Angelica Cheng
Active Member
Singapore permits social egg freezing, but should there be a legal loophole for single motherhood and overseas surrogacy?
Recently, the Singapore Government announced that non-medical egg freezing will be permitted from 2023 onwards. Although the use of frozen eggs in fertility treatment will be restricted to married women, single women can still transfer their frozen eggs to an overseas clinic where fertilisation with donor sperm, or surrogacy are permitted, even though the Government bans these at home and clearly states that it does not support planned and deliberate parenthood by singles as a lifestyle choice.
Hence the question that arises is whether a legal loophole and backdoor should be left open for patients who want to use their frozen eggs for such controversial procedures overseas? On one hand, there are ethical considerations on respecting the reproductive autonomy and free choice of patients, as well as their inherent legal rights to do whatever they want with their own bodily material and personal property. On the other hand, this contradicts official Singapore Government policy of non-medical egg freezing being used to encourage motherhood within the context of marriage and traditional family structure.
Both surrogacy and IVF treatment of single women with donor sperm will likely remain banned in Singapore in the near future. Because the Singapore Government, together with various religious bodies and society-at-large, view these treatments as being morally and ethically problematic.
It must be noted that single women who freeze their eggs have strong expectations of using these to have children one day, regardless of their future marital status – not all will find their Mr Right. Banning unmarried women from using their own frozen eggs is thus bound to create resentment and discontent among those that remain single. Some will be understandably reluctant and even heartbroken to discard their frozen eggs, after investing so much of their time, effort and money. A few such women might even enter sham or temporary marriages in order to achieve their dream of motherhood using their frozen eggs.
Additionally, some women who do find partners may nevertheless want to export their frozen eggs for overseas surrogacy if pregnancy is medically impossible or inadvisable. Hence, leaving a backdoor open for some patients to pursue the option of single motherhood and/or surrogacy overseas by allowing export of frozen eggs, may be a politically expedient solution to satisfying such demands.
Nevertheless, single motherhood with donor sperm is a highly controversial issue in socially-conservative Singapore. It is generally viewed with greater disapproval than an accidental pregnancy outside marriage because it is seen as premeditated, deliberate and willful, intentionally depriving a child of having a father.
From the conservative viewpoint, children of divorced parents or those born out of wedlock usually know the identity of their biological fathers, and often receive financial maintenance and have contact with them. By contrast, the identity of the biological father of a donor-conceived child and the role that he plays in the child's life is often a complete blank. Hence, it is often questioned whether this is in the child's best interest.
It was recently announced that single mothers would receive some assistance from the Government, but for the reasons outlined above, including single mothers who used donor sperm would likely be viewed by some as an unwarranted burden to the state and society.
Overseas surrogacy is also highly contentious in Singapore, commonly perceived as exploiting economically-disadvantaged women from poorer countries, and a form of human trafficking.
Hence, for legal and ethical consistency, the Singapore Government should take steps to either prevent or discourage single motherhood and overseas surrogacy with social egg freezing, in line with their official policy of using egg freezing to encourage motherhood within the context of marriage and traditional family structure.
One option would be for the Government to require women who had previously frozen their eggs to produce a marriage certificate, as well as the husband's signed consent form, before being allowed to export their eggs. Placing legal restrictions on the export itself avoids violating the patient's inherent legal ownership rights over their frozen eggs.
Similarly, married couples could be required to sign a declaration that they will not use a surrogate before being allowed to export their frozen eggs, with the penalty that they would be barred from citizenship and residency application procedures for any child born via surrogacy.
However, if the Singapore Government finds it legally problematic to restrict the export of frozen eggs for either single motherhood or overseas surrogacy, other options are possible such as mandatory counselling.
Single women intending to export their frozen eggs could be required to attend counselling outlining the disadvantages of being a single mother in Singapore, such as exclusion from government pro-family incentives and tax reliefs, as well as the absence of automatic inheritance rights for their child. Such counselling could also make them aware of various regulatory lapses and mishaps at overseas sperm banks and fertility clinics in recent years (see BioNews 774, 847, and 1016).
Likewise, married couples intending to export their frozen eggs for overseas surrogacy could be made aware of the legal costs and difficulty of adoption, citizenship, and residency applications for their child.
In both cases, the counselling should also cover the psychological and identity issues faced by donor-conceived and surrogate-born children which are well-documented.
In conclusion, the Singapore Government should adopt a clear and coherent stance on the issue of single motherhood and overseas surrogacy with non-medical egg freezing. It is simply unsatisfactory to ban such controversial procedures at home, while allowing a legal loophole for the export of frozen eggs for such procedures to be undertaken abroad.
Recently, the Singapore Government announced that non-medical egg freezing will be permitted from 2023 onwards. Although the use of frozen eggs in fertility treatment will be restricted to married women, single women can still transfer their frozen eggs to an overseas clinic where fertilisation with donor sperm, or surrogacy are permitted, even though the Government bans these at home and clearly states that it does not support planned and deliberate parenthood by singles as a lifestyle choice.
Hence the question that arises is whether a legal loophole and backdoor should be left open for patients who want to use their frozen eggs for such controversial procedures overseas? On one hand, there are ethical considerations on respecting the reproductive autonomy and free choice of patients, as well as their inherent legal rights to do whatever they want with their own bodily material and personal property. On the other hand, this contradicts official Singapore Government policy of non-medical egg freezing being used to encourage motherhood within the context of marriage and traditional family structure.
Both surrogacy and IVF treatment of single women with donor sperm will likely remain banned in Singapore in the near future. Because the Singapore Government, together with various religious bodies and society-at-large, view these treatments as being morally and ethically problematic.
It must be noted that single women who freeze their eggs have strong expectations of using these to have children one day, regardless of their future marital status – not all will find their Mr Right. Banning unmarried women from using their own frozen eggs is thus bound to create resentment and discontent among those that remain single. Some will be understandably reluctant and even heartbroken to discard their frozen eggs, after investing so much of their time, effort and money. A few such women might even enter sham or temporary marriages in order to achieve their dream of motherhood using their frozen eggs.
Additionally, some women who do find partners may nevertheless want to export their frozen eggs for overseas surrogacy if pregnancy is medically impossible or inadvisable. Hence, leaving a backdoor open for some patients to pursue the option of single motherhood and/or surrogacy overseas by allowing export of frozen eggs, may be a politically expedient solution to satisfying such demands.
Nevertheless, single motherhood with donor sperm is a highly controversial issue in socially-conservative Singapore. It is generally viewed with greater disapproval than an accidental pregnancy outside marriage because it is seen as premeditated, deliberate and willful, intentionally depriving a child of having a father.
From the conservative viewpoint, children of divorced parents or those born out of wedlock usually know the identity of their biological fathers, and often receive financial maintenance and have contact with them. By contrast, the identity of the biological father of a donor-conceived child and the role that he plays in the child's life is often a complete blank. Hence, it is often questioned whether this is in the child's best interest.
It was recently announced that single mothers would receive some assistance from the Government, but for the reasons outlined above, including single mothers who used donor sperm would likely be viewed by some as an unwarranted burden to the state and society.
Overseas surrogacy is also highly contentious in Singapore, commonly perceived as exploiting economically-disadvantaged women from poorer countries, and a form of human trafficking.
Hence, for legal and ethical consistency, the Singapore Government should take steps to either prevent or discourage single motherhood and overseas surrogacy with social egg freezing, in line with their official policy of using egg freezing to encourage motherhood within the context of marriage and traditional family structure.
One option would be for the Government to require women who had previously frozen their eggs to produce a marriage certificate, as well as the husband's signed consent form, before being allowed to export their eggs. Placing legal restrictions on the export itself avoids violating the patient's inherent legal ownership rights over their frozen eggs.
Similarly, married couples could be required to sign a declaration that they will not use a surrogate before being allowed to export their frozen eggs, with the penalty that they would be barred from citizenship and residency application procedures for any child born via surrogacy.
However, if the Singapore Government finds it legally problematic to restrict the export of frozen eggs for either single motherhood or overseas surrogacy, other options are possible such as mandatory counselling.
Single women intending to export their frozen eggs could be required to attend counselling outlining the disadvantages of being a single mother in Singapore, such as exclusion from government pro-family incentives and tax reliefs, as well as the absence of automatic inheritance rights for their child. Such counselling could also make them aware of various regulatory lapses and mishaps at overseas sperm banks and fertility clinics in recent years (see BioNews 774, 847, and 1016).
Likewise, married couples intending to export their frozen eggs for overseas surrogacy could be made aware of the legal costs and difficulty of adoption, citizenship, and residency applications for their child.
In both cases, the counselling should also cover the psychological and identity issues faced by donor-conceived and surrogate-born children which are well-documented.
In conclusion, the Singapore Government should adopt a clear and coherent stance on the issue of single motherhood and overseas surrogacy with non-medical egg freezing. It is simply unsatisfactory to ban such controversial procedures at home, while allowing a legal loophole for the export of frozen eggs for such procedures to be undertaken abroad.