Ship of Fools: Baby Gammy

Thread: Baby Gammy Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027712

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

BBC News - Conflicting Claims over Thai Surrogacy Case

A Thai woman who served as surrogate claims that the Australian couple that she worked for took only one of the twins she birthed, leaving behind a boy with Downs Syndrome.

This story just highlights the moral quagmire related to surrogacy:

- surrogacy for hire is illegal in Australia so couples often go to developing countries with looser laws and lower costs.

- the company that arranged the surrogacy has gone out of business. It would have been incentivized not to tell the Australian parents that there was a second disabled child in the first place and as is no longer trading so impossible to know if it had good ethics.

- the surrogate claims she was asked to terminate and refused. Can a surrogate make that choice if it is not her child?

- if DNA proves that this child is the Australian couple's, would it be right to take the child from the Thai woman (who is not his legal mother) back to Australia, which is being campaigned for now so that he can get Australian citizenship and health care there?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I don't see any moral quagmire. An Australian couple have acted in a thoroughly despicable manner by abandoning their child just because he has a disability. His surrogate mother has acted with love and compassion by keeping him and raising him as her own.

There is outrage and great sadness about this in Australia directed towards the couple who abandoned their child. i don't believe they didn't know, twins were identified prior to the downs syndrome and surrogates get paid more for twins.

I recoil in horror at the question and can't believe it's even been asked.

quote:
the surrogate claims she was asked to terminate and refused. Can a surrogate make that choice if it is not her child?

Are you suggesting that a woman could be compelled to have an abortion? Holy hell that's really treating her and the foetus as a commodity. Of course the surrogate has the right to decide what happens to her body.

Money is being raised for the child in Australia and this is being used to pay for his medical care in Thailand. So the chances of him being taken from her, at least by some sort of Australian intervention would be slim I think, unless his surrogate family accompany him here for treatment for the hole in heart.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't see any moral quagmire. An Australian couple have acted in a thoroughly despicable manner by abandoning their child just because he has a disability.

You do not think it is possible that the surrogate agency did not tell the parents of a second disabled child? I have no idea what actually happened, but this strikes me as at least as likely as what the surrogate is claiming.

I have to admit that I'm not sure why anyone would take this story at face value until some facts emerge.

My reason for posting this isn't to blame the parents - unless they are proven to be at fault in which case I hope some action is taken against them. It's to question whether surrogacy can even be done ethically given the competing incentives of the parties involved. Heck, they could all by lying. Who is going to deal with it - the Thai government? The Australians? Whose child is he? Etc.

[ 04. August 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: seekingsister ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

It is immoral to be so removed from the birth of your own children that you don't know it's twins. I think it's bullshit they didn't know but IF they didn't they're still irresponsible because they should have known.

Parents who have used reputable surrogacy agencies meet their surrogates, view scans, are at least in the hospital at the birth, they don't act like they're going to a store to pick up a package.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

seekingsister:

quote:
- the surrogate claims she was asked to terminate and refused. Can a surrogate make that choice if it is not her child?

Under UK law she can - no woman can be forced to have an abortion against her will. Also, if I remember correctly (IANAL), under UK law the surrogate mother is treated as the birth mother and if she decides to keep the child the genetic parents just have to lump it. Of course this isn't really relevant to the case in hand, which falls under either Thai or Australian law. Possibly both.

[ 04. August 2014, 12:25: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't see any moral quagmire. An Australian couple have acted in a thoroughly despicable manner by abandoning their child just because he has a disability. His surrogate mother has acted with love and compassion by keeping him and raising him as her own.

Spot on. This is really the bottom line and the only thing that really matters in this discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

There is outrage and great sadness about this in Australia directed towards the couple who abandoned their child. i don't believe they didn't know, twins were identified prior to the downs syndrome and surrogates get paid more for twins.

I don't know if the couple knew they were having a child with Downs in advance or not. Maybe the surrogacy agency knew and didn't disclose, maybe there was no need to do an amnio so no one knew. But it doesn't really matter-- many parents of children with Downs didn't know ahead of time. While it might have been nice to have known in advance and prepared,at t his point it doesn't matter-- the child is here and deserves to be loved and honored and cherished. I'm very grateful for the love and compassion of the surrogate.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Spot on. This is really the bottom line and the only thing that really matters in this discussion.

Assuming it's true of course.

And even if it is true, you don't think it matters that the 21 year old surrogate seems to lack a fundamental understanding of what she actually signed up for, or that the agency that arranged it no longer exists?

The problem with this couple starts with the choice to go to a poor country to rent a "gestational carrier" in the first place.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Under UK law she can - no woman can be forced to have an abortion against her will. Also, if I remember correctly (IANAL), under UK law the surrogate mother is treated as the birth mother and if she decides to keep the child the genetic parents just have to lump it. Of course this isn't really relevant to the case in hand, which falls under either Thai or Australian law. Possibly both.

I guess a more appropriate question would be - if a surrogate refuses to terminate at the request of the parents, are the parents responsible for taking that baby or providing for it financially if the surrogate raises it herself?

This seems like a very gray area.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

No greyer than the whole question of what happens to any other children whose parents abandon them, surely. It may be more complicated because you have a third person in the mix (of a different nationality, too), but essentially the question is what happens to children whose parents are unable or unwilling to raise them.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Spot on. This is really the bottom line and the only thing that really matters in this discussion.
Assuming it's true of course.

Well, yes, good point. I know very little about this case. Is there some aspect of it that's under dispute?

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

And even if it is true, you don't think it matters that the 21 year old surrogate seems to lack a fundamental understanding of what she actually signed up for

Again, speaking from ignorance-- what evidence is there that she didn't know what she signed up for? What part did she "not get"?

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
or that the agency that arranged it no longer exists?

The problem with this couple starts with the choice to go to a poor country to rent a "gestational carrier" in the first place.

That's the starting point, surely. It seems to have bred (pun intended) a whole consumerist approach to the transaction-- they put their $$ down, now they expect to get exactly what they paid for or seek a refund.

I don't think all surrogacy arrangements are doomed to that kind of thinking, but it certainly is a known peril, possibly exasperated by the way they went about it.

[code!!]

[ 04. August 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

Cliffdweller:

From the linked Guardian article:

quote:
The couple in question deny this version of events, saying that the surrogacy agency – organised out of a house in Bangkok – only knew that there was a baby girl, and did not know she had a twin brother. They have described the situation as “traumatising”.

quote:
The surrogate did not appear to understand the reality of what she was doing – she has said that the surrogacy agency suggested that “it would be a baby in a tube”; and that the parents were paying for a healthy child, not “damaged goods”.

She is also reported to have said that the Australian father ignored Gammy when he visited the child in Thailand, but then also says she has never met the parents. Again - another inconsistency.

My hunch is that the agency conned all three of these people - telling the surrogate that the Australian parents didn't want "damaged goods" when they were more concerned about their own bottom line, and telling the Australians that there was only one child born to avoid any complications with admitting that they had provided said "damaged goods."

I don't see how international surrogacy for hire - given that it's mostly done out of poor countries - can be ethical as there's no proper regulation of it. This is an extreme case but when people are making money out of convincing young girls to hire out their wombs, frankly it's not hard to imagine this happening frequently - at least surrogates being asked to terminate disabled foetuses without the parents being informed.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think there is a lot of dispute over exactly what happened, and what was said. I can see a situation where the agency lied to both sides, but has no responsibility because it no longer exists. It could be that they told the mother that the adoptive parents wanted her to have an abortion, without their knowledge. It could be that the adoptive parents were never told that there were twins.

It might be that the adoptive couple did not travel to Thailand more that at the start and the end of the process, especially if they were told that they didn't need to. It would make sense that they organised this remotely, trusting in the agency.

I am not saying that this is what happened. Just that it is not entirely clear what the truth is, and the claims are possible, especially if the intermediary is corrupt.

Of course, it may be that the couple went to get their babies, decided that they only wanted the nice one, and ran off home. Or that the mother claimed to have aborted one of the babies, when she hadn't and now when she is stuck with a Downs baby is trying to cause trouble.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
An Australian couple have acted in a thoroughly despicable manner by abandoning their child just because he has a disability. His surrogate mother has acted with love and compassion by keeping him and raising him as her own.

I Kings 3 24-27

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If you want a baby and can have one yourself, do it. If you're 'too busy' to go through a pregnancy motherhood is not for you.

If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

Surrogacy is grotesque.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you want a baby and can have one yourself, do it. If you're 'too busy' to go through a pregnancy motherhood is not for you.

If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

Surrogacy is grotesque.

I agree. Whatever the detailed facts turn out to be, and one never knows how much to believe of what is reported, the bare outline is sufficient to make it clear that those three Australian states that have banned their citizens from entering into these sort of transactions are right. Either the others are wrong or they need to catch up with them.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

L'organist,

adoption isn't that easy. Simple things like age and race requirements put it out of reach for a great many couples, such as us. High cost does the same for others.

I'm not championing surrogacy--I can't imagine doing it myself unless the surrogate were a family member (sister or cousin), who offered out of love. But I can understand why "simple adoption" doesn't work as an alternative for some couples.

I very much hope this will all turn out to have been a series of screw ups with nobody deliberately evil. But it sure doesn't sound very good.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

I think Smudgie needs to reply to this. I simply cannot do justice to the understanding and insight she has into adoption.

What is very clear from what she said is that adoption is a very different process to raising children that are yours in some sense.

Having listened to her I would say that adoption is a vocation as much as anything else and it is not the simple answer for people who cannot have children.

Jengie

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Personally I'm,with l'Organist. I know full well adoption isn't always easy, and it also isn't for everyone. We investigated and chose not to pursue adoption for what I still think are right reasons. It isn't a case of can't have your own, substitute someone else's.

However, I still can't square away surrogacy as anything other than at best an utter minefield, and at worst a commoditisation of something too precious to be bought, sold, or rented.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Cliffdweller:

From the linked Guardian article:

quote:
The couple in question deny this version of events, saying that the surrogacy agency – organised out of a house in Bangkok – only knew that there was a baby girl, and did not know she had a twin brother. They have described the situation as “traumatising”.

quote:
The surrogate did not appear to understand the reality of what she was doing – she has said that the surrogacy agency suggested that “it would be a baby in a tube”; and that the parents were paying for a healthy child, not “damaged goods”.
She is also reported to have said that the Australian father ignored Gammy when he visited the child in Thailand, but then also says she has never met the parents. Again - another inconsistency.

My hunch is that the agency conned all three of these people - telling the surrogate that the Australian parents didn't want "damaged goods" when they were more concerned about their own bottom line, and telling the Australians that there was only one child born to avoid any complications with admitting that they had provided said "damaged goods."

just fyi: I don't really understand your correction to my post, then, since I had acknowledged both these possibilities in my post. My point was that it doesn't really matter whether they knew in advance or not. Many/most parents of children with Downs didn't know in advance. That doesn't change the way I view their actions, even as I share your concerns about the exploitative nature of int'l surrogacy.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Also, if I remember correctly (IANAL), under UK law the surrogate mother is treated as the birth mother and if she decides to keep the child the genetic parents just have to lump it.

IANAL either, but you are correct. At birth, a child's parents are the woman whose body the child has just emerged from, and that woman's spouse (I think that works for a married lesbian couple as well as a straight couple, but I'm less certain).

In the case of surrogacy, with the consent of the surrogate (and her spouse, if any), legal parenthood can be reassigned with a Parental Order (which is basically a special-purpose mini-adoption.)

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you want a baby and can have one yourself, do it. If you're 'too busy' to go through a pregnancy motherhood is not for you.

If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

Surrogacy is grotesque.

In fairness Australia is the worst country in the world from which to attempt adoption. It seems the powers that be are just fundamentallly opposed to adoption and they make it hellishly difficult, such that a number of countries from which babies might be adopted will no longer deal with Australia. Some couples have migrated to New Zealand in order to adopt a baby from overseas. If you are over the age of about 35 they prohibit adoption altogether and more than one couple have gone on the lst at age 28 and because of all the crap they have to go through, they hit 35 still waiting and can't get a baby. It's not easy in Australia.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Sorry for the double post but the story goes from bad to worse with the report that the father has a conviction for indecent assault of a child under the age of 13yrs.

web page

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Good grief. Well, that would explain why adoption wasn't an option in their case.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Is there not something even deeper in this, the assumption that "we can have children, somehow" - that couples have a "right" to children?

I am not dismissing the pain of childless couples, and I completely acknowledge that I cannot share that. As long as we can move past the idea of them being "cursed" or "evil", we are making some progress.

But it seems that the "right" to have children blends into a commoditisation of them, so this couple expect to have a perfect child created for them. Maybe, if they cannot have children themselves, they should find a different route to satisfaction in life.

The problem is that no child is perfect. So, assuming the worst comments about them are true, what will they do when they find this out? Return her to her birth mother? Try to buy another "perfect" child?

Sometimes life dishes out crap to us. Sometimes we just have to lick the bowl clean.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
just fyi: I don't really understand your correction to my post, then, since I had acknowledged both these possibilities in my post.

Your post quite clearly says "Is there some element of this story that is in dispute?" Yes - the quotes I posted show that there are inconsistencies between what the surrogate claims and what the parents claim.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Sorry for the double post but the story goes from bad to worse with the report that the father has a conviction for indecent assault of a child under the age of 13yrs.

web page

Wow. So we have a man with a criminal record, and it also turns out that commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand. How many laws have been broken by this trio now?

The poor children.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

I'll add to the comments above that adoption isn't that simple.

Adoption is for people who can't get pregnant, not couples like us who get pregnant quite easily, but suffer recurrent miscarriage. Social services quite reasonably want the decision to pursue adoption to be made in cold blood, as it were, and not in the fug of hormonal upheaval.

We would have had to commit to using contraception for two years before even being considered as possible adoptive parents, with a lengthy process ahead of that and for me, using contraception when I was very broody just wasn't an option.

I think social services are right, but it does piss me off when people airly assume that adoption is easy.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Adoption in the UK tends to mean children who have been removed from their parents these days. Very few people decide to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption. They either abort or keep the baby.

Children removed from their parents/mother tend to have problems: if they are old enough to remember what has gone before they are damaged - because the sort of treatment that means a child is removed is really not good for the child's long term welfare. Or if babies the child may well have a drug addiction as the reason for removal is the mother's drug use.

I've worked with children who've been adopted in schools and some of the stories are horrific - children removed as toddlers as their mother started a relationship with a known sex offender. Children number 7 and 8 of a mother who'd had every other child removed, and these two were neglected (I was working with them as they were removed, aged 7 and 10). Children who were so damaged that the adoptive parents relationship broke down and the child had to be placed in an EBD residential school for anyone to cope. Children who have not been fed and can't trust anyone, so steal food all the time. Children who were adopted from the Romanian orphanages with all the deprivation that went beforehand.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

What Curiosity said. We were told that in our area there is one baby put up for adoption every 18 months, and a long list of people wanting to adopt that baby. We were told that if we were considering adoption, we had to assume we'd be adopting at least a 2 year old, with problems.

That didn't put us off, it was the long wait while two of my precious remaining fertile years slipped by, before even being considered as adoptive parents, that ruled it out for us.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Sorry for the double post but the story goes from bad to worse with the report that the father has a conviction for indecent assault of a child under the age of 13yrs.

web page
Wow. So we have a man with a criminal record, and it also turns out that commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand. How many laws have been broken by this trio now?

The poor children.

It is my understanding that commercial surrogacy has only been made illegal in Thailand as a result of this case, prior to that it was legal in Thailand but not in most of Australia (I'm not sure perhaps in Western Aust. it is legal but defn not in my state).

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you want a baby and can have one yourself, do it. If you're 'too busy' to go through a pregnancy motherhood is not for you.

If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

Surrogacy is grotesque.
In fairness Australia is the worst country in the world from which to attempt adoption. It seems the powers that be are just fundamentally opposed to adoption and they make it hellishly difficult, such that a number of countries from which babies might be adopted will no longer deal with Australia. Some couples have migrated to New Zealand in order to adopt a baby from overseas. If you are over the age of about 35 they prohibit adoption altogether and more than one couple have gone on the list at age 28 and because of all the crap they have to go through, they hit 35 still waiting and can't get a baby. It's not easy in Australia.

It's actually pretty difficult to adopt in New Zealand as well. There are not millions (or even thousands) of children here waiting for loving homes. Of course, as Evangeline has alluded to, couples from NZ and Australia may look to adopt children from other countries - a prominent politician here has three adopted Russian children, and one of my husband's colleagues also has three adopted Russian children. These children are mostly grown and as far as I know, the process isn't going on from NZ anymore either. Even if it were, and seeing as the word has been introduced to the discussion already - could it not be seen as vaguely grotesque for a couple from a wealthy country to utilise their plentiful resources to take a tiki-tour to an impoverished and downtrodden corner of the globe and select themselves a child or two? If you tilt your head the right way?

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Schroedinger's Cat:

quote:
Is there not something even deeper in this, the assumption that "we can have children, somehow" - that couples have a "right" to children?

I don't think we have enough information to assume we know why this particular couple went to such lengths to have a child, but speaking more generally it isn't that simple. There is still a lot of social pressure on heterosexual couples to have children (mainly from would-be grandparents IME): especially if you get married or buy a house together. Either or both of these are signals of serious commitment to a relationship; having a baby together is the next (assumed) step. As NEQ points out, your hormones are designed to push you towards having children too.

In that state you might be willing to adopt someone else's baby or toddler, but most of the children available for adoption in the UK nowadays (don't know about Australia) are older children who have probably been shunted around foster parents for several years before being given up for adoption. They will certainly have behavioural difficulties, maybe also physical or mental disabilities. Taking an older child with problems into your family in cold blood is not at all the same thing as having or adopting a baby, even if that baby goes on to develop problems in later life; by then it's yours (if you have any compassion in your heart at all) and you are willing to fight for it. Bonding with an older child is harder, which is why some adoptions fail and also why some infertile couples are prepared to go to such extraordinary lengths to have a baby of their own.

quote:

I am not dismissing the pain of childless couples, and I completely acknowledge that I cannot share that. As long as we can move past the idea of them being "cursed" or "evil", we are making some progress.

We may have moved away from the idea of them being cursed, but I can assure you that we haven't moved on from the idea that women who can't have children are somehow worth less than women who can. Or the idea that if a couple can't have children it is because the woman is infertile (medical science has moved on from this, but most people will make that assumption if they don't know otherwise). Or, in fact, the idea that every childless couple actually wants children.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat:

I am not dismissing the pain of childless couples, and I completely acknowledge that I cannot share that. As long as we can move past the idea of them being "cursed" or "evil", we are making some progress. We may have moved away from the idea of them being cursed, but I can assure you that we haven't moved on from the idea that women who can't have children are somehow worth less than women who can.

Indeed not. Here are a couple of examples that spring to mind:

Sarah Teather a poor families minister because she didn't 'produce' one.

Julia Gillard cannot have much love in her if she chose not to have children

[ 05. August 2014, 09:29: Message edited by: anoesis ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
just fyi: I don't really understand your correction to my post, then, since I had acknowledged both these possibilities in my post.
Your post quite clearly says "Is there some element of this story that is in dispute?" Yes - the quotes I posted show that there are inconsistencies between what the surrogate claims and what the parents claim.

Yes. But I had already said that in the post you were correcting, and in fact, was arguing that that particular dispute didn't really change the ethics of the bio parents' actions. When you argued the point I thought you were privvy to some other dispute that we didn't know about, but it turned out to the be the same dispute we were already talking about.

Moving on...

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you want a baby and can have one yourself, do it. If you're 'too busy' to go through a pregnancy motherhood is not for you.

If nature decides you can't make children then adopt - there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents.

Surrogacy is grotesque.

What a disgusting and ignorant comment.

'Just adopt' is said by those with no idea how hard adoption is. It is not possible or suitable for everyone. Yes, there are millions of children out there in need of loving homes and parents, but that is not the fault of infertile people or people deemed to be unsuitable for adoption.

Many, many women freely become surrogate parents and would not appreciate being called 'grotesque'. Surrogacy is a perfectly legitimate response to infertility and is not done out of 'laziness'. When properly regulated it works very well for all parties. Gay couples have been doing this for a long time, after all, but I don't see you calling them grotesque.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Surrogacy is grotesque.

I agree with you - not only because I think it's morally indefensible to pay for the use of a woman's body to bear a child she will have no relationship with in the future, but also because it is a privilege only available to rich people.

Poor infertile women have to adopt, foster, or just cope without children.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Surrogacy is grotesque.
I agree with you - not only because I think it's morally indefensible to pay for the use of a woman's body to bear a child she will have no relationship with in the future, but also because it is a privilege only available to rich people.

Poor infertile women have to adopt, foster, or just cope without children.

You are assuming that surrogates are paid. In that case they were, but I have known people who carried a child for their relatives, and I thought it a beautiful act of love, personally.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In that case they were, but I have known people who carried a child for their relatives, and I thought it a beautiful act of love, personally.

This is a good point. I do believe it's OK to surrogate out of altruism for someone with whom the surrogate has an existing relationship. In the same way I might donate an organ to a loved one.

But we don't buy and sell organs, because we understand it can lead to exploitation. A surrogate is essentially renting of an organ so in my view falls into the same problematic zone.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Surrogacy is grotesque.
I agree with you - not only because I think it's morally indefensible to pay for the use of a woman's body to bear a child she will have no relationship with in the future, but also because it is a privilege only available to rich people.

I am a little confused by this logic. Do you believe that if something is only available to rich people, then it is grotesque? So anything expensive, compared to what the majority of the world can afford, is grotesque? One's own car, one's own home, one's own laptop, laser surgery for one's eyes, etc?

I imagine it's poverty that drives many women to be surrogate mothers, in the same way that it draws people to sell their bodily organs. I find it sad, although not grotesque.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I suspect this 'grotesqueness' is the other way round. Many of us who grew up before this was possible or anyone had thought it might be, find the idea of surrogacy itself grotesque, against nature and at root, distasteful - not much better, if better at all, than the baby laboratories in Brave New World. Now it is possible, one may feel that the degree of grotesqueness and distaste is mitigated where there is a close personal relationship of love between the genetic mother and the person who is offering their womb, as between two blood sisters. But where it is a financial transaction or seems to be driven by exploitation of some sort, the distastefulness remains.

Younger people might try and persuade me that my distaste is irrational and old fashioned. To shut them up, I may even half say I accept that. But I think it's probably too late for me to change, and I'm not sure that I would be right to do so.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

But we don't buy and sell organs, because we understand it can lead to exploitation. A surrogate is essentially renting of an organ so in my view falls into the same problematic zone.

According to the Freakonomics guys, in Iran they do buy kidneys from healthy people and the result is that they have almost no waiting list for kidneys. In the US many people die while waiting for transplants.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

NEQ, interestingly around here adoption is easier if you already have kids of your own. If you're infertile/unable to carry to term it's a harder road to get accepted. Plus of course you have to abandon any attempts to conceive your own child during and through the adoption process.

None of which is unreasonable in context, but it's a factor people often aren't aware of (ditto the mentioned fact that most children up for adoption are older and from harrowing backgrounds, which isn't a reason not to, arguably the opposite, but is,a bigger burden to bear - fucking your own kids up is fine, handling pre-fucked up ones is harder, especially with all the legal frameworks on access, disclosure etc)

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suspect this 'grotesqueness' is the other way round. Many of us who grew up before this was possible or anyone had thought it might be, find the idea of surrogacy itself grotesque...

Genesis 16:1-2

Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

But we don't buy and sell organs, because we understand it can lead to exploitation. A surrogate is essentially renting of an organ so in my view falls into the same problematic zone.
According to the Freakonomics guys, in Iran they do buy kidneys from healthy people and the result is that they have almost no waiting list for kidneys. In the US many people die while waiting for transplants.

There was a rather horrific documentary about this a few years ago. Officially it is all highly regulated but in practice the market rules. The opening scene was of one of the administrators taking a telephone call. "You want to buy a kidney and you want to know the price? Are you sure? Oh, I see. You want to *sell* a kidney..."

Because of course the "buy" price would be higher than the "sell" price.

There is a transcript available here.

I would not say that it is an ideal system.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

Because of course the "buy" price would be higher than the "sell" price.

I can quite imagine that such a system has its problems, and could even be, as you say, horrific. But I'm not sure what's horrific about the 'buy' price being higher than the 'sell' price, per se. Agents, everywhere, in all industries, take a cut. That's how they make their living. And kidney transplants are not really an area where individuals can deal direct with each other and cut out the middleman, are they? In addition, it seems possible to me that the one 'buying' the kidney is paying for the surgery expenses for both parties, which would kind of add to the cost...

What bothers me about such a system (and I would not like to see anything of the kind set up in my country, I assure you), is less the idea that someone in difficult financial straits might resort to selling a kidney, which of course they would not do if the option were not available, but the idea that a poor person with kidney failure, under such a system, has no chance whatever of getting hold of a functioning kidney - why would you donate if you can sell, after all?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
In that case they were, but I have known people who carried a child for their relatives, and I thought it a beautiful act of love, personally.
This is a good point. I do believe it's OK to surrogate out of altruism for someone with whom the surrogate has an existing relationship. In the same way I might donate an organ to a loved one.

But we don't buy and sell organs, because we understand it can lead to exploitation. A surrogate is essentially renting of an organ so in my view falls into the same problematic zone.

IIRC, surrogacy for money is illegal in the UK. Only medical costs are paid for, if necessary, but is otherwise not done for money.

Altruism doesn't just apply to people one personally knows, in the same way that I am happy to donate my organs to save the life of anyone and not just people I know.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.

I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.
I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.

That's correct. I realise it didn't work out excellently for Hagar or Ishmael, and wasn't using this example as a recommendation. Part of the problem with this example is the power differential - was Hagar even offered a choice here? And if so, what sort of choice was it? The same sort of thing obtains with surrogacy arrangements between wealthy individuals in countries like Australia and poor women in countries like Thailand. However, I submit that it's the power differential which makes these things grotesque, not the (apparent) newness of the practice or the practice itself.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.
I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.

Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.

Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.

Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.

But is it that the aspect of the process that is making some people so uncomfortable? When married couples use artificial insemination to conceive to deal with infertility, is it still "grotesque"?

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

This made their taking the girl and leaving the boys even creepier.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Very much so and from the link above, and as has been reported elsewhere

quote:
After having denied knowing that Gammy even existed, Mr Farnell and his wife now appear to have changed their story.

A family friend has told their local newspaper, the Bunbury Mail, that the parents knew of Gammy and his congenital heart condition, but left him behind in Thailand because doctors said he would not survive.

I understand a statement to similar effect was made through a lawyer on behalf of the couple. This case gets more and more sordid and sinister all the time.

Perhaps in the most bizzare way, this is a situation of all things working for good, twins conceived, disabled one left behind, publicity means Gammy gets financially looked after by donors and perhaps his sister will be protected too. I'd like to think so.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.
I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.
Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.

Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.

surrogate
ˈsʌrəgət/

noun: surrogate; plural noun: surrogates

a substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office.

Latin surrogatus, past participle of surrogare to choose in place of another, substitute, from sub- + rogare to ask

In this, the standard meaning of the word, Hagar most certainly was a surrogate. She was deputising for Sarai.

Also, it is not exactly unheard of for modern surrogacies, achieved without any icky sex taking place between the parties to the agreement, to utilise artificial insemination rather than embyro implantation - meaning that the 'substitute' is in exactly the same space, biologically speaking, as Hagar.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.
I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.
Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.

Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.

Maybe a geographical difference here, but surrogacy is not limited to using a couple's fertilised egg in a third party uterus - what Hagar and Abram did was surrogacy. Probably the less common way for different-gender couples now, but is still used for gay male couples all the time and is still always called surrogacy.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I suppose it is possible to expand or narrow a definition. Surrogacy does have a broad meaning I agree but at least in certain contexts, including the case being discussed here, surrogacy refers to the implantation of an embryo into a third woman. Perhaps reproductive technology has moved along more quickly than our language has developed simple words to describe and differntiate.

It is this specific version of surrogacy that I believe Enoch was referring to when he said he found it grotesque and that it was only recently available. Now you might disagree with his conclusions but the facts that it's only recently available is true.

I guess I find the idea of impregnating a slave girl who was in no position to say "no" grotesque, but that was par for the course in those days as were a great many other grotesque practices, such as human sacrifice.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

This story just gets worse and worse.

Sydney Morning Herald

Unfortunately I can't find the link now but there was another story with a source at the surrogacy agency, who said that the doctors told them the boy only had days to live, and that the surrogate volunteered to keep him for what they all thought would be a very short life.

So in sum:
- a convicted pedophile would never be approved for adoption so pursued international surrogacy
- an unregulated surrogacy industry in Thailand means no background checks were done on the prospective parents
- misdiagnosis by doctors about the child's health outcomes
- an apparent agreement to leave behind a child that should never have been allowed to be made in the first place - how can you "agree" to this?

I would support any legal measures that would prevent citizens of wealthy countries from engaging in these practices period. This case highlights what happens when we are trading babies and women's bodies in poor countries - and how wealthy couples can exploit the system to get around the laws in their home countries. It's sickening.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Evangeline, thank you. I agree.

Perhaps I'd better explain something else. IMHO, if your immediate reaction to something or someone is unease, distaste, it or them is a bit creepy, you must not rely on that. Feelings can mislead. They can even be wrong. But likewise, you shouldn't ignore it. Your feelings might be telling you something.

Sometimes, you find that your immediate reaction was irrational or unjustified, i.e. wrong. A person one has taken against just has the misfortune of looking a bit like a teacher you did not like at school. But if after looking into something, you still feel it or they aren't quite right, even if there might be fully rational reasons that other people find persuasive but you don't, IMHO you should stick with your original view. That's basically still how I feel about surrogacy.

On the other forms of 'surrogacy' that we aren't talking about here, as Evangeline has said, the story of Abraham and Hagar is grotesque. It doesn't contain anything that would commend the practice. Most, or all, of such forms would historically have involved adultery, and these days involve people doing distasteful things with pipettes.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Evangeline, thank you. I agree.

Perhaps I'd better explain something else. IMHO, if your immediate reaction to something or someone is unease, distaste, it or them is a bit creepy, you must not rely on that. Feelings can mislead. They can even be wrong. But likewise, you shouldn't ignore it. Your feelings might be telling you something.

Sometimes, you find that your immediate reaction was irrational or unjustified, i.e. wrong. A person one has taken against just has the misfortune of looking a bit like a teacher you did not like at school. But if after looking into something, you still feel it or they aren't quite right, even if there might be fully rational reasons that other people find persuasive but you don't, IMHO you should stick with your original view. That's basically still how I feel about surrogacy.

On the other forms of 'surrogacy' that we aren't talking about here, as Evangeline has said, the story of Abraham and Hagar is grotesque. It doesn't contain anything that would commend the practice. Most, or all, of such forms would historically have involved adultery, and these days involve people doing distasteful things with pipettes.

But why do you feel this way? Do you feel the same about IVF? It's just another way of bringing hope and joy to infertile and gay couples. It has its risks and downsides but so does adoption - and adoption for money happens too.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I suppose it is possible to expand or narrow a definition. Surrogacy does have a broad meaning I agree but at least in certain contexts, including the case being discussed here, surrogacy refers to the implantation of an embryo into a third woman. Perhaps reproductive technology has moved along more quickly than our language has developed simple words to describe and differntiate.

It is this specific version of surrogacy that I believe Enoch was referring to when he said he found it grotesque and that it was only recently available. Now you might disagree with his conclusions but the facts that it's only recently available is true.

I guess I find the idea of impregnating a slave girl who was in no position to say "no" grotesque, but that was par for the course in those days as were a great many other grotesque practices, such as human sacrifice.

Second woman, not third woman, surely? [Confused]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

LOL confused ordinals, a third person as in not part of the couple but yeah I guess it's the second woman although that has different connotations again.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This story just gets worse and worse.

Sydney Morning Herald

Unfortunately I can't find the link now but there was another story with a source at the surrogacy agency, who said that the doctors told them the boy only had days to live, and that the surrogate volunteered to keep him for what they all thought would be a very short life.

So in sum:
- a convicted pedophile would never be approved for adoption so pursued international surrogacy
- an unregulated surrogacy industry in Thailand means no background checks were done on the prospective parents
- misdiagnosis by doctors about the child's health outcomes
- an apparent agreement to leave behind a child that should never have been allowed to be made in the first place - how can you "agree" to this?

I would support any legal measures that would prevent citizens of wealthy countries from engaging in these practices period. This case highlights what happens when we are trading babies and women's bodies in poor countries - and how wealthy couples can exploit the system to get around the laws in their home countries. It's sickening.

I agree if you mean international surrogacy. Well-regulated, altruistic surrogacy (like in the UK) is a good thing IMO but I do agree that this situation is appalling and should never have been allowed.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Seekingsister--It gets worse still: the wife of the convicted paedophile turns out to be a recent mail-order bride from an agency in China.

This whole scenario is a parade of red flags to those familiar with the modus operandi of child sexual offenders. I hope that the girl twin gets taken into care pronto.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Seekingsister--It gets worse still: the wife of the convicted paedophile turns out to be a recent mail-order bride from an agency in China.

This whole scenario is a parade of red flags to those familiar with the modus operandi of child sexual offenders. I hope that the girl twin gets taken into care pronto.

Gosh yes, the internet has dug this up now:
Farnell/Li Match Profile

The reports say he was convicted and jailed in the 1990s.

[deleted potentially libelous material]

[ 06. August 2014, 14:34: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IIRC, surrogacy for money is illegal in the UK. Only medical costs are paid for, if necessary, but is otherwise not done for money.

IIRC, there are ways of getting round that; one being that the surrogate mother keeps a diary of her pregnancy, for which she is paid several £1,000. (Admittedly this is based on something I read several years ago, so might no longer be true.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Admin Note

Please avoid speculation about potential illegal activities on the part of Mr Farnell (or, anyone else for that matter), or his motives. There's enough that can be discussed without attracting the attention of lawyers.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

Like all the other ethical hot potatoes, it seems to me that the problems escalate when money changes hands and we then have an ethical/ moral nightmare like this one.
No-one cares about integrity, possible abuse, exploitation when large amounts of money seem possible- any agency needs to run regular integrity checks on itself if it really wants to try to aspire to some level of decency.The same probably applies to most of us as individuals.
Also, the temptation for those trapped in poverty to generate some income leads them into the web of financial exploitation at the hands of others' greed.
I honestly think that he only way to keep things from becoming dodgy as regards surrogacy is if it is, as has been said above, undertaken as an act of love. And I don't think everyone could do it unscathed either.
I knew a woman who having had two children of her own then carried the triplets of her best friend who had lost her womb to cancer. What an act of love!
The case under discussion here beggars belief as each new blow to good practice and common decency appears to be uncovered.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Whilst we could discuss the finely nuanced ethical dilemmas of surrogacy in general, I stand by the position in my first post that there is no moral quagmire here, just blatant immorality that now looks evil. I think you're all doing a disservice to surrogacy in general to make this case of evil the defining point of surrogacy. It's a bit like criticising all marriages because there is domestic violence in some.

This Canberra Times article contains the very telling final line, that RSPCA officers visited the Farnell home

quote:
on Wednesday and removed the family dog, who had been left barking from a side gate for three days.

Sadly, child protection officers also visited the home but the door wasn't answered and so far they have been unable to located the Farnells, so the dog is saved but the child not. [Frown]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0