씨의 자궁에 착상돼 임신은 순조롭게 진행됐다. 부부는 켈리 씨의 사정을 고려해 비용을 앞당겨 매월 나눠서 지급하고 매일 전화해 안부를 물을 정도로 친하게 지냈다.
문제는 임신 4개월인 2012년 2월에 불거졌다. 태아 사전검사 결과 심장기형과 구순구개열(언청이) 등이 있는 것으로 나타났다. 병원 의료진은 아이가 태어나면 수차례 심장수술을 받아야 하고 출생 후 정상 생활을 할 확률은 25% 정도라는 진단을 내렸다.
이후 대리모와 친부모의 ‘전쟁 아닌 전쟁’은 시작됐다. 친부모는 태어날 아이의 고통을 생각해 낙태를 요청했다. “이들은 이미 낳은 3명의 자식 중 2명이 미숙아로 태어나 오랫동안 병원 신세를 졌고 지금도 여러 질환에 시달리고 있다”고 설명했다. 그러나 대리모는 “부모라도 아이의 생명을 멋대로 빼앗을 수 없다. 아이에게 기회를 주기 위해 모든 것을 다 시도해 봐야 한다”며 낙태를 거부했다.
3월 초 임신 24주가 가까워지면서 대립은 더 극에 달했다. 임신 24주를 넘기면 법적으로 미국에서는 낙태가 불가능하기 때문이다. 친부모는 변호사를 고용해 켈리 씨에게 낙태를 종용했다. 불응하면 병원비용도 내지 않겠지만 낙태에 응해주면 1만 달러를 추가로 지급하겠다는 제안도 했다.
그러나 켈리 씨는 종교와 양심의 이유까지 들며 거절했다. 켈리 씨는 “나만큼 아이와 교감을 한 사람은 없다. 아이가 발로 배를 차고 배 속에서 놀면서 느끼는 감정을 누가 알겠느냐”며 아이의 생명줄을 놓을 수 없음을 호소했다.
켈리 씨는 궁리 끝에 아이를 출산할 수 있는 방안을 찾았다. 코네티컷 주와 달리 미시간 주에서는 대리모에게도 부모 자격을 준다는 것을 알았다. 켈리 씨는 4월 초 두 아이를 데리고 미시간 주로 이사를 했다. 태아 심장 전문의가 있는 미시간대 병원이 있다는 것도 이사의 중요한 이유였다.
문제는 직장이 없는 켈리 씨가 새로 낳을 아이를 돌볼 경제적 여유가 없다는 점이었다. 그는 고심 끝에 입양을 생각해냈다. 주변의 도움으로 어렵사리 아픈 아이를 입양할 양부모를 아이를 낳기도 전에 찾아냈다.
6월 25일 아이는 세상에 태어났다. 아이는 출생 당시 숨을 쉬지 못해 응급처치를 받았다. 출생 후 초음파 검사 결과는 더 심각했다. 뇌의 양반구가 완전히 분리되지 않은 ‘완전전뇌증(完全前腦症)’과 간이나 위가 제 위치에 있지 않은 ‘내장 변위(變位)’도 발견됐다.
생후 8개월째인 올해 2월 현재 ‘S’로 불리는 이 아이는 이미 몇 차례의 심장 수술을 받았고 구순구개열 수술 등을 앞두고 있다. 좀 더 자란 뒤 심장 수술을 몇 차례 더 받아야 한다. 의사들은 아이가 생존해도 걷거나 말하지 못할 확률이 50%쯤 될 것으로 예상하고 있다.
그럼에도 불구하고 켈리 씨와 아이의 양부모는 아이로부터 매일 경이로운 장면을 보고 있다고 CNN에 전했다. “아이는 매일 전염성 강한 미소를 보이며 깨어나고, 의사와 눈을 맞춤으로써 사람들을 놀라게 하고 있다”고 말했다.
현재 미국 사회는 켈리 씨의 결정이 새 생명을 구한 구세주라는 의견과 함께 아이가 평생 안고 살아야 할 고통을 고려하지 않은 무책임한 행동이라는 견해가 팽팽하게 맞선 상태다.
허진석 기자 jameshuh@donga.com
=============================
Surrogate mom refuses to abort fetus with birth defects
http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2013/03/05/surrogate-mom-refuses-to-abort-fetus-with-birth-defects/
Crystal Kelley was offered $10,000 to abort the child who she’s holding in this photo. (CNN)
When a Connecticut couple learned their surrogate mother was carrying a fetus with developmental disabilities, they offered her $10,000 to have an abortion, reported CNN.
Crystal Kelley, 29, demanded $15,000 to undergo a procedure that she claimed went against her religious beliefs.
The unnamed couple refused and a legal battle over the surrogacy contract and the child’s fate followed.
In August 2011, Kelley had signed an official contract with a surrogacy agency saying that she’d agree to abort if the fetus had a severe abnormality. Now she was carrying a disabled child, but she didn’t want to honor the agreement.
Determined to give the fetus a chance at life, Kelley fled Connecticut for Michigan, where under state law the surrogacy contract would be disregarded and she would be recognized as the legal guardian.
In Ann Arbor, she gave birth to a child with severe medical conditions.
As more people turn to a third party to carry their babies, complicated situations like this are challenging the ethics of surrogacy. When all three people involved in a surrogacy aren’t on the same page, what should happen?
***
This isn’t the first time a surrogacy situation has gone bad and caught the attention of national media. In 2010, when a Canadian couple learned their surrogate mother was carrying a fetus that was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they demanded an abortion.
The surrogate didn’t want to abort the child, according to the National Post, and the child’s fate became about the surrogacy contract.
According to the couple’s agreement with the surrogate, if the surrogate birthed the child, the biological parents wouldn’t have any legal responsibility for the child.
But many legal experts are saying that if this situation had been brought to court the surrogacy contract would have been disregarded. Instead the court would draw from family law requiring the biological parents to support the child.
It’s hard to know what would have happened because a surrogacy contract had never been contested in a Canadian court, according to the National Post, and the surrogate in this case never filed a lawsuit and decided to have an abortion in the end.
But the story got the entire world talking about surrogacy and whether contracts should be followed in all situations. What happens when prospective parents don’t want the child being carried by a surrogate? Should they be forced to care for a child they don’t want or can they demand that the surrogate abort the child?
***
Crystal Kelley revealed all the details of her complciated surrogacy to CNN. (CNN)
Crystal Kelley decided to become a surrogate mom because as a single mother of two daughters she desperately needed the $22,000 fee. Also, she struggled with fertility issues herself and liked the idea of helping out others in a similar situation.
The unnamed pair already had three children and wanted a fourth but the mother could no longer have children. For help, they turned to a surrogacy agency.
Kelley and the couple immediately bonded at their first meeting, and in October 2011 an embryo the couple had left over from a previous round of in-vitro fertilization was inserted into Kelley’s uterus.
Ten days later, Kelley was pregnant. The would-be parents were supportive through the beginning of the pregnancy, often checking in on Kelley during her first trimester when she suffered from morning sickness. The prospective parents gave Kelley and her two daughters holiday gifts.
The relationship started to sour in February when ultrasounds spotted signs of abnormalities. Things got worse when Kelley had a high-level ultrasound at five months and the doctor concluded that the baby would likely have a cleft lip and palate, a brain cyst and heart defects.
Because the doctors determined that the baby would need multiple heart surgeries after birth and would have only a 25 percent chance of leading a normal life, the couple decided that an abortion was the next best step. The couple’s three children were all premature and two of them struggled with ongoing health issues. They feared the child Crystal was carrying faced an even more challenging fate.
Kelley felt differently. She wanted to give the baby a chance at life.
A meeting at the hospital between the three was emotional.
Kelley told CNN:
They were both visibly upset. The mother was crying. They said they didn’t want to bring a baby into the world only for that child to suffer. … They said I should try to be God-like and have mercy on the child and let her go.
I told them that they had chosen me to carry and protect this child, and that was exactly what I was going to do,” Kelley said. “I told them it wasn’t their decision to play God.
Overwhelmed and frustrated, Kelley walked out of the meeting.
The couple hoped their surrogate would move forward with an abortion but when the intended mother realized Kelley failed to make the appointment with the hospital, she and her husband offered her $10,000 to move forward with the procedure.
Kelley was tempted but felt she should be compensated more to do something that went against her religious values. Kelley told CNN that in a weak moment she let the surrogacy agency know that she’d terminate the pregnancy for $15,000.
The couple declined the offer, but Kelley claims that before she even received that news she had decided to have the baby.
In a final attempt to push for an abortion, the parents hired a lawyer. Kelley had signed a contract agreeing to abort if the fetus had severe abnormalities but the contract didn’t indicate what constitutes a severe disability. The lawyer alerted Kelley that she’d need to pay back all fees if she didn’t have an abortion because she was breaking the contract.
Kelley hired her own lawyer, Michael DePrimo, an attorney in Hamden, Conn. DePrimo wrote back: “Ms. Kelley was more than willing to abort this fetus if the dollars were right.”
Then the couple changed their minds and decided that they would exercise their legal rights to keep the baby and after birth they’d put her in foster care.
The legal squabble continued. With the 24-week legal limit for abortion just around the corner, Kelley decided to leave Connecticut where state law says that the baby’s genetic parents—the ones who supplied the sperm—are the legal parents, according to CNN. In April 2011, she moved to Michigan, one of several states that disregards surrogacy contracts and views the woman who’s carrying the baby as the legal guardian. She also chose Michigan because C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital at the University of Michigan has an outstanding pediatric heart program.
In Ann Arbor, Kelley and her girls settled into a new life. As her pregnancy progressed, Kelley thought a lot about whether to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. She was already struggling financially and decided it would be best to give her up for adoption.
Through an online group, Kelley connected with a mother of a special needs child who would adopt her baby.
The situation too took a complicated turn a month before the baby was due last June. The Connecticut couple filed papers in Superior Court for parental rights, indicating that they wanted to be the legal parents.
By filing the papers, the couple was forced to reveal that the wife was not the baby’s genetic mother. The couple used an anonymous egg donor.
Baby S was born with a cleft lip and palate. (CNN)
In the midst of a legal battle, Kelley gave birth to a baby with medical problems that were far worse than ever expected.
CNN reports:
She has a birth defect called holoprosencephaly, where the brain fails to completely divide into distinct hemispheres. She has heterotaxy, which means many of her internal organs, such as her liver and stomach, are in the wrong places. She has at least two spleens, neither of which works properly. Her head is very small, her right ear is misshapen, she has a cleft lip and a cleft palate, and a long list of complex heart defects, among other problems.
Kelley’s name went on the birth certificate but the space for a father was left blank.
Two weeks later, Kelley finally struck a deal with the couple. The husband and wife agreed to give up their parental rights as long as they could maintain a relationship with the child.
Kelley handed over the child, who is identified as Baby S, to the chosen adoptive mother.
In the seven months since Baby S’s birth, the unnamed adoptive mother told CNN that the Connecticut couple visited and held the child.
“They do care about her well-being. They do care about how she’s doing,” she said.
Baby S is leading a life filled with medical complications. She gets food through a tube inserted into her stomach. Her head is small and she has facial abnormalities. If she lives, she has a 50 percent chance of ever walking.
Some might see her life as miserable but her adoptive mother sees a lot of hope and joy.
“S. wakes up every single morning with an infectious smile. She greets her world with a constant sense of enthusiasm,” her mother said in an e-mail to CNN. “Ultimately, we hold onto a faith that in providing S. with love, opportunity, encouragement, she will be the one to show us what is possible for her life and what she is capable of achieving.”
As for Kelley, she’s chronicling her experience on her blog where she receives both fan and hate mail. Some see her as a brave woman who saved a child’s life while others see her as a selfish person who recklessly brought an unhealthy child into the world when she had no right to make that decision.
I think both Kelley and the couple behaved badly in this terribly sad story. The lesson here seems to be that surrogate moms and prospective parents need to have open and honest discussions about possible pregnancy outcomes and how they would respond to different scenarios before a contract is ever signed. Most importantly, they need to make sure that they share similar views on abortion.
The hero in this story is undoubtedly the selfless adoptive mother who was happy to care for Baby S and love her like her own. I can only hope that the child’s upcoming surgeries are successful and her medical condition improves.
What do you think?
| Mar 05 at 3:30 pm
3:01PM GMT 05 Mar 2013
==============
US surrogate mother Crystal Kelley flees after baby’s parents order her to abort foetus
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9910263/US-surrogate-mother-Crystal-Kelley-flees-after-babys-parents-order-her-to-abort-foetus.html
A surrogate mother fled to protect the unborn child growing inside her after the baby’s parents demanded she abort the foetus when it was found to have developmental disabilities.
urrogate mother Crystal Kelley, 29, five months into her pregnancy last year that the baby she was carrying had a series of disabilities.
When the child’s parents told her they wanted to abort the foetus, she fled from Connecticut across the country to Michigan, where under state law she had legal rights as the child’s mother.
Ms Kelley arranged to be a surrogate through an established agency in August 2011, after finding herself in financial difficulty, CNN reported.
A couple, who already had an embryo from a previous round of IVF, paid her $22,000 to carry the child.
The embryo was implanted on 8 October, with Ms Kelley confirming she was pregnant 10 days later.
In February, however, ultrasound tests began to show that the baby was developing abnormally.
The baby was suspected to have a cleft palate, a brain cyst and serious heart defects. Doctors were unable to locate the child’s spleen or stomach, and gave the baby only a 25 percent chance of living a normal life.
It was after this that the parents decided to send a letter to Ms Kelley, via intermediaries, stating: “Given the ultrasound findings, (the parents) feel that the interventions required to manage (the baby’s medical problems) are overwhelming for an infant, and that it is a more humane option to consider pregnancy termination”.
The couples’ three children had all been born prematurely and two had ongoing medical problems.
The situation became steadily more heated as the couple argued that they did not want to go through with the pregnancy, only for the child to suffer.
But Ms Kelley, who is deeply religious, argued that “it wasn’t their decision to play God”.
Ms Kelley was the only one who could arrange an abortion, and the couple told her that if she wished to have the baby, they would not be its legal guardians.
They offered her $10,000 to have the procedure but Ms Kelley refused, demanding $15,000 instead in what she says was a “weak moment”.
The parents refused, and reminded her of her contractual obligation to abort the foetus if it displayed signs of abnormality.
If she refused, she would be sued for the fee she had already received, plus all the medical expenses and legal fees.
With the 24-week legal limit for abortion approaching, Ms Kelley drove to Michigan, a state which considers the surrogate mother the legal guardian.
She decided that she could not raise the child however, and began to find a suitable adoptive couple who wanted a disabled child.
Around one month before the baby was due, the birth parents got back in touch, saying that they wanted to have parental rights to the child, with their names on the birth certificate.
On 25 June, the child was born amidst complicated legal proceedings. The birth certificate was not completed.
Three weeks later however and the case was resolved, with the birth parents agreeing to give up any legal claim to the child in exchange for information about the child’s health.
Ms Kelley told CNN that although some people may hate her, she felt she has done the right thing.
“I knew from the beginning that this little girl had an amazing fighting spirit, and whatever challenges were thrown at her, she would go at them with every ounce of spirit that she could possibly have,” she said.
“No matter what anybody told me, I became her mother.”
==================
Surrogate Mother Who Refused to Abort Child Flees State to Keep Couple From Taking Custody
http://christiannews.net/2013/03/05/surrogate-mother-who-refused-to-abort-child-flees-state-to-keep-couple-from-taking-custody/
CNN recently reported a story of a woman who defied the demands of a couple to abort the baby that she was carrying for them as a surrogate.
The woman’s name is Crystal Kelley, who at age 29, was seeking to be a surrogate for a couple that was struggling with infertility. In addition to wanting to help a desperate family, she was in need herself of finances, which her surrogate services would provide.
In 2011, she arranged to meet with a couple in a playground near her home of Vernon, Connecticut to discuss carrying a child for the family. The unidentified couple had three children, but could not have more, and had two frozen embryos in storage.
Kelley and the family came to an agreement, and in October, she had both embryos implanted into her uterus. She was informed days later that one had survived. The two parties were cordial and friendly with each other — that is, until approximately five months into the pregnancy.
During a routine ultrasound, doctors had difficulty seeing the baby’s heartbeat and requested that Kelley go to Hartford Hospital for further tests. Later, Kelley received a phone call notifying her that the child had severe abnormalities, including heart defects, a cyst on the brain and a cleft lip and palate. They could also not locate the spleen.
Doctors told Kelley that the baby would require several heart surgeries following birth, and would likely survive, but would only have a 25 percent chance at a normal life. When the waiting couple found out, they demanded that Kelley obtain an abortion.
“Given the ultrasound findings, [the parents] feel that the interventions required to manage [the baby's health issues] are overwhelming for an infant, and that it is a more humane option to consider pregnancy termination,” stated a letter from Hartford Hospital.
Kelley refused.
“Ms. Kelley feels that all efforts should be made to ‘give the baby a chance’ and seems adamantly opposed to termination,” the document continued.
Kelley’s decision made the couple very upset.
“They said I should try to be God-like and have mercy on the child and let her go,” she remembered. “I told them that they had chosen me to carry and protect this child, and that was exactly what I was going to do. I told them it wasn’t their decision to play God.”
The couple then called Hartford Hospital to inquire about abortion services, but was informed that only Kelley could request an abortion.
Days later, Kelley received an email from a surrogacy organization, notifying her that the parents had decided that they did not wish to have rights to the child if he or she was to be born.
“You will be the only person who will be making decisions about the child, should the child is born,” wrote Surrogacy Internation’s Rita Kron.
However, she told Kelley that the couple had offered to pay $10,000 to have the baby aborted. Later, Kron took Kelley out to lunch to convince her to move forward with the abortion.
“She painted a picture of a life of a person who had a child with special needs,” Kelley recalled. “She told me how it would be painful, it would be taxing, it would be strenuous and stressful. She told me it would financially drain me, that my children would suffer because of it.”
In a statement that she later regretted, Kelley said to ask the parents if they would move forward with an abortion for $15,000. However, she quickly recanted and again resolved to keep the baby safe — no matter what.
Soon after, Kelley received a strongly-worded letter in the mail. The couple had hired an attorney.
“You are obligated to terminate this pregnancy immediately,” wrote attorney Douglas Fishman. “You have squandered precious time.”
In just weeks, Kelley would be 24 weeks pregnant and would not be permitted under law to abort. The attorney pressured her to schedule the abortion quickly, stating that she had signed a contract that agreed to end the baby’s life should there be a severe abnormality. He also threatened that if she did not abort, the parents would sue to get their money back — plus legal fees.
Kelley again refused. Instead, she obtained her own attorney, Michael DePrimo, who contended that the woman should not be forced to have an abortion.
“[A]bortion is off the table and will not be considered under any circumstance,” he wrote to Fishman.
However, soon after, Fishman contacted DePrimo and said that the couple had changed their mind. The planned to take custody of the child and then surrender her as a ward of the state upon birth. Kelley wouldn’t have it.
DePrimo then presented Kelley’s options, one of which was to move to a state where only the woman carrying the child is recognized as the mother under the law. After contemplating the issue, Kelley decided to move to Michigan.
“Once I realized that I was going to be the only person really fighting for her, that Mama bear instinct kicked in, and there was no way I was giving up without a fight,” she said.
She said she chose the state because it provided the best pediatric heart care in the country.
Because Kelley did not feel that she could raise the child herself, she contacted one of the women that helped her move to Michigan and asked if she would be interested in adopting. She said yes.
In the meantime, the couple filed court documents fighting for their rights to the child. However, in the paperwork, it was admitted that the woman was not really the mother as she had used an anonymous egg donor during the invitro fertilization procedure.
Therefore, when the child was born, a girl, Kelley’s name went on the birth certificate and the father’s name was left blank. The two parties agreed to give up rights to the baby as long as the adoptive parents would allow the couple to visit the child.
The infant still deals with numerous health issues, including a mishapen ear and head, and faces a number of risky heart surgeries, but according to her adoptive parents, is in good spirits.
“[She] wakes up every single morning with an infectious smile. She greets her world with a constant sense of enthusiasm,” they wrote in an email to CNN. “Ultimately, we hold onto a faith that in providing [this child] with love, opportunity, encouragement, she will be the one to show us what is possible for her life and what she is capable of achieving.”
Kelley, who is thankful that she fought for the baby’s life, says that she has been demonized by many as she has shared her story online.
“I can’t tell you how many people told me that I was bad, that I was wrong, that I should go have an abortion, that I would be damned to Hell,” she explained.
But Kelley is adamant that what she did was right.
“No one else was feeling this pregnancy the way that I was. No one else could feel her kicking and moving around inside,” she said. “I knew from the beginning that this little girl had an amazing fighting spirit, and whatever challenges were thrown at her, she would go at them with every ounce of spirit that she could possibly have.”
“When I look into her pretty blue-ish eyes, I can see that sparkle that makes me know that I did the right thing by standing up for her,” she added in a recent blog post.
==============
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/06/opinion/oconnor-surrogate-abortion
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle
