1997年9月12日前衛生署詹啟賢署長，首先宣佈將爭議已久之「代理孕母」予以開放，消息傳開，輿論譁然，爭論迭起。贊成者，尤其是不孕婦女，固然欣喜不已，因可完成生兒育女之願望；但反對之聲浪，依然洶湧，輒從法律、道德、宗教等層面，紛紛提出質疑。蓋此熱門話題，其性質非常複雜，且所衍生之問題，非常廣泛。常見問題如受術夫妻與代理孕母之間，其權利義務如何釐定？代理孕母所生之小孩，其父母是誰？其身分如何認定？如何避免代理孕母之濫用，淪為商品化？代理孕母所生之小孩為畸形兒時，受術夫妻可否不接受？或代理孕母懷孕後悔，可否中斷妊娠？...諸如此類問題，沒有妥善因應之道，即貿然施行，恐非良法善政。
本文擬從法律之觀點探討代理孕母如要法制化，則需具備哪些條件？哪些管制措施？方可減少其弊病，而帶給受術夫妻可以傳宗接代之希望。茲從一、代理孕母之概念意義，可分借腹孕母與候補孕母，衛生署擬實施者以借腹孕母為限，並非全面開放。二、代理孕母是否贊成與反對者雖均能言之成理，持之有故，不易判定，而以贊成者為社會趨勢。三、為防止代理孕母之濫用，減少其弊病，增進其極功能，設置嚴格條件，予以管制，誠屬必要。四、代理孕母與受術夫妻之權利義務如何釐清，從該契約之法律性質為何？買賣說、租賃說、寄託說等，委任說或承攬說加以探討或可找到答案。五、代理孕母所生子女其母親為誰？學者主張有血統基因說、分娩事實說、契約目的說、子女最佳利益說，如從立法明確採取血統基因說，以符合代理孕母法制化之旨意，
綜合上述之探討，代理孕母之契約如事先經徫生主管機關核准，經法院公證，在公權力監督下，透過仲介機構運作，應該是值得推行的政策。因可解決受術夫妻之困擾，並配合科技之進展。

On 12 September 1997 the Director of National health Administration announced their proposal to legalize the long-argued issue of surrogate mother. Opinions vary greatly on hearing this controversial news. For those who approve, especially women unable to get pregnant, they are happy because they can finally fulfill their dream to have their offspring. But people who disapprove try to pinpoint the questionable nature of this issue in terms of legal, moral, or religious perspectives. This is a very complicate issue that involves comprehensive problems. The most common arguments are: How to divide the right and obligation between the couple and the surrogate mother? Who is/are the parent(s) of the child, the couple or the surrogate mother? How to prevent the abuses of surrogate mother into a commodity? Can the couple refuse to accept the baby if s/he has birth defects? Can the surrogate mother stops Pregnancy when she regrets the arrangement? All these need to be carefully considered before its implementation. This study plans to discuss from a legal perspective: what conditions are absolutely necessary for the implementation of the legalization of surrogate mother in order to minimize any possible negative effects. First, the surrogate mother is clearly defined as a woman who get pregnant for someone else, not including genetic surrogacy. Second, though disapproving party have their well-grounded worries, the social trend tends to the approval of the issue. Third, to prevent abuses of the surrogate mother, it is necessary to set up careful requisites to restrict the application in order to minimize the corrupted uses. Fourth, it is essential to clearly define the right and obligation between the couple and the surrogate mother in their contract. Fifth, it is necessary to adopt the genetic perspective to settle down the controversy over the mother of the child delivered by a surrogate mother.
Based on these discussions, it is believed that the legalization of surrogate mother is worth implementing to solve many couples' difficulty if the contract is approved by authorized health organizations in advance, and notarized by courts.