Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa

Abstract The regulation of surrogacy in South Africa centres on a scheme of judicial confirmation of surrogacy agreements before the start of the surrogate pregnancy. If such confirmation is granted by the court, actions taken in the execution of the surrogacy agreement are lawful, and the agreement...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Donrich Thaldar
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer Nature 2023-01-01
Series:Humanities & Social Sciences Communications
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01492-y
_version_ 1797952606261215232
author Donrich Thaldar
author_facet Donrich Thaldar
author_sort Donrich Thaldar
collection DOAJ
description Abstract The regulation of surrogacy in South Africa centres on a scheme of judicial confirmation of surrogacy agreements before the start of the surrogate pregnancy. If such confirmation is granted by the court, actions taken in the execution of the surrogacy agreement are lawful, and the agreement itself is enforceable. Against this background, the question has arisen: is it lawful to perform in vitro fertilisation (IVF) before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement? This is a salient question: In circumstances where egg retrieval needs to take place in anticipation of surrogacy, and where sperm is available but where the surrogacy agreement has not (yet) been confirmed, there are significant clinical advantages to first creating embryos through IVF before cryopreservation—rather than cryopreserving the eggs. However, in the recent case of Ex Parte MCM, the court held that it is unlawful to perform IVF in anticipation of surrogacy where the surrogacy agreement has not (yet) been confirmed. The correctness of this decision is comprehensively analysed with reference to the two main statutory instruments that are relevant to the topic: the Children’s Act and the Regulations relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons. This article concludes that Ex Parte MCM interpreted the Regulations incorrectly, and that on a proper construction of both the relevant statutory instruments, the law does not prohibit IVF in anticipation of surrogacy where the surrogacy agreement has not (yet) been confirmed.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T22:49:01Z
format Article
id doaj.art-1e266c28ff6b4b5dadd91c20ba0af230
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2662-9992
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T22:49:01Z
publishDate 2023-01-01
publisher Springer Nature
record_format Article
series Humanities & Social Sciences Communications
spelling doaj.art-1e266c28ff6b4b5dadd91c20ba0af2302023-01-15T12:07:02ZengSpringer NatureHumanities & Social Sciences Communications2662-99922023-01-011011710.1057/s41599-022-01492-yPerforming IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South AfricaDonrich Thaldar0School of Law, University of KwaZulu-NatalAbstract The regulation of surrogacy in South Africa centres on a scheme of judicial confirmation of surrogacy agreements before the start of the surrogate pregnancy. If such confirmation is granted by the court, actions taken in the execution of the surrogacy agreement are lawful, and the agreement itself is enforceable. Against this background, the question has arisen: is it lawful to perform in vitro fertilisation (IVF) before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement? This is a salient question: In circumstances where egg retrieval needs to take place in anticipation of surrogacy, and where sperm is available but where the surrogacy agreement has not (yet) been confirmed, there are significant clinical advantages to first creating embryos through IVF before cryopreservation—rather than cryopreserving the eggs. However, in the recent case of Ex Parte MCM, the court held that it is unlawful to perform IVF in anticipation of surrogacy where the surrogacy agreement has not (yet) been confirmed. The correctness of this decision is comprehensively analysed with reference to the two main statutory instruments that are relevant to the topic: the Children’s Act and the Regulations relating to the Artificial Fertilisation of Persons. This article concludes that Ex Parte MCM interpreted the Regulations incorrectly, and that on a proper construction of both the relevant statutory instruments, the law does not prohibit IVF in anticipation of surrogacy where the surrogacy agreement has not (yet) been confirmed.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01492-y
spellingShingle Donrich Thaldar
Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa
Humanities & Social Sciences Communications
title Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa
title_full Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa
title_fullStr Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa
title_full_unstemmed Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa
title_short Performing IVF for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court: a critical analysis of recent case law in South Africa
title_sort performing ivf for surrogacy before confirmation of the surrogacy agreement by the court a critical analysis of recent case law in south africa
url https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01492-y
work_keys_str_mv AT donrichthaldar performingivfforsurrogacybeforeconfirmationofthesurrogacyagreementbythecourtacriticalanalysisofrecentcaselawinsouthafrica