The Columbian
08-11-2001
SAN DIEGO -- A British surrogate mother has sued a California couple she met on the Internet, saying they backed out of the pregnancy deal after she refused to abort one of her twin fetuses.
Helen Beasley, who is 25 weeks pregnant, said an abortion would be too risky. But that has left the 26-year-old secretary bearing children she has no legal right to and that she says she cannot afford to care for.
"When they're born, what happens to them? I can't have them. I can't do anything with them. They're not mine," she said.
Beasley sued the couple, Charles Wheeler and Martha Berman, in San Diego on Aug. 1, claiming breach of contract and fraud.
Wheeler, reached at his law office in San Francisco, declined to comment Friday, saying to do so would be a breach of the confidentiality provision of the surrogate contract. Messages left for Berman at her home and office were not returned.
"This was a group that was a disaster waiting to happen," said Shirley Zager, director of a nonprofit organization for surrogate parents. "Most of our parents would never dream of pulling a stunt like this."
Beasley, who declined to name the British community where she lives, met the couple a year ago through a Web site for surrogate parents. A single mother of a 7-year-old boy, Beasley said she wanted to be a surrogate mother because she felt sorry for couples who could not have children.
The couple agreed to pay her $19,000 to bear their child, according to court documents. In March, Beasley underwent in-vitro fertilization in California with Wheeler's sperm and eggs from a donor selected by the couple. Beasley's agreement with Wheeler and Berman called for a "selective reduction" if she became pregnant with more than one baby, according to court documents.
But Beasley claims they made a verbal agreement that such a decision would be made before the 12th week of pregnancy.
Beasley said she told the couple she was carrying twins when she found out, about eight weeks into her pregnancy.
At the end of Beasley's 13th week, she said, the couple told her they had scheduled an appointment in San Francisco to abort one of the fetuses. Beasley refused.
"No way was I going to put my health at risk when they had all that time to sort it out," she said.
Afterward, Beasley said, the couple refused to talk to her and she was contacted by their attorney, threatening to sue her for breach of contract and emotional distress.
Beasley said she wants to put the twins up for adoption. But under California law, parental rights in a surrogate-birth agreement go to the intended parents, not the surrogate mother, according to Theresa Erickson, the San Diego-based lawyer who is representing Beasley.
Beasley wants to give birth in California to force the couple to take responsibility for the children.
Kenneth Goodwin, director of the bioethics program at the University of Miami, said clear rules for surrogate parents are needed.
"If we had guidelines, and if they were any good, they would not be in this situation," he said. "Science can do lots things that are wonderful, but what science doesn't do is create designer babies and cookie-cutter families." $00:0100210612: $199:A0100210612 $01:Copyright 2001 The Columbian Publishing Co. $02:$?
The Columbian $20:August 11, 2001, Saturday $30:World/Nation; Pg. a5 $60:POLITICAL TURMOIL ISN'T OVER $90:LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press writer $120:
WASHINGTON -- The debate over stem cells is shifting to the halls of Congress, but the action is moving to the nation's laboratories as scientists begin the painstaking work of translating promise into actual treatments.
President Bush's decision to allow limited federal funding for the research offered both comfort and angst to advocates on both sides of the debate. And it complicated the politics all around. Bush may have satisfied just enough people just enough to stave off congressional action.
"The president probably bought himself some time," said Thomas Mann, an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution. "Pressure will build again, but it will take some time."
At the National Institutes of Health on Friday, researchers were beginning to catalogue the existing stem cell lines, which officials estimate at 60 worldwide. Around the country, scientists were beginning to hone their ideas for grant applications, which are expected to be submitted and awarded by early next year.
Dr. Harold Varmus, who led the NIH under President Bill Clinton, predicted that hundreds of researchers will get into the field, even under limited federal funding. Ultimately, he predicted that the federal government will spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per year in this field.
Dr. Catherine Verfaillie, who directs the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute, said the political turmoil surrounding the research dissuaded her from applying for federal funding when it was initially offered last year.
"Many investigators were in the same boat," she said. But now that the matter appears settled, she plans to submit a grant application.
In Washington, both sides expect debate over the issue to resume in Congress when lawmakers return next month. Research proponents make up a majority of the Senate and close to it in the House, and some have pledged to push for broader funding.
"Restrictions on this lifesaving research will slow the development of the new cures that are so urgently needed by millions of patients across America," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he will continue to push his legislation allowing funding with few restrictions, a measure that could be attached to spending bills that will move through Congress this fall. And Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., urged Americans, especially those in wheelchairs or whose relatives suffer from Alzheimer's disease, to contact their representatives.
Anti-abortion Republicans who support the research are not likely to challenge Bush's plan.
"We just have to watch this play out," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. He told reporters in Salt Lake City that he would like to see more stem cell lines available but Congress should hold back for now. "Let's give it a chance."
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., predicted that "the Senate will want to take action" to open up more research funding. But he stopped short of saying he'll support it, and he praised the president's thoughtfulness.
On the other side of issue, many Christian conservatives were talking tough and warning the president that he can only go against them so many times.
But conservatives were markedly divided over Bush's move on stem cells. Some prominent anti-abortion groups and leaders welcomed it; others accused him of crossing a moral line.
Ken Connor, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said it will be more difficult to argue against any embryonic stem cell research now that Bush has endorsed it in part.
"We have to help the Congress understand that nothing less than life itself is at stake," he said. "Unquestionably there's an uphill battle in Congress." $00:0100210614: $199:A0100210614 $01:Copyright 2001 The Columbian Publishing Co. $02:$?
The Columbian $20:August 11, 2001, Saturday $30:World/Nation; Pg. a5 $60:BUSH'S PLAN GETS MIXED REVIEWS IN EUROPE $90:EMMA ROSS, Associated Press writer $120:
LONDON -- By deciding to fund experiments only on existing laboratory stem cell stocks, President Bush is passing up an opportunity to accelerate an important area of medical research, a leading scientist from Britain said Friday.
British stem cell research pioneer Robin Lovell-Badge said that although American academics are better off than they were, Bush's decision may slow down the pace of medical advances in stem cell therapy.
"You want the best minds doing the research with as few restrictions as possible," said Lovell-Badge, head of developmental genetics at the National Institute for Medical Research. "This is always going to be just a little bit unsatisfactory. It's just not the way that academics like to do research."
"He's made the most cautious thumbs-up to stem cell research that he possibly could. I'm sure Bush has agonized over this, but it's a bit of a non-decision in a way," said Juliet Tizzard, director of the Progress Education Trust, a London-based pro-research group that was involved in shepherding the approval for stem cell research through Parliament this year.
Others around the world were more welcoming of the decision.
"He has put the sharpest backers of experiments with human beings and on human beings in their place," said Joerg-Dietrich Hoppe, president of the main German doctors' association, which opposes research.
Pope John Paul II had personally appealed to Bush not to permit research, but Vatican officials had no comment Friday.
The split reactions reflected divisions within the European Union on stem cell research.
Four countries Austria, Germany, France and Ireland ban all embryo research. France plans to change its law to open the possibility of stem cell research.
Spain and Finland allow embryo research under certain conditions. In Denmark, scientists are limited to only infertility research on embryos. Portugal, Italy, Luxembourg, Greece, Belgium and the Netherlands have no laws.
In Sweden, embryo research is allowed, and researchers can create embryos for research if the project is approved by an ethics panel.
Britain has the most open laws. Scientists can conduct research on donated embryos, create new embryos for research and can make embryos for stem cell research by cloning.
"The Americans are notoriously fussy about importing any biological material. Can you imagine the bureaucracy you're going to have to go through to import a cell line, say from India?" Lovell-Badge said. "And how on Earth are you going to prove that it hasn't come from a new embryo?" $00:0100210615: $199:A0100210615 $01:Copyright 2001 The Columbian Publishing Co. $02:$?
The Columbian $20:August 11, 2001, Saturday $30:World/Nation; Pg. a5 $60:PROTESTANTS RELIEVED, BUT DECISION UPSETS CATHOLICS $90:RACHEL ZOLL, Associated Press writer $120:
Roman Catholic leaders condemned as "morally unacceptable" President Bush's support of limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Conservative Protestants said they were disappointed but encouraged by Bush's thoughtful approach.
"The fact that he is not putting federal funds in the support of killing additional babies is a very critical line not crossed," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
Pope John Paul II had personally urged Bush to reject research on human embryos. Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Bush's choice "morally unacceptable."
"The federal government, for the first time in history, will support research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for the possible benefit to others," Fiorenza said. "It allows our nation's research enterprise to cultivate a disrespect for human life."
Bush's denomination, the United Methodist Church, had urged him to uphold the ban on federal funding, but leaders said they were satisfied the president had thoroughly considered all the ethical issues involved.
"We would have liked him to continue the moratorium that was in place, but if you're going to do this research with federal funding, he narrowed it as much as he could," said Jay Dee Hanson of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society.
Bush had no obligation as a devout Christian to reach a different conclusion, Hanson and Land said. "I think he had an obligation as a Christian to do what he thought was right," Land said.
Hanson said it was naive to think Bush's spiritual concerns would completely outweigh his political ones. "I feel as president, he is obligated to take into account all of the religious traditions in this country," he said.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which opposes most abortions, has taken no position on stem cell research but has said it "merits cautious scrutiny." Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Mormon, had urged Bush to lift the federal funding ban.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations took no position, citing differences among Muslim scholars about when life begins, but it urged Bush to make ethical concerns paramount.
"Science should not override morality, and there should be no justification for making industry about human life," said Nihad Awad, the council's executive director.
CHRISTINA ALMEIDA, Associated Press writer
Copyright 2001 The Columbian Publishing Co.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий