Abstract

This paper explores the nature of the legal doctrine of informed consent, particularly, in relation to the legitimacy of surrogacy contracts. By focusing on the Baby M case, it examines Lori B. Andrews’ argument that the doctrine of informed consent should apply to surrogacy contracts since, like other medical procedures, a woman’s consent to becoming a surrogate mother necessitates her awareness of the potential risks so that she can make an informed, conscientious decision. Andrews feels that surrogacy contracts should be upheld legally—contrary to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in February 1988—since the kind of consent involved is sufficiently similar to the consent involved in other medical procedures.