The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights – a provisional perspective on surrogacy introduction

Abstract

Backgound. Surrogacy is a contentious reproductive technology that has garnered significant global attention, particularly following Pope Francis’ 2024 condemnation of it and his advocacy for a universal ban, amid its rising prevalence in high-income regions driven by factors such as advancing parental age and the reproductive aspirations of single men, same-sex couples, and transgender individuals. This article evaluates surrogacy through the framework of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, a 2005 UNESCO-adopted document establishing 15 universal bioethical principles to guide discussions on medicine, life sciences, and associated technologies, emphasising its role in fostering global ethical discourse grounded in human rights.

Objective. To assess the ethical dimensions of surrogacy by applying the principles of the UDBHR, determining whether the declaration adopts a neutral stance, merely offers procedural guidelines, or provides a substantive ethical judgment on the practice. This provisional analysis posits a central theoretical argument that the UDBHR creates an ethical paradox by simultaneously legitimising surrogacy through procedural mechanisms while posing significant moral challenges to its acceptability, with the study confined to evaluative purposes without extending to policy recommendations.

Method. The methodology employed is evaluative, critically examining surrogacy against the UDBHR’s standards to gauge its ethical soundness, incorporating an interpretive analysis of how the declaration’s principles intersect with surrogacy’s ethical, legal and social facets. The approach begins with an explication of surrogacy’s types, processes, reasons, costs and controversies, followed by a principle- by-principle discussion under the UDBHR, drawing on limited existing literature such as the 2019 International Bioethics Committee (IBC ) Report, while maintaining a focus solely on ethical assessment.

Results. The evaluation identifies a dual nature within the UDBHR: certain articles offer procedural support that implicitly endorses surrogacy when conducted ethically, aligning it with benefits like parenthood fulfillment and social responsibility. Conversely, other articles highlight substantive concerns, including maternal health risks, embryo commodification, child rights violations, exploitation of vulnerable women, and long-term impacts on offspring, thereby questioning surrogacy’s moral foundation.

Conclusion. The UDBHR manifests an inherent ethical paradox regarding surrogacy, providing procedural legitimacy through guidelines that facilitate its practice while simultaneously challenging its ethical viability via principles that underscore risks to dignity, vulnerability, equality and future well-being. Consequently, the analysis concludes that surrogacy, in its current form, encounters fundamental ethical obstacles under the UDBHR, necessitating further research and stringent international regulations to potentially align it with the declaration’s comprehensive ethical imperatives, particularly in safeguarding women, embryos and children.