“I sent the letter below to the SMH in response to an article in the SMH titled “Should surrogacy be legalised in Australia published 15th May.  The case for commercial  surrogacy was expounded by Sam Everingham.  The case against was presented by Bernadette Tobin, Plunkett Centre for Ethics at St Vincents Hospital and the Australian Catholic University – she presented the case well but no mention of the psychological damage to women lured in to this exploitation.

Disappointed there were no letters published in relation to the surrogacy article”.

Many of us mothers who lost our babies to the adoption epidemic in the 1950’s & 1960’s are still stricken by it in old age.  It is therefore unbelievable that practices such as commercial surrogacy are now being publicly advocated (Should commercial surrogacy be legalised in Australia 15th May).

Who will be the surrogates?  Young Australian women who are attracted to the remuneration without an understanding of the risk of being deeply psychologically scared by the experience. Consequently many of these mothers will be unable to reach their potential and just as in adoption the long term economic costs will be born by the mother, her family and the Australian community generally.

The Government has the responsibility to protect the physical and mental well being of all Australians not to provide a framework in which one section can deeply exploit and harm another.

There is no need for a national enquiry on the matter.  There were enquiries way back in the 1980’s and the outcomes of these enquiries was that commercial surrogacy was not a practice that was compatible with a civilized cohesive and compassionate society.

In Australia altruistic surrogacy is permitted so if the judges named in the article as being in favour of commercial surrogacy feel strongly on the matter it is open to them to encourage the female members of their own families and own social circles to make their bodies available for this purpose.