Australian surrogacy gone wrong

[jaelh]

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.

What if she changed her mind?

Would it still be your child?

****

I don't think anyone here would advocate (ever) someone having an abortion they didn't want to; nor that anyone can't reserve the right to change their mind about an abortion up to the last second. No one would suggest that a woman who'd told her partner she'd always get an abortion in case of X should be held to that decision no matter what.

I'm not sure that carrying a child that's not your genetic material somehow makes the abortion decision magically different. We can say it does, but physically? We still need women, and wombs, to bear children. The mechanics of it all, once we're passed conception, are all pretty much the same.

[Maggie Mae]

What if she changed her mind?

Would it still be your child?

****

I don't think anyone here would advocate (ever) someone having an abortion they didn't want to; nor that anyone can't reserve the right to change their mind about an abortion up to the last second. No one would suggest that a woman who'd told her partner she'd always get an abortion in case of X should be held to that decision no matter what.

I'm not sure that carrying a child that's not your genetic material somehow makes the abortion decision magically different. We can say it does, but physically? We still need women, and wombs, to bear children. The mechanics of it all, once we're passed conception, are all pretty much the same.

I don't know. I probably wouldn't use a surrogate in the first place (I can't afford that). But in the unlikely event that the surrogate broke the contract, I think I would be suing for breach of contract. I would hope that woman would take responsibility for the fetus & then the baby, as she decided that to disregard the wishes of the people who put the fetus in her in the first place. I absolutely, 100% do not want to raise a developmentally disabled person. It's unfair to the person, it's unfair to the parents, it's unfair to society. It's completely different when the disability occurs during or after birth, as accidents happen. But to willfully bring a person into this world only to suffer is a terrible thing to do. I guess what I"m trying to say is that I can't fault the parents, they are stuck in a hard place. The surrogate is mostly a victim of whatever the agency told her, and was desperate for money. I still think it's the agency's fault. I suppose it's also the parent's fault for using a shady agency and having a surrogate do her thing in a country where it is illegal.

And yes, we need women and wombs to bear children. I don't see how asking a surrogate to abort an unhealthy child is wrong in anyway. I don't think it's the surrogates right to hijack the fetus that doesn't belong to her. It's her body, but the fetus is not hers and she does not have the right to decide not to abort if the parents want her to. It's her uterus, and she chose to allow them to borrow it for the duration of the pregnancy. If they want to terminate the pregnancy, that's not her call at that point, IMO.

[treemom]

It's a lot easier to say you would or not abort in theory and in practice you may find yourself torn. I did.

[jaelh]

It's a lot easier to say you would or not abort in theory and in practice you may find yourself torn. I did.

This.

Maggiemay, it's not that I doubt your good intentions, it's just that I find the idea we might be able contract someone to a decision like abortion abhorrent.

It's her body, but the fetus is not hers and she does not have the right to decide not to abort if the parents want her to. It's her uterus, and she chose to allow them to borrow it for the duration of the pregnancy. If they want to terminate the pregnancy, that's not her call at that point, IMO.

But the foetus is in the uterus. You're setting yourself up for a perfect Merchant of Venice situation. You can't get to the "property" of the biological parents, without denying the birth mothers bodily autonomy.

Poor women who undertake surrogacy aren't simply vessels to be filled with product. They're human beings, and deciding that other people's moral judgements trump theirs - *irrespective of what has been decided* is... I was going to go with milder language, but I can't. It's abhorrent. Gestational bearers are people, not "human wombs". Their humanity is just as important as the desires and humanity of any other person/potential person involved in the situation (i.e.: bio parents and child).

not quite related, but from what you wrote:

But to willfully bring a person into this world only to suffer is a terrible thing to do.

and the only thing that developmentally delayed persons experience is suffering? really?

I think the idea of bringing a down syndrome baby/developmentally delayed child into the world as "unfair to society" (or indeed, to that person themselves) as a bit of a slippery slope. Is it more unfair to give a downs syndrome child life than it is to deny them life at all? I'm not sure I see that. At all.

It's one thing to say you don't want to raise a developmentally delayed child. That's a good enough reason in and of itself - you don't have to want to. But these (what seem to be) justifications? they're more than just a little bit problematic. Go with "I don't want to" and leave it there.

[treemom]

And I think surrogates and intended parents should never enter into a surrogacy arrangement if they differ at all on abortion.

[jaelh]

And I think surrogates and intended parents should never enter into a surrogacy arrangement if they differ at all on abortion.

agree, but there is *always* a chance someone will change their mind. All the pre-agreement you want doesn't change that.

[treemom]

agree, but there is *always* a chance someone will change their mind. All the pre-agreement you want doesn't change that.

I think that ultimately the surrogate should follow the wishes of the IP. I am not willing to string her up, but I believe she should.

[Blahblah]

Latest news here (I am in Aus) is that the parents have gone into hiding but will release a statement shortly.

http://www.news.com.au/national/adult-s ... 7016314924

Not broken because news site

There are so many conflicting stories and opinions. About the only certainties are that Gammy is a surrogate baby and he was left in Thailand. Why, how and who decided that this should happen is all up for grabs.

One solid fact though is that the dad was imprisoned for quite serious child abuse (although his son, in the linked article above, passes it off as "mistakes") which is enough to throw the whole surrogacy screening process, or lack thereof, in this case into complete disrepute.

[Mama Mia]

I think one thing people keep forgetting is that, depending on which site you read, abortion is strictly illegal in Thailand, limited to only cases where the mothers health was in danger or rape/ incest, or before 12 weeks. In none of those cases would this woman have been able to have a legal abortion. Even when they talk about " early " screening for Downs, there doesn't seem to be any possible way to take the test, get the results, do some kind of follow up to verify ( because early screening has a much higher false positive rate) , and schedule and have performed a selective reduction before twelve weeks. So the whole part about the parents wanting her to have an abortion is irrelevant.

[chaotic life]

The father admitted to molesting 7 and 10 year old girls and spent 10 years in prison for it. His adult son states that he's made up for his past "mistakes" as if that makes him fit to parent children again now.

There was a US surrogacy case a year ago that made the news for a similar reason in that the intended parents demanded the surrogate have an abortion after birth defects were discovered and the surrogate refused. Just like this case, that one used a questionable surrogacy agency for parents and a surrogate who couldn't/didn't pass screening for a reputable agency in the first place.

What happens to Gammy's health needs and citizenship now? Presumably he is the biological child of this couple, yet he is in Thailand. With his medical issues, it would seem trying to get him to Australia would be in his best interest, whether he goes with his biological parents or elsewhere. Having Down Syndrome does not make mean you will be a burden to society, or subject you to nothing but suffering. In fact, science has advanced to a point that T21 patients live relatively normal lives for the most part now.

[DaffyDill]

The father admitted to molesting 7 and 10 year old girls and spent 10 years in prison for it. His adult son states that he's made up for his past "mistakes" as if that makes him fit to parent children again now.

In response to the bio fathers criminal history coming to light, the surrogate mother has been quoted as saying she wants the baby girl back as she is "my baby".

What happens to Gammy's health needs and citizenship now? Presumably he is the biological child of this couple, yet he is in Thailand. With his medical issues, it would seem trying to get him to Australia would be in his best interest, whether he goes with his biological parents or elsewhere. Having Down Syndrome does not make mean you will be a burden to society, or subject you to nothing but suffering. In fact, science has advanced to a point that T21 patients live relatively normal lives for the most part now.

My understanding is that if he is the biological son of the Australian couple, there is a case for him having Australian citizenship. If that is correct, there would no legal obstacle to him being brought to Australia to ensure he receives the medical care he needs, as far as the Immigration Dept. is concerned. However, DOCS (our child/community services authority) have been able at last, to contact the supposed bio parents (as the fathers criminal history is disturbing) with their main priority at the moment presumably being the little girl but possibly Gammy as well in the future if he is given to them.

If all this wasn't complex enough, the Thai surrogacy agent involved has come forward and claimed the Australian parents did not want to leave Gammy behind in Thailand, and the surrogate mother refused to hand him over. The parents were also allegedly told the baby boy had a severe congenital heart defect and would likely only live a few hours. The Thai hospital Gammy is currently being treated in has refuted the congenital defect story after doing tests, claiming his heart is strong, and no such condition exsists.

Meanwhile, Thai authorities are now apparently pursuing the surrogate mother, intending to charge her, as paid surrogacy is illegal in Thailand.

The whole thing is an absolute mess and just keeps getting worse. I believe DNA testing of both parents and both babies needs to be done to establish parentage beyond doubt for a start, the donations of around AU$250,000 need to be put in a trust until this is sorted out. The health and welfare of the babies must be the most important consideration in all of this - I just hope they will both be loved and cared for by someone with their best interests at heart.

Poor babies :(

[jaelh]

daffy, as I understood, the baby is in fact the biological child of the father and an unrelated 4th party female donor - also Thai.

on the basis of one biological citizen parent, Gammy should be entitled to Australian citizenship. however, this doesn't happen automatically. regarding the parenthood of the mother(s) : that'd be a very interesting legal question and would depend on agreements entered into before birth, family acknowledgement etc.. whether the mother in Australia would be held to be a parent in the given situation - well, I suppose much of that depends on the truth what actually happen. Which as far as I can see right now, we actually know very little about, from anyone.

more info: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheet ... rogacy.htm

[DaffyDill]

daffy, as I understood, the baby is in fact the biological child of the father and an unrelated 4th party female donor - also Thai.

Yep, apparently the bio dad (who was married previously and has three adult children) married a Chinese woman in 2004. The embryos implanted in the surrogate mother were created from donor eggs from an unknown Thai donor, fertilised by his sperm.

I don't know whether the Chinese woman is an Australian citizen, I'm assuming she is - they were married in China AFAIK...

Anyway, according to someone or other in the media, a statement from the parents will be released soon, so maybe some truth will come out.

[JHeathen]

It's a lot easier to say you would or not abort in theory and in practice you may find yourself torn. I did.

I didn't.

[lilith]

A woman who is the legal guardian of a pair of Indian conjoined twins who were brought to Australia for surgery (google Krishna and Trishna) has volunteered to be Gammy's legal guardian if he is brought back to Australia for treatment.

The whole situation is a clusterfuck and is lacking in ethics and proper oversight and care at every point.

I hope that at the very least it draws enough attention to the issues surrounding westerners using third world surrogates for the UN to come up with reasonable global guidelines that protect all parties, including the baby.

It seems that the bio father in this case is scarily at ease with commodifying women (quickly marrying a Chinese bride from a mail order bride website who wasn't aware of his sex offence convictions, then entering into a surrogacy arrangement with a dodgy agency), and everyone should be protected from that, especially vulnerable women living in poverty.

ETA - my ex husband lived in Thailand in the 90s and had no difficulties procuring an abortion for his Thai girlfriend when she became pregnant. I don't know if it was easier for him as a westerner, but he just took her to a clinic, paid, and the procedure was carried out. It was a clinic that mainly serviced expats though.

[treemom]

I didn't.

Hence the word may. But also did you terminate a wanted pregnancy? I should have been clear on that because it may cause different feelings.

[DaffyDill]

The whole situation is a clusterfuck and is lacking in ethics and proper oversight and care at every point.

Clusterfuck is sadly the best word for it all. The whole thing is quite sickening. :ew:

[chaotic life]

So, the only biological ties are to the child molesting father and an unknown egg donor? Yup, that's a clusterfuck.

The US case did not involve a child molestor involved, just intended parents who did not want the child after it was discovered the baby had significant birth defects. The surrogate mother traveled out of state when the intended parents attempted to force an abortion on her and ultimately placed the baby for adoption.

In this case, the Thai surrogate is technically the legal birthmother, but if she's not the biological mother, how much rights does she have? I hate, hate, HATE that the easy answer is to pursue the surrogate and try to charge her criminally instead of the long line of predatory individuals who commodified her body so easily. Yes, she accepted money to carry the twins. She has two children and was looking to better her own family's life through this. I cannot imagine she even remotely thought she would find herself with custody of a surrogate baby after it was all said and done. Even so, she's kept him for months now and clearly bonded with him. If he cannot go to the intended parents, it seems the surrogate is likely the best option to keep his interest at the forefront. And when assuming the intended mother was also the biological mother, I would have said let mom have both twins and require her to keep them away from the molesting father would have been the best option.

Meanwhile, it seems the Thai authorities have discovered a flat with NINE surrogate babies and a pregnant surrogate, all of which supposedly belong to one Japanese businessman.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28686114

I can completely see both the intended parents and the surrogate having different stories. It appears the agency was the actual go-between and may have told each of them vastly different stories in the first place. Even if the man had seen Gammy at the hospital, that doesn't mean he knew it was his own son.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'd like to see surrogacy and reproductive donation legislation that includes the following:

1. Mandatory police and court protection screening for all intended parents. Possibly an adoption homestudy as well.

2. For all egg/sperm/embryo donation and surrogacy, legally enforceable paperwork to make it clear that one party is releasing their rights and obligations to any resulting child, and the intended potential parents are assuming those rights and responsibilities.

3. Mandatory counseling and independent legal advice before signing the paperwork in point 2, plus a short cooling-off period (similar to adoption).

4. No anonymous donation/surrogacy. Important medical information to be collected, and names to be put in a registry and open to disclosure when any child reaches 18.

5. Contracts may discuss basic expectations, but no contract can override a women's basic right to make decisions affecting her body. At most, certain decisions may mean that fees/expenses stop being paid. A surrogate always has the legal right to abort, or to choose not to abort.

6. Once intended parents sign the legal paperwork, they are legally responsible for any resulting child, period. They cannot walk away just because they change their minds, divorce, or have a child who is not perfectly healthy.

7. Expectations for the surrogate cannot be oppressive. She needs to have a reasonable amount of freedom. She can't, for example, be expected to live in a dormitory.

8. Clinics must be responsible. No more than 2 embryo transfers per pregnancy. Genetic materials MUST be kept secure to avoid accidental mix-ups.

[utter solitude]

I'd like to see surrogacy and reproductive donation legislation that includes the following:

1. Mandatory police and court protection screening for all intended parents. Possibly an adoption homestudy as well.

2. For all egg/sperm/embryo donation and surrogacy, legally enforceable paperwork to make it clear that one party is releasing their rights and obligations to any resulting child, and the intended potential parents are assuming those rights and responsibilities.

3. Mandatory counseling and independent legal advice before signing the paperwork in point 2, plus a short cooling-off period (similar to adoption).

4. No anonymous donation/surrogacy. Important medical information to be collected, and names to be put in a registry and open to disclosure when any child reaches 18.

5. Contracts may discuss basic expectations, but no contract can override a women's basic right to make decisions affecting her body. At most, certain decisions may mean that fees/expenses stop being paid. A surrogate always has the legal right to abort, or to choose not to abort.

6. Once intended parents sign the legal paperwork, they are legally responsible for any resulting child, period. They cannot walk away just because they change their minds, divorce, or have a child who is not perfectly healthy.

7. Expectations for the surrogate cannot be oppressive. She needs to have a reasonable amount of freedom. She can't, for example, be expected to live in a dormitory.

8. Clinics must be responsible. No more than 2 embryo transfers per pregnancy. Genetic materials MUST be kept secure to avoid accidental mix-ups.

I can't agree on the "no anonymous" thing... if a woman wants to remain unnamed, she should be able to, just like in an adoption. :3 Of course, that's a little more difficult in a surrogate setting, but it could be done in the same manner as anonymous egg and sperm donation. And I'm not sure I agree with the idea of lifting up the surrogate over the intended parents... I could easily agree to grow your baby, take money from you, and then abort it. Yes, of course, there should be legal recourse there, but it should be prevented in the first place, which the majority of your suggestions would do. XD If couples and individuals wanting children in this manner had to jump through some hoops rather than just throwing money at someone, it would change a lot of things for the better. In theory.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I can't agree on the "no anonymous" thing... if a woman wants to remain unnamed, she should be able to, just like in an adoption. :3 Of course, that's a little more difficult in a surrogate setting, but it could be done in the same manner as anonymous egg and sperm donation. And I'm not sure I agree with the idea of lifting up the surrogate over the intended parents... I could easily agree to grow your baby, take money from you, and then abort it. Yes, of course, there should be legal recourse there, but it should be prevented in the first place, which the majority of your suggestions would do. XD If couples and individuals wanting children in this manner had to jump through some hoops rather than just throwing money at someone, it would change a lot of things for the better. In theory.

Where I live, anonymous adoption is no longer possible. The law has done a 180, and everything gets disclosed when the child is 18. In some ways, I think the case to favor the child's right to know their medical and genetic heritage is even stronger in these cases than with regular adoption, because it's a voluntary, planned pregnancy with no associated trauma such as a pregnancy from rape or incest.

I have no problem saying that a surrogacy contact can say that payment isn't made if the pregnancy is terminated against the intended parents' wishes for non-medical reasons. I just don't think that it's good public policy to say that a woman can ever be prevented from having control over her own body and making the decision to abort. We don't give fathers that right now, even though a fetus is genetically half theirs. You are going to have situations where it's a tough call - pregnancies with extreme vomitting, pre-eclampsia, possible cancer diagnosis, problems requiring extreme bed rest and risking stillbirth or extreme premature birth, etc. In other words - it may not be a clear-cut case of doctors saying "must abort now or die", but the pregnancy is riskier than anticipated.

[utter solitude]

Where I live, anonymous adoption is no longer possible. The law has done a 180, and everything gets disclosed when the child is 18. In some ways, I think the case to favor the child's right to know their medical and genetic heritage is even stronger in these cases than with regular adoption, because it's a voluntary, planned pregnancy with no associated trauma such as a pregnancy from rape or incest.

I have no problem saying that a surrogacy contact can say that payment isn't made if the pregnancy is terminated against the intended parents' wishes for non-medical reasons. I just don't think that it's good public policy to say that a woman can ever be prevented from having control over her own body and making the decision to abort. We don't give fathers that right now, even though a fetus is genetically half theirs. You are going to have situations where it's a tough call - pregnancies with extreme vomitting, pre-eclampsia, possible cancer diagnosis, problems requiring extreme bed rest and risking stillbirth or extreme premature birth, etc. In other words - it may not be a clear-cut case of doctors saying "must abort now or die", but the pregnancy is riskier than anticipated.

Every child, adopted, surrogated, born to the same person that raises it, has the right to know their medical history. However, that can be accomplished while still keeping the adoption/surrogacy mostly anonymous: the name of the mother can still be withheld. The rights of the child should always be upmost, as should the rights of the biological mother/father and whoever ends up raising the child.

I'm not trying to suggest that a woman should ever be denied the basic rights of deciding what to do with her body. But, at least in my area and with those I've had conversations with on this subject, there seems to be this feeling of the surrogate should be able to do whatever she wants no matter what with little consequences and the intended parents should expect that and just feel lucky that anyone is willing to have a baby for them. I know you're not suggesting anything like this, I'm just pointing it out while I explain my own opinions. It's this kind of thinking I find wrong. Literally, nobody can stop one from having an abortion if one wants it. And no one should be able to. But if, say, the surrogate changes her mind, and just decides to abort a viable child, there should be strong consequences for that. The surrogate's right, and I mean right of choice in this situation, should be equal to that of the intended parents. Yes, she should be able to choose to abort at any point, but the intended parents should have that choice too, and if the surrogate chooses not to abort in that situation, she should have that right, but there should be consequences.

I guess, I'm not for specific catch-all regulations that are the same for every surrogacy (or every adoption, even) each situation is unique, but every possible contingency should be planned for in advance. There should be open and frank discussion and everything spelled out before hand. If it's revealed that the child(ren) has disabilities before birth, what happens? If the surrogate changes her mind, or the intended parents change their minds, what happens? Yes, there will still be cases where these agreements are broken, but I think we can all agree that there will be less confusion if this kind of thing is out in the open. And with planned surrogacies, there is the distinct advantage of being able to plan for these things in advance.

[jaelh]

two things: I don't think a donor desire to be anon. should ever trump a child's ability to find out their lineage. Ever.

utter, when you say:

But if, say, the surrogate changes her mind, and just decides to abort a viable child, there should be strong consequences for that.

What do you mean? What type of consequence would even be possible? Sue her for money? Most women in commercial surrogacy arrangements aren't doing so because they have cash to burn (or pay in damages) and in an altruistic arrangement, you'd have a consideration issue (wouldn't apply in some jurisdictions however, e.g. singapore)

I'm not sure there actually could be "strong consequences" for a surrogate mother aborting a child. (legal, not emotional. There may be huge emotional and social consequences)

[Chowder Head]

The father admitted to molesting 7 and 10 year old girls and spent 10 years in prison for it. His adult son states that he's made up for his past "mistakes" as if that makes him fit to parent children again now.

There was a US surrogacy case a year ago that made the news for a similar reason in that the intended parents demanded the surrogate have an abortion after birth defects were discovered and the surrogate refused. Just like this case, that one used a questionable surrogacy agency for parents and a surrogate who couldn't/didn't pass screening for a reputable agency in the first place.

What happens to Gammy's health needs and citizenship now? Presumably he is the biological child of this couple, yet he is in Thailand. With his medical issues, it would seem trying to get him to Australia would be in his best interest, whether he goes with his biological parents or elsewhere. Having Down Syndrome does not make mean you will be a burden to society, or subject you to nothing but suffering. In fact, science has advanced to a point that T21 patients live relatively normal lives for the most part now.

this one ? http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/su ... al-battle/

sad case

[utter solitude]

two things: I don't think a donor desire to be anon. should ever trump a child's ability to find out their lineage. Ever.

utter, when you say:

What do you mean? What type of consequence would even be possible? Sue her for money? Most women in commercial surrogacy arrangements aren't doing so because they have cash to burn (or pay in damages) and in an altruistic arrangement, you'd have a consideration issue (wouldn't apply in some jurisdictions however, e.g. singapore)

I'm not sure there actually could be "strong consequences" for a surrogate mother aborting a child. (legal, not emotional. There may be huge emotional and social consequences)

You can give the child the ability to find out those things without revealing the mother's name. That's my point there. No one should be forced to reveal their name if they don't want that, it's a personal choice. The child can have the same medical history just without a name attached.

I'm saying that there seems to exist some kind of divide between the surrogate's rights and the intended parent(s)'s rights, and this doesn't have to be the case. It's a contract, and just like any contract, should have consequences. Yes, if the surrogate decides on a whim to abort a viable child against the intended's wishes, there should be a consequence for that. Otherwise, the whole thing works on the whim of the surrogate, which can cost the intended(s) time, money, resources, and emotional investment. Both parties should retain their right to choose, but if that choice goes against what they're previously agreed to, there should be legal recourse. I am not suggesting that a woman should be forced to get or not get an abortion, only that if either party goes against the other's wishes or best interests, there should consequences.

If I agree to do something for you, say, create a website, and we discuss it at length and agree to designs and timelines and such, we have a contract. If you give $1000 upfront for this, and I take it, and decide in the middle that I don't want to do it, I've violated that contract. I've now cost you time and money. Legally, you would sue me for your money back and have every right to it.

That is what I'm suggesting. Yes, a surrogacy isn't a simple black and white matter, but if the parties involved are required to spell these things out in advance, it's less messy in the end. It forces you to think about what you're getting into on both sides, and isn't one-sided against the intended parents. I think a lot of what 2xx suggested would be amazing, like the counseling and such.