Image Source: Shutterstock
A same-sex couple in Canada has launched a lawsuit against the surrogate mother who carried their son after she refused their request to abort the baby when doctors identified a cleft lip and a possible heart defect during pregnancy.
The case, filed in Ontario Superior Court, has intensified concerns about the ethical consequences of surrogacy and IVF, with critics arguing it demonstrates how children can be treated as products expected to meet contractual expectations rather than as human beings deserving unconditional love and protection.
According to The National Post, the surrogate conceived through IVF using a donor egg and sperm from each of the intended fathers. At a 22-week scan, doctors detected a cleft lip and raised the possibility of a cleft palate or minor heart defect.
The couple then sent the surrogate a formal letter requesting that she terminate the pregnancy.
The letter stated: “Considering that medical tests indicate that the foetus has, or is likely to have, a genetic, chromosomal or other abnormality or defect, and in accordance with article 8.5(a) of our surrogacy agreement … we want to inform you of our wish that the pregnancy be terminated.”
The surrogate said she was left “shocked” and “devastated” by the request. She refused, explaining that she would only have considered abortion if the baby had no realistic prospect of surviving after birth, and instead requested further specialist assessments.
Doctors at Toronto’s Mount Sinai Hospital later concluded that the baby was otherwise healthy, with the cleft lip remaining the principal diagnosis. The couple accepted that assessment and agreed for the pregnancy to continue.
However, according to both the surrogate and the surrogacy agency, the relationship broke down after she refused the abortion.
“That’s when everything changed … they wanted a termination,” said Sally Rhoads-Heinrich, owner of Surrogacy in Canada Online. “What I find most difficult in this is they are suing the woman who brought their son to them. How is their son going to feel someday if he learns that?”
Following the child’s birth, the surrogate unsuccessfully sought reimbursement for around 10,000 Canadian dollars in pregnancy-related expenses. The intended parents later filed a lawsuit seeking approximately 600,000 Canadian dollars in damages, alleging that she failed to keep them informed about the baby’s health, caused them emotional distress and failed “to follow the direction regarding decisions affecting the foetus’ medical care”.
The surrogate believes the lawsuit is retaliation for refusing to abort the child.
“You know I’m a single mum, you know I have a daughter, and you’re basically suing me for my house,” she told The National Post. “I just feel used … They didn’t get the perfect child they wanted and they threw me away.”
More than 50 countries now prohibit both commercial and altruistic surrogacy, and governments led by Italy and Chile recently called for an international moratorium on the practice, arguing that it exploits both women and children.
Regarding this case SPUC’s Communications Manager, Peter Kearney, said: “The shambolic morals of the surrogacy industry are exposed yet again. A child deliberately created through IVF was welcomed while healthy, yet when a disability was suspected the contractual expectation became that the baby should be destroyed. The subsequent lawsuit against the woman who refused to abort highlights the commodification of children that sustains the ever-growing surrogacy industry. Globally, this must end.”
