Australian surrogacy gone wrong

[16strong]

More surrogacy crazy from Australia. This time, however, it doesn't involve Lauren Fischer, a "gayby," or two Icelandic men. Just a poor Thai woman and two asshole Australian "parents."

FTA:

Pattaramon Chanbua from Chonburi province, southeast of Bangkok, agreed via an agent to be a surrogate for the [Australian] couple for a fee of Aus$16,000 ($14,900)

Well-wishers on Friday had raised nearly $100,000 for a baby reportedly left with his surrogate Thai mother after his Australian parents discovered he had Down's Syndrome and returned home with his healthy twin sister.

"The money that was offered was a lot for me. In my mind, with that money, one, we can educate my children, two, we can repay our debt," said Pattaramon, already a mother to two children. But instead the 21-year-old was left to care for the boy who also suffers from a life-threatening heart condition requiring expensive treatment she cannot afford.

Some people have no clue that their actions have consequences. Did they think the baby would just disappear? WTF?

Other relevant details:

- Many foreign couples travel to Thailand, a popular medical tourism hub, to use its in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) services despite the unclear legal situation surrounding surrogacy.

- Tares Krassanairawiwong, a Thai public health ministry official, said it was illegal to pay for surrogacy in Thailand. "Surrogacy can be done in Thailand but it has to comply with the laws... A surrogate has to be related to the intended parents and no money can be involved."

The full article: link

[JHeathen]

I read 3 (short) articles on this last night and only one mentioned that, early in gestation, they discovered there was something wrong with the fetus and the parents told the surrogate to abort. She did not do it.

[Blahblah]

She didn't abort due to her Buddhist faith.

I think these people are horrible beyond belief, but this situation highlights the problems with unregulated surrogacy.

I'm assuming that in a legal surrogacy arrangement that the details would be worked out in advance - ie specifically what is expected in a case where the foetus has a disability such as Downs or is not viable (eg anencephaly).

Putting aside what I think about people who throw money at third world impoverished women to act as brood mares, I am horrified at the lack of forethought. Impregnating a Buddhist whose beliefs prohibit abortion isn't too smart if you know that you will not accept a less than perfect baby. Admittedly the surrogate was only 21 years old so the risk was extremely low but it is still something that should have reasonably been discussed beforehand.

I can't even begin to fathom how they could take the healthy twin sister and leave this poor boy behind, let alone how they will explain this action to the girl. (Wasn't there a Jodie Picoult book with a similar storyline?)

There will be some interesting discussions in this family's future.

[happy atheist]

I imagine that their plan is to never tell the daughter about the son.

[16strong]

I read about the surrogate being told to abort the baby after I posted this. However, two things:

1. Why didn't the agency discuss fetal malformations and abortion with both the surrogate and the Australian couple before they entered into the pregnancy? This would have ensured that both parties were on the same page. But I guess what they do is illegal and they don't care about each party agreeing on such matters. Not their concern, right?

2. Why didn't the Australian couple just take the baby back to Australia and put him up for adoption?

[ILoveJellybeans]

Wow, I cant believe they would abandon one of their twins like that.

Also what the hell were they thinking not discussing all options with their surrogate before agreeing to her carrying their baby? Its important to discuss things with them like making sure they have the same views on abortion and agree about what to do if they do find out before birth that the child will be born with a disability.

[ViolaSebastian]

(Wasn't there a Jodie Picoult book with a similar storyline?)

I think you're thinking of "The Memory Keeper's Daughter" by Kim Edwards. The basic premise is a doctor's wife gives birth to twin babies, a boy and a girl. The little girl has Down Syndrome. It being 1965, the doctor decides to place the girl in an institution, however, the nurse that he gave the job of taking the infant to the institution is secretly in love with him and decides to raise her on her own.

[Blahblah]

I think you're thinking of "The Memory Keeper's Daughter" by Kim Edwards. The basic premise is a doctor's wife gives birth to twin babies, a boy and a girl. The little girl has Down Syndrome. It being 1965, the doctor decides to place the girl in an institution, however, the nurse that he gave the job of taking the infant to the institution is secretly in love with him and decides to raise her on her own.

Right. That's it. Thanks. That was bugging me.

[Full enough quiver]

I honestly don't blame the parents. Abandoning the child was an asshole thing to do, but they told the woman to abort. She didn't follow their wishes. They shouldn't be responsible for the fact that she chose not to carry out their wishes. I personally wouldn't abort a baby for having downs syndrome, but a lot of people do. It's sad, but it is their decision. What I want to know is why the hell this possibility wasn't discussed with the surrogate, so she could be matched with a couple that felt like she did regarding abortion.

[twinmama]

I find separating twins for any reason to be horrifying.

But I am also not going to judge the couple for asking her to have an abortion. Had she been carrying the baby herself, she could have chosen that. Having never been in that situation, I don't know what I would choose with a DS diagnosis early on. I can't imagine abandoning the child after birth regardless though.

Basically a shitty situation for everyone involved.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Another factoid: abortion is illegal in Thailand. Not that they care about laws, apparently. But that had to have come up. I think the Australians are gross. I can't imagine creating a life and not feeling - at the very least - obligated to care or find care for it.

[Arete]

Those children are biologically not the surrogate's. They used the AUS mother's 35 year old eggs. Hey, I'm sure it kept costs down. Then they just assumed they had themselves a hired brood mare and did not discuss provisions in regard to fetal defects. The correct, ethical, and moral thing to have done was bring both children back to AUS, and then surrendered the baby with Down Syndrome for adoption. That is what real parents do. But what the hell, that baby is a defective and therefore undeserving of any consideration from its parental units, amirite? Plus they get to "punish" a woman they thought of as nothing more than a paid incubator, as opposed to a human being with her own values and control over her own body. Too bad they didn't realize she even HAD her own ethical system, or bother to wonder if it would match theirs in crucial ways.

[Emkay]

I know the surrogate says she refused the abortion because of her Buddhist beliefs, and that IS DEFINITELY something that should have been discussed before letting someone carry your child/ren, but I think there's more to it in this given scenario. From what I understand, and according to what un.org says, abortion due to 'foetal impairment' is 'not permitted' in Thailand. Perhaps that is something else the couple should have checked on before hiring the surrogate?

From what I read, the surrogate never met the couple; everything was done through an agency. This is an example where cutting corners because of costs is not always the best idea and can backfire. It's a complicated situation to be sure.

[Kailash]

I don't know how they justified asking her to abort, and then when she didn't, accepting the "perfect" child (who wouldn't be there if the mother had aborted, as asked) but leaving their other child behind. It is so entitled of them to pick and choose. I absolutely believe the twin girl will suffer for not being with her brother.

[jaelh]

they've apparently tracked down the parents who claim they were never told about the down syndrome child; only the "perfect" daughter. I don't know if that means they thought the abortion had taken place, or if they simply "didn't know". it was a very brief article.

on the "they told her to have a abortion". crap. just crap. it is entirely unclear that this woman understood what she was getting into. even if she DID agree to have an abortion under contract, she should be able to change her mind because she decides that aborting a *7 month old* is not the right thing to do. (while apparently the diagnosis was made at 4 months, she was not told till 7 months along to abort). we cannot compel people to breach their moral standards, even if those standards change.

anything involving other people is messy. having someone else carry your child for you is the epitome of messy. if you get to swoop in and remove your biological child from a surrogate on the basis that it's "yours"; then heck - the surrogate can sure as heck turn around refuse to abort "their" child.

if it's not your body, you don't have rights over it. you cannot require someone to have an abortion even if they agreed to it.

but if it is 'your' child, then you've got obligations to it; irrespective of what a piece of paper, signed when stakes were low, states.

I really do wonder if the biological parents had full knowledge of what was going on. I hope the story they're telling is correct, and that they honestly didn't know the child existed.

ETA: I understand why it's attractive to say "agreement"! but we are humans; and humans are fallible. you can't contract human emotion, or ethics or other such things. I understand parties involved want to make surogacy "work", but it's not an arrangement like buying a house; or making a deal or even what you agree to with a school. that it could go wrong shouldn't just be considering the "what about an abortion" question; there should be second tier contingencies (as in, accepting you need to cop it) if the abortion don't take place as agreed. if the child belongs to the biological parents, it belongs to the biological parents no matter what.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Abortion is illegal in Thailand.

[Full enough quiver]

That does change things. Did this couple do no research at all? Why would you do a surrogacy in a country where abortion is illegal, when you know you won't accept a less than perfect baby? What if the mother's health is in danger? I don't think I could live with that.

The article I read said they found out about the downs syndrome early in the pregnancy. If that was the case, in a country with safe, legal abortion, then this situation would be the surrogate's fault for not following the parents' wishes and getting an abortion. If they really didn't know until 7 months, and abortion isn't legal, then it's a completely different situation. Why would the parents not have been informed of these basic facts? The baby isn't the surrogate's responsibility. Either way, abandoning him was really screwed up. They should either raise the child or place him for adoption.

[flubber]

The "father" has also spent time in prison for child sex offences (with a 13 year old girl). Makes me a whole lot less likely to believe the parent's version of events.

And if you found out it was yours...regardless of health issues... wouldn't you be requesting DNA testing and rushing over to get the other baby.

[DaffyDill]

The "father" has also spent time in prison for child sex offences (with a 13 year old girl). Makes me a whole lot less likely to believe the parent's version of events.

Yep. Obviously, the alleged bio parents credibility has taken a major hit with this coming to light. Should they even have the baby girl considering the fathers background? Now the surrogate wants the girl back in light of the fathers history.

And if you found out it was yours...regardless of health issues... wouldn't you be requesting DNA testing and rushing over to get the other baby.

Personally...hell yeah!

I think testing should already be underway, given that everyone just instantly believed the surrogate mum (who may now receive over $230,00AU in donations for the child she kept) and everyone instantly blamed the bio parents for abandoning him. Is there any proof anywhere to verify the bio parents are indeed the bio parents (as they have denied it), and that there was an agreement between them all? Testing DNA and verification of everyone's stories should be done ASAP before this becomes even more of a mess.

I don't know....something somewhere in all this is not right...

[It'sFunToRun]

I don't condone the parents because apparently the father has a child abusing history, and I think they should have discussed abortion before.

However, I would have done the same thing in their place. If someone has has a problem, refuses to get rid of (abort) that problem while it is legal, then why should I be stuck with that problem for 18+ years. Or have to transfer that problem to my home country? Sure, you could say it's the punishment for not vetting the surrogate better, but I think that is harsh. And of course the parents would want the healthy girl, why wouldn't they? That's the reason they did this in the first place!

[jaelh]

Daffy, glad you said it.

There is far more going on here than is apparent in the story so far.

I say this with reference to both sides: the inconsistencies in the stories; the convictions; the disappearing company; the non-involvement of Thai police; the non-return of the parents; nearly a quarter of a million dollars with the people who organised the funding campaign insisting on anonymity because of their 'profession'.

this whole this is dodgy as heck.

[DaffyDill]

Daffy, glad you said it.

Thanks jaelh - I was starting to think that maybe I was just being nasty cos everyone just believed the surrogate mum and slammed the bio parents seemingly without proof anything was even true. Maybe it is true, but there's a quarter of a mill in donations at stake now.

And now there's this:

The friend said the couple were told baby Gammy had a congenital heart condition and would “not survive a dayâ€.

The friend insisted they wanted to bring Gammy home to Australia, but were told by doctors that he was too unwell.

And...

The ministry says the fact that Ms Pattaramon received payment of $15,000 as the surrogate mother was in contravention of Thailand’s human trafficking laws.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parent ... 7013406177 Link not broken - news site

Something just doesn't seem right :( I just hope both babies receive the love and care they deserve.

Edited to finish post after picking kid up :)

[2xx1xy1JD]

This is part of the reason that I support laws that allow surrogacy to be legal and properly regulated.

Yes, the potential for messy complications exists with any surrogacy arrangement - but the odds are lower with legal, properly regulated domestic paid surrogacy than with the hiring of foreign surrogates in a total legal and regulatory vacuum.

[twinmama]

I don't know how they justified asking her to abort, and then when she didn't, accepting the "perfect" child (who wouldn't be there if the mother had aborted, as asked) but leaving their other child behind. It is so entitled of them to pick and choose. I absolutely believe the twin girl will suffer for not being with her brother.

Presumably they would have reduced the boy and still had the girl. At least that's what I assume.

[Maggie Mae]

I don't think the parents are horrible. They told the agency to tell the surrogate to abort. The surrogate chose not to follow directions in regards to the fetus that she was carrying. I'm sorry, but if I were pregnant, I absolutely would abort a fetus that would have lifelong impairments. I'm sorry, but I want a healthy child. Any surrogate of mine would be expected to terminate the pregnancy if I asked her to.

The agency sounds super shady with the way it appears they recruit impoverished young women who have no idea what they are getting into. One of the articles I read said that she asked if she had to sleep with the man, and they told her no, obviously. But the fact that she did this for money, and it wasn't explained very clearly to her just makes the agency sound awful. I don't know if the Australian couple ever knew that the fetus wasn't aborted as per the request.

In this situation, I have no idea what the "right" thing to do would be. I guess take him back to Australia and voluntarily surrender? Does Australia have the thing where you can leave babies at the fire department? But we all know that this child wouldn't be adopted, so he would be growing up in foster care, and then adult foster care.

What a terrible situation. This is completely the agencies fault for not covering this base beforehand.