India's 'Rent-a-Womb' Industry Draws Criticism

[2xx1xy1JD]

Exactly. None of these issues are easy or clear-cut. I live in a country where paid surrogacy and paid egg or sperm donation is illegal - I understand some of the intentions behind the law, but still oppose it because it has simply pushed prospective parents to go elsewhere - and fuels the demand for surrogates in India.

15 years ago, I had the same idea about adoption. I had just lost my first pregnancy, saw shows on adopting girls from Chinese orphanages, and decided that we would go that route if I couldn't have a successful pregnancy. At that time, it could have been a reasonable option: Chinese adoptions were fairly common, and the process could be completed in a reasonable period of time.

Times have changed since then, and I've also learned more about the problems with international adoption. It's much harder to do now. I had no idea of the corruption that could exist. I had no idea that there was a fundie adoption subculture that could be quite horrible to kids. I didn't know that adoption disruption was that common.

In terms of domestic adoption, I did some work in child protection, and came away with mixed feelings. I believe that open adoption should have been embraced far sooner. I had cases where, yes, a young parent was clearly not equipped to do a good job of parenting, but they were not evil. These parents found the idea of permanently saying goodbye to their child so hard, and the cases broke my heart even when there was no real alternative. I wish that open adoption had been an option for some of these cases. I also saw that a baby - especially a healthy white one - would be seen as very "adoptable", and we had to think about that. You knew in some cases, the baby would go off to an adoptive family - but leave behind siblings, a parent or two and/or extended family. For some young moms without a lot of support, I would have loved to see programs that would be like a foster placement for both baby AND mom.

I'm not anti-adoption. I do believe that it can be better than long-term foster care for some kids, since it has a better chance of providing the stability of a "forever family", but I no longer see it as a magic solution without potential problems.

[Diana]

Yes i understood your point about international adoption, but as i said in my post also exist national adoption.. and yes not every kid for adoption is an orphan, there are other cases of why parents cant keep the custody of a child, but if he is up for adoption with legal garantees, the kid has the right of having a family too. And for what i see national adoption is even easier in the states than here in my country so if you believe that other countries are doing wrong things regarding adoption( there are a lot of countries in the world and i cant believe that there are any that do things right) you can always adopt in your own country.

The idea of women in developing countries serving as surrogates for parents in first world nations makes me really uncomfortable. However, compensating a surrogate isn't the same thing as buying an organ. In most cases, there are not lifelong physical ramifications associated with carrying a pregnancy. Unless there are serious medical complications, a woman can deliver a child and return to her prior level of functioning.

Organs are different, since they are finite, irreplaceable, and cannot be removed without long-term (even lifelong) medical consequences.

Surrogacy is basically contract work. If someone seeks a foreign surrogate, they are not engaging in the act of love and sacrifice that occurs when a close friend or goodhearted volunteer agrees to act as a surrogate. They are engaging in a business transaction that demands fair compensation for the surrogate, insurance to cover long-term medical expenses related to the surrogacy, and just working conditions. Individual parents may be extremely grateful to individual surrogates, and good feelings may be involved. But, on a macro level, the situation has to be understood and treated as one divorced from emotion and good feelings. It has to be treated as a labor issue.

Sure its not the same, even if a pregnancy can cause permanent health problems sometimes.

Well women are not baby machines, so seeing it all as a bussiness is just weird. This women have emotions, and will be something hard go through it for them, most of them will never do it if not because they need the money. Its like prostitution, some women have to sell their bodies, but buying it is right?(im speaking on a ethical level, ofcourse prostitution is legal in some places) . If somebody go and offer alot of money to a very poor person in india for doing something disgusting like, i dont know, beating him for his own entertaiment, a lot of people will probably accept that offer because with that money they can change their lives but what you will think about the person that makes that offer? you will accept that as just a work contract??? Thats my point comparing it to selling organs, that there are things that we should not sell even if we are the owners of it, like human dignity.

[HOTW]

It's exploitation pure and simple. It is one thing if a family member/firend volunteers to be a true surrogate(implantation of an embryo) but to exploit these woman who are poor and looking to improve their lives in the only way available to them, I am not surprised the Indian Gov't is stepping in. There are no controls in place to prevent them from doing IVF and what screening is going on? A woman should have the right to do whatever they want with their body but this is not through their own freedom but just another nasty side to the system designed to exploit women.

[Mama Mia]

It's exploitation pure and simple. It is one thing if a family member/firend volunteers to be a true surrogate(implantation of an embryo) but to exploit these woman who are poor and looking to improve their lives in the only way available to them, I am not surprised the Indian Gov't is stepping in. There are no controls in place to prevent them from doing IVF and what screening is going on? A woman should have the right to do whatever they want with their body but this is not through their own freedom but just another nasty side to the system designed to exploit women.

I'm confused, what's the difference between implanting an embryo and IVF ? I thought those were the same thing.

[Beammeup]

FYI, adoption is NOT just like having a biological child.

[Ruby Slippers]

Also there are a lot of orphans in the world needing parents so why not adopt instead of doing this?

Expense. Paid time off / lack thereof. And the shady business that it has become: child trafficking/selling, fees not paying whom they should. Ethiopa is particularly notorious in its unethical "adoption" practices. And the prevalence of RAD among Russian adoptees should be enough to frighten anyone away.

[Ruby Slippers]

Yes i understood your point about international adoption, but as i said in my post also exist national adoption.. and yes not every kid for adoption is an orphan, there are other cases of why parents cant keep the custody of a child, but if he is up for adoption with legal garantees, the kid has the right of having a family too. And for what i see national adoption is even easier in the states than here in my country so if you believe that other countries are doing wrong things regarding adoption( there are a lot of countries in the world and i cant believe that there are any that do things right) you can always adopt in your own country.

Oy. Domestic adoption in the US can be ugly. Not all states have ironclad laws about birth parents changing their minds down the road, which has led to much heartbreak sometimes years after the adoption. The most recent case was Veronica Rose and the Capobiancos. I can't blame anyone for declining to adopt out of fear of a failed or overturned adoption.

[Beammeup]

Acknowledging the deep inborn need to genetically procreate is not selfish. What happens after that sure can be. I have severe ethical concerns about India an am not defending the practice

I am defending those who seek infertility treatment and options to have a genetic child or to experience a pregnancy.

[Arete]

I am uncertain if this is still allowed, but 20 years ago my friend's uncle was able to buy a new kidney from an Indian donor and transplant in India. The uncle himself had Indian citizenship, so it was not a case of white man exploit brown man, but it was definitely a case of rich man exploit poor man.

On the other hand, the donor needed dowry money to ensure his daughter's future. That was the best way he could find.

[HOTW]

I'm confused, what's the difference between implanting an embryo and IVF ? I thought those were the same thing.

What I meant to explain was the differences in different methods(had a client walk in so was rushing to post). You have 1) embryotic implantation of a genetic child of the parents 2) IVF of father's sperm and donor egg (unrelated to the surrogate) 3)IVF/IUI (intra uterine implantation) of father's sperm and surrogate egg 4) IVF donor sperm and surrogate egg 5)IVF of donor sperm and donor egg. So you can see where a lot of what ifs are involved.

I watched the Baby M case carefully and was pretty disgusted how the media and courts and the "parents" of Baby M did not consider the surrogate the "real" mother of Baby M when in truth she was the genetic mother of Baby M. I do not feel a surrogate should ever be the genetic parent of the child she carries as there is an emotional attachment to the child because it is biologically hers. Surrogacy should be undertaken only after careful screening, which I highly doubt is going on in India. It is very much a case of money ruling the decision and when you are desperately poor you will do anything to get ahead. Hence it is exploitation

[mockingbird]

The idea of women in developing countries serving as surrogates for parents in first world nations makes me really uncomfortable. However, compensating a surrogate isn't the same thing as buying an organ. In most cases, there are not lifelong physical ramifications associated with carrying a pregnancy. Unless there are serious medical complications, a woman can deliver a child and return to her prior level of functioning.

Organs are different, since they are finite, irreplaceable, and cannot be removed without long-term (even lifelong) medical consequences.

Also, if you are in need of an organ transplant, that is something you need to live. That's why I think selling organs is immoral. The chance at life shouldn't go to the highest bidder/only to the rich. If you cannot have a baby, while that can be very emotionally devastating, it's not really a need... you won't die without the baby. So I can see the argument for having the recipient family pay for the surrogate's medical expenses and a subsidy for risking their health/time, as it is more of an "option" for the recipient family vs. absolutely needing an organ or dying. (That being said, I don't really think it is fair to only have infertility treatment/other options available to those who can afford it either as not only rich people "deserve" babies. It would be nice to see infertility treatments covered by insurance or somehow make adoption more affordable.)

This situation does sound exploitative though - while I believe women have the right to do what they want with their bodies, when one's only/best option for providing for themselves and their family is something that could come at great risk to their health (and possibly emotional consequences too at giving up the baby) it becomes less of a free choice. It makes sense to put more regulations on the surrogacy "industry" to me.

ETA: I was also pretty naive about the problems with adoption until the past year or so. Adoption was something I had always planned on (I am likely infertile and I don't think the medicines used for IVF/etc would be a good idea for me) but now I don't know if when the time comes, it will be worth the risk or even a possible option for me.

[lovemygsp]

What I meant to explain was the differences in different methods(had a client walk in so was rushing to post). You have 1) embryotic implantation of a genetic child of the parents 2) IVF of father's sperm and donor egg (unrelated to the surrogate) 3)IVF/IUI (intra uterine implantation) of father's sperm and surrogate egg 4) IVF donor sperm and surrogate egg 5)IVF of donor sperm and donor egg. So you can see where a lot of what ifs are involved.

n

Erm. You seem to be confused and not have your terms right. Assisted reproductive technologies refer to either an IUI or IVF procedure. IUI stands for intrauterine insemination, not implantation and it is simply taking sperm and injecting it into the uterus right at ovulation( which is often medically stimulated)for a better chance to conceive. IVF is invitro fertilization in which both egg and sperm are removed from bodies, combined together in a lab, grown into embryos and placed back into the uterus.

[HOTW]

Erm. You seem to be confused and not have your terms right. Assisted reproductive technologies refer to either an IUI or IVF procedure. IUI stands for intrauterine insemination, not implantation and it is simply taking sperm and injecting it into the uterus right at ovulation( which is often medically stimulated)for a better chance to conceive. IVF is invitro fertilization in which both egg and sperm are removed from bodies, combined together in a lab, grown into embryos and placed back into the uterus.

Sorry for the OOps on the bolded, however I have known of IVF being done with the surroagte if IUI has failed. I was trying to cover all the bases.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Strictly as a thought exercise and NOT something that I'm necessarily advocating...is the comparison to selling organs really far off?

Let's be clear about what's involved: Most people have 2 kidneys, but only one is really needed to live. You can also live with only part of your liver. For these organs, you can have a living donor. There are not enough kidneys from dead donors to meet the demand, and dialysis doesn't work nearly as well as a kidney. For a living donor, surgery does pose some risk, but from what I've heard from people who have done it, it's somewhat similar to giving birth via c-section. So, allowing payment to a living donor doesn't actually deprive someone else waiting for a kidney of an organ, since that donor probably wouldn't have given up a kidney without payment. Proper screening and the risk of exploitation and the potential for coerced/forcible donations are, of course, still concerns.

[i'll also point out that many folks who have massive hand-wringing over both surrogacy and living organ donors have no problem with forcing women at any stage of pregnancy to carry to term and give birth against their will. Not sure how that logic works.]

[gardenvarietycitizen]

You only need one kidney to live, yes - but if you sell one, now you don't have your own "insurance" of an extra kidney should your remaining kidney have something go wrong with it later in your own life.

When people lose an eye, they are often instructed to be extra careful with the remaining one beyond the "normal" level of watching out for your eyes that people with the usual two have, similar reason.

I find it interesting that so much of the debate about selling organs just assumes that of course it's perfectly natural that money should open all doors. Being told that there are things that perhaps money can't buy, there's a waiting list and you can't pay your way ahead seems "unnatural" in a way, but should it be?

Alternatively, perhaps the donor won't give up a kidney without payment, but does that payment necessarily need to come from the recipient? What if it's a system where again there's a line and you can't pay your way ahead, but the national insurance (or similar public scheme) pays a flat rate for kidneys? Etc.

A while ago I saw part of a documentary on PBS about the buying and selling of kidneys in Iran, they showed a sort of broker where people who wanted to sell and people who wanted to buy were set up together, but then the donor and recipient had to do the negotiation privately, talking money right there, come to a deal or not.

I definitely hear ya on the conflict with the "but we can force women to bear babies" thing. I'm not sure how that logic works either...

[2xx1xy1JD]

You only need one kidney to live, yes - but if you sell one, now you don't have your own "insurance" of an extra kidney should your remaining kidney have something go wrong with it later in your own life.

When people lose an eye, they are often instructed to be extra careful with the remaining one beyond the "normal" level of watching out for your eyes that people with the usual two have, similar reason.

I find it interesting that so much of the debate about selling organs just assumes that of course it's perfectly natural that money should open all doors. Being told that there are things that perhaps money can't buy, there's a waiting list and you can't pay your way ahead seems "unnatural" in a way, but should it be?

Alternatively, perhaps the donor won't give up a kidney without payment, but does that payment necessarily need to come from the recipient? What if it's a system where again there's a line and you can't pay your way ahead, but the national insurance (or similar public scheme) pays a flat rate for kidneys? Etc.

A while ago I saw part of a documentary on PBS about the buying and selling of kidneys in Iran, they showed a sort of broker where people who wanted to sell and people who wanted to buy were set up together, but then the donor and recipient had to do the negotiation privately, talking money right there, come to a deal or not.

I definitely hear ya on the conflict with the "but we can force women to bear babies" thing. I'm not sure how that logic works either...

Again - as a thought exercise and not a concrete suggestion - maybe it wouldn't be completely crazy to set up a "voluntary unrelated donor" scheme where potential donors were given a thorough medical and psychological screen, offered a fixed amount of compensation from a fund/recipient's insurance, and also guaranteed that if they or a close relative should ever need a kidney themselves, they would go to the top of the waiting list. [Theoretically, except for injury, most of the things that will harm one kidney will also harm 2 kidneys, so in some ways the best way to protect yourself in case of future kidney disease would be to make sure that you'd have quick access to a donor kidney.] To receive the compensation, the donation would need to be undirected, so the kidney would go to whoever was at the top of the list and compatible.

That would reduce the shortage of organs for transplant, make donor organs available on the basis of need instead of ability to pay, and take away demand for shady dealings abroad.