The allegation is that surrogacy, while consensual, is exploitative. I don't fully subscribe to that logic because, like organ donation, it can significantly improve people's lives, including those who do the giving. But the risk of exploitation can still be there if women are poor.

I'm not talking about unsuspecting brain-dead women since we'd have an opt-out system in place for this similar to for organ donation. So, they could withdraw their consent to this while they were still alive.

But anyway, a brain-dead person, due to not being sentient any longer, no longer has any interests. Meanwhile, a sentient surrogate still does have interests, including the interest not to be exploited. So, the "injury" to the brain-dead person is less severe, so to speak.

The allegation is that surrogacy, while consensual, is exploitative. I don't fully subscribe to that logic because, like organ donation, it can significantly improve people's lives, including those who do the giving. — Xanatos

Organ donation can significantly prolong and improve the life of the recipient with something they need. Surrogacy can provide some people a child they desire, but we have no way of knowing what effect the child will have on their lives - not to mention the kid's life.

But the risk of exploitation can still be there if women are poor. — Xanatos

Obviously. But it's - necessarily, for the health of the foetus - a better quality of life than the assembly line in a chicken packer or prostitution.

So, they could withdraw their consent to this while they were still alive. — Xanatos

IOW, unless they expressly refused, they're fair game. Therein lies my objection. The women best suited to this are young - their judgment isn't fully developed; they don't think very far ahead; they maybe don't enjoy thinking at all. Exploitation potential is fairly high in that demographic, as well.

But anyway, a brain-dead person, due to not being sentient any longer, no longer has any interests. Meanwhile, a sentient surrogate still does have interests, including the interest not to be exploited. So, the "injury" to the brain-dead person is less severe, so to speak. — Xanatos

Sure, -- unless you consider their friends, lovers, parents, siblings, impressionable children.... and the fact that they have not, in fact and full awareness, consented. While the exploited poor at least get to choose the means and venue of their exploitation.

If you had a 100% consensus from the voters to declare the bodies of all clinically dead citizens property of the state, unless they've made legal exception, to be redistributed for the public good, like tax moneys, this would be ethical. It's also logical; in Kazohinia, they recycle bodies as a matter of course and universal consent. Not yet here, though.
Here and now, it's merely expedient. I think it's very dangerous to conflate those two concepts.

Would WBGD really be worse than this? — Xanatos

If you believe opt in consent is the difference between surrogacy and opt out organ donation being ethical, yes. But I think the argument in the paper makes a good case that the moral intuitions which make opt out organ donation ethical should also apply to WBGD. At least insofar as they concern a person's autonomy.

But I think the argument in the paper makes a good case that the moral intuitions which make opt out organ donation ethical should also apply to WBGD. — fdrake

Only if the potential donor gets to specify what they are opting in or out of. Making yet another privileged a baby is not a matter of life and death. I can imagine some people - a lot of people, actually - opting out rather than be used as a vegetative incubator, even though they have no objection to the one-time donation of organs. If it's all in or all out, you would lose potential life-saving donations.

Also, if it were to be ethical, this whole subject - including the procedures involved - should be taught in school and the clear statement of options for body-parts donation being a routine part of the acquisition of an identity or social insurance card.

My bottom line: It's unethical to presume informed consent, on the basis that the consent was not expressly refused.

My bottom line: It's unethical to presume informed consent, on the basis that the consent was not expressly refused. — Vera Mont

Then that would apply to both. Your conclusion is consistent with the paper's main argument.

Then that would apply to both. — fdrake

Yes, I agree on the negative side. Consent should never be presumed, unless there is nation-wide consensus.
On the other side, however, I make a sharp distinction. If someone consents to organ donation, that doesn't make it automatically ethical to use them for any other purpose. It's different categories of ethical consideration.