Third day of Navratri

Devotees at SurrogacyIndia are wearing grey on the tritiya of Navratri to worship Goddess of peace Devi #Chandraghanta. — at SurrogacyIndia.

The second day of Navratri

The second day of Navratri and Devotees at SurrogacyIndia worshiping goddess Bharmacharini by wearing an outfit in Green color. — atSurrogacy India.

Surrogacy booms in India; gov’t plans regulation

The Indian government is planning to introduce a bill that will address assisted reproduction methods such as surrogacy and in-vitro fertilization and provide a legal framework to regulate surrogacy in the country.

Activists say that surrogacy has become an unfettered multi-million dollar industry in India due to the absence of regulation.

It is estimated that every year, thousands of childless couples from around the world visit infertility clinics in the country and have agents arrange surrogate mothers to bear them children.
Unfortunately, the rights of the surrogate mothers, who are often poor and illiterate, are often violated.

Going through multiple pregnancies negatively affects the health of the surrogates, and the surrogates are often not paid the agreed-upon amount due to the absence of written contracts in many cases.
Nevertheless, many women become surrogates in order to escape poverty, and some are even coerced into surrogacy by their husbands in order to make some quick cash.

The new law will specify the number of pregnancies allowed for a surrogate, the minimum age to become a surrogate and the minimum compensation that a surrogate must receive.

It will also provide a framework for allowing foreigners to request Indian women as surrogates.

Sources: http://www.pangeatoday.com/surrogacy-booms-in-india-govt-plans-regulation/

Policy Recommendations To Regulate Commercial Surrogacy in India

In anticipation of the ART bill introduction in the coming winter session of parliament, the conference “A Policy Dialogue on Issues around Surrogacy in India” has been successfully held on the 22^nd and 23^rd September 2014 at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi.

The national conference, organized by the CSR in collaboration with Heinrich Böll Stiftung, gathered together representatives of all fields involved in the practice of surrogacy, including the medical sector (doctors and fertility clinic representatives: Dr. R. Bakshi from International Fertility Centre, Dr. N.H Patel from Akanksha Infertility Clinic, Dr. Bavishi, president of INSTAR, Dr. Sonia Malik, President IFS, and Dr. R.S. Sharma, Director of ICMR), the legal sector (national and international lawyers, as well as delegates of the Supreme Court of India), and members of the Government (Mr. P. Sudan, Ministry of Women & Child Development, Dr. V.M. Katoch, and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare). Representatives of the civil society, NGOs, researchers and human rights activists also attended.



All parties have come together to address various ethical, medical, commercial and legal issues involving surrogacy, and debating upon the regulation that are still required for commercial surrogacy in India. Participants have had equal opportunity to share their opinion and expressing their view, which ultimately allowed them to bring forward recommendations for a future governmental policy regulation.



The members involved agreed these policy recommendations should be practical in nature. They can be clustered in seven main spheres and are the following*:
Surrogate Mother

• Surrogate remuneration should be standardised.
• Provision of post-natal care for the surrogate mother should be mandatory.
• Trafficking of women for surrogacy, its offence and punishment must be regulated.

Surrogate Child

• Specific provisions ensuring protection of the foetus/child in case of abnormalities must be included.
• The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, which forbids sex selection, must be enforced.
• Surrogate child should have granted dual citizenship.

Intended Parent/s

• Intended Parent/s shall be legally bound to accept the custody of the child irrespective of any abnormality that the child may have, and the refusal to do so should constitute a criminal offence.
• Foreigners should be allowed to opt for surrogacy in India, but the country of origin of the intended parents must allow surrogacy.
• The law should not exclude LGBT, single parents and unmarried couples.

Doctors and Clinics

• Ensure clinics respect the legal limits applied for a woman acting as a surrogate in her lifetime, as well as those regarding hyper-stimulation and egg donation.
• Guarantee complete transparency between the doctor and the surrogate mother with respect to any medical practice applied.
• Strengthen doctors’ criminal responsibility.

Agents

• Regulate the role and responsibilities of agents.

Contract

• It should allow women flexibility to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies and ensure limited control from doctors.
• It should also be in the vernacular language, and a copy of it has to be given to the surrogate mother.
• All stakeholders should sign the contract, including the agent.

Other legalities

• Counseling of all the parts involved in respect of medical, financial, legal, cultural and social aspects.
• Creation of a nodal agency to act as depository of all documents and acts as grievance redress cell.
• A central database or registration of surrogates for real information such as their permanent address, number of children, etc. should be maintained.

Your input is of crucial importance as it will help shaping the future law regulating surrogacy in India. We would be delighted to add any further recommendation, so please do not hesitate to email us at amikumar@csrindia.org.

Sources: http://csrindia.org/blog/2014/09/24/commercial-surrogacy-in-india/

Conference: A Policy Dialogue About Surrogacy In India

Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2010 continues to remain in incipient stages. The present guidelines are not binding and unable to fully regulate surrogacy in India. As a consequence, the parties involved have been so far left unprotected.

This multi-billion dollars industry requires urgent regulations in order to make surrogacy a safe, fair and coherent practice. To help overcoming the lack of legal protection, the CSR has organised a National Conference with associates and stakeholders experienced in the field of reproductive rights and women’s health issues, with the aim of drafting recommendations for a legal policy which can then be circulated amongst key stakeholders of the Medical, Legal and Political sphere. This is a unique opportunity for policy makers to explore the unregulated sides of surrogacy and to better foresee an action plan for future legislations.

Several points of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2010 require further investigation. Here’s a non comprehensive analysis of rights and duties that will be discussed during the conference:

• Both the couple or individual seeking surrogacy through the use of assisted reproductive technology, and the surrogate mother, shall enter into a surrogacy agreement which shall be legally enforceable. The contract however doesn’t have any legal value, and it’s often signed between the surrogate mother and the intended parents only (Only 3.3% of the concerned persons in the clinic in Anand and 5.6% in Surat said that they have been a part of such contract). Furthermore, surrogate mothers cannot negotiate any part of it. The exploratory study on surrogacy conducted by the CSR* shows that surrogate mothers also tend to sign the contract after they get pregnant (in their 3rd or 4th month of pregnancy). The study also shows the majority of the surrogate mothers are illiterate (51.7% in Anand and 8.6% in Surat) or have primary education (31.7% in Anand, 54.3% in Surat and 60% in Jamnagar) which shed doubt on the proper understanding of the contract. The surrogacy arrangement contract rarely addresses issues related primarily to the well being and health of the surrogate mother.
• All expenses shall be borne by the couple or individual seeking surrogacy. The CSR study however highlights that the surrogate mother has to leave the shelter home immediately after she hands over the baby. Any further clinical consultation has to be carried out on her own expenses.
• The surrogate mother may also receive monetary compensation from the couple or individual to act as such surrogate. The research shows that the surrogate mother doesn’t have the power of contracting the value of the compensation or any other part of it, and only 1-1.5% of the total compensation goes to the surrogate mother.
• A surrogate mother shall relinquish all parental rights over the child. An overlap has been identified between parental rights and individual rights: it’s worth mentioning that surrogate mothers lose any power over their body during pregnancy. The surrogate may be forced to terminate the pregnancy if desired by the contracting couple and she will not be able to terminate it if it is against the desire of the couple. Also, in most cases the decision to relinquish the baby after birth is jointly taken by the commissioning parents and the clinic, whereas the situational analysis study shows that surrogate mothers do not seem to have any right to interfere in the decision-making process.
• The birth certificate issued in respect of a baby born through surrogacy shall bear the name(s) of individual/individuals who commissioned the surrogacy, as parents. Problems about parenthood, citizenship and birth certificate have been identified in real life cases and some questions are left unanswered: will the child born to an Indian surrogate mother be a citizen of this country and why? Who arranges the birth certificate and passport required by the foreign couple at the time of immigration? Whose name will appear on the birth certificate?

These are few of the points included in the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 2010 that will be addressed at the conference. The CSR study on surrogacy also allowed to bring forward recommendations for policy makers which will be further discussed on the day:

• The surrogacy agreement should involve the three parties (surrogate mother, clinic, and intentional parents) and should consider the rights of the surrogate mother and the baby, as well as the responsibility of the clinic.
• Adoption of a surrogate child should be clearly defined and regulated by law, and there should be a substantial regulation designed to protect the interests of the child legal recognition of termination and transfer of parenting rights.
• The rights of the child should be protected in case s/he is not taken by the commissioning parents.
• The surrogate mother should be provided with the copy of the contract as she is a party in the agreement and her interests should be taken into account.
• There should be an interpreter (other than doctor) for the communication linkage between the surrogate and intended parents in order to convey the message from surrogate mother.
• In case surrogate mother gives birth to twins she should be paid double amount or at least 75% of the price for the second child.
• It is recommended that there should be a provision of intensive care and medical check-ups of their reproductive organs during the 3 months after pregnancy.
• Health Insurance for both the surrogate mother and the child is essential to ensure a healthy life.
• The government needs to monitor the surrogacy clinics, which generally charge arbitrary prices for surrogacy arrangements.

Dr Kumari, CSR director asks: Why should poor women be exploited and their vulnerability used for the pleasure of having one’s child by not exploring the option of adoption? If surrogacy has to continue as medical practice, I would opt for altruistic and non commercial surrogacy.

To explore these issues and many more, we invite you to participate to the National Conference on 22nd and 23rd September 2014, 10.00-16.30 at the Gulmohar Hall, India Habitat Centre in New Delhi. The final aim is to publish and circulate a qualitative report on the conference proceedings and policy recommendations suggested by all the key stakeholders.

Join us in the debate! The conference is free and open to all individuals.
For further info, email: manasi@csrindia.org

Download the Complete Delhi & Mumbai , Surat-Gujarat Report of Surrogacy Motherhood: Ethical or Commercial?

 Sources : http://csrindia.org/blog/2014/09/18/surrogacy-in-india/

Australian surrogate mothers discuss volunteering to carry another's baby

What does it take to have a baby for somebody else and then give it away? DAWN BARKER meets three Australian women who decided to become altruistic surrogates.

The saga of Gammy, the baby with Down syndrome left behind with his surrogate mother in Thailand, has highlighted the psychological and ethical complexities of the booming overseas commercial surrogacy industry. Commercial surrogacy within Australia is illegal, and NSW, the ACT and Queensland make it an offence to hire a surrogate overseas. Far fewer intended parents choose the legal option of using an uncompensated, or altruistic, surrogate: the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says that only 16 children were born this way here in 2010.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies recently published a study by Sam Everingham that surveyed 217 parents who either had, or planned to have, children through surrogacy. Almost half did not even consider uncompensated surrogacy, their main concern being that the surrogate might not give up the child (the birth mother is considered the legal mother in Australia, regardless of the baby's genetics).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/australian-surrogate-mothers-discuss-volunteering-to-carry-anothers-baby-20140911-10a931.html#ixzz3DSAc6x4V

SI will be closed on 13th September, 2014

SI is not working tomorrow i.e. 13th September, 2014, hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

SI is working Half day on 8th September, 2014

SI is working Half day today i.e. 8th September, 2014 on occasion of Ganesh Visarjan (Immersion) hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Swiss Gay Fathers Granted Parental Recognition in Landmark Surrogacy Ruling

While surrogacy remains illegal in Switzerland, two gay fathers fought — and won — precedent-setting parental rights by crossing their homeland's borders.

Argentine newborn Tobias Grinblat Dermgerd rests in his pram between his two fathers Alejandro Grinblat (L) and Gustavo Dermgerd, in front of the Registry Office in Buenos Aires. 

 

In a first, a Swiss gay couple have been recognized as the legal parents of a child conceived via an American surrogate mother,  despite surrogacy being illegal in Switzerland, reports the U.K.'s Pink News.

The two St. Gallen-based fathers, whose partnership is legally registered in their home country, chose to have their child through the artificial insemination of a donor egg by one partner's sperm. Both were listed as fathers on the U.S. birth certificate, after their California-based surrogate mother delivered the newborn and abdicated parental rights.

But when Swiss law still considered the surrogate mother and her husband the legal parents of the child, the two gay fathers petitioned the Swiss national registry for parental recognition, supported by their own local registry.

The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) appealed the couple's petition, forcing the case to be decided by St. Gallen's administrative court earlier this month.

Last week, the court finally announced their decision to recognize the child's California birth certificate. However, according to Gay Star News, a note about the child's genetic surrogate parentage will remain on the record, in a partial acknowledgement of FOJ's complaint.

The justice department can still appeal the decision to Switzerland's supreme court, but has not yet announced any intention to do so.

http://www.advocate.com/parenting/2014/08/30/swiss-gay-fathers-granted-parental-recognition-landmark-surrogacy-ruling

SI will be closed tomorrow.

SI is closed tomorrow i.e. 29th August, 2014 on occasion of Ganesh Chaturthi hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

 However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Baby Gammy case: Thailand's ruling military considers draft law banning commercial surrogacy

 

Photo: The case of baby Gammy has led to a rethink of commercial surrogacy laws in Thailand. (Reuters: Damir Sagolj)

Thailand's ruling military is considering draft laws to ban commercial surrogacy, creating uncertainty for Australians who already have pregnant surrogates in the country.

The changes come in the wake of controversy surrounding a West Australian couple accused by their Thai surrogate of abandoning their newborn son - known as baby Gammy, who has Down syndrome - and only taking home his healthy twin sister.

It was later revealed father David Farnell has 22 child sex convictions, including unlawful and indecent dealing with girls as young as seven when he was in his 20s, but he says the girl is "100 per cent safe" in his care.

Thailand's newly formed national assembly, which is heavily dominated by members of the military, has now been handed the draft laws. 

When approved, they will mean surrogacy can only take place when a married couple and a relative are involved. 

The laws may also include a provision for a baby to remain with the surrogate for between three and six months for breastfeeding.

The surrogate will also be considered as the child's legal mother.

The ruling army general does not want Thailand to be a surrogacy hub and is expected to move quickly to outlaw the practice, essentially ending a lucrative foreign market.

It remains unclear what the laws will mean for Australians who already have pregnant surrogates in Thailand.

Impoverished Thai mother Pattaramon Chanbua, 21, told the ABC earlier this month she gave birth to twins after agreeing to be a surrogate for Mr Farnell and his wife Wendy, with a promised payment of about $16,000.

She claims the couple rejected Gammy and returned to Australia with his healthy sister. The pair deny abandoning the boy.

Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said she was in contact with authorities in Thailand about the issue.

Thai authorities said Ms Chanbua would not be charged with any offence.

However, the doctor and clinic owner involved in the surrogacy case would be prosecuted - they could face up to three years in jail.

Since the case of baby Gammy came to light, a number of fertility clinics have been raided and shut down.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/thai-military-considers-draft-law-banning-commercial-surrogacy/5668846

SI is closed on 09th August, 2014

SI will not be working tomorrow (i.e.09th August, 2014) hence there could be delay in reply to the emails. 

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.

Draft law on surrogacy ready to be submitted for NLA review

THE USE of a surrogate mother remains a grey area for Thailand but there is hope that draft legislation now ready for review by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will finally bring clarity - and protect children born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Because there is no law in relation to surrogacy, people seeking to use a surrogate mother to have a child won't always be able to do this, whether they pay money or not, Thai lawyer Sithichok Sricharoen said.

However, with no legal punishment for using surrogates at present, this meant a special law needed to be passed to make it illegal, he said.

Using a surrogate mother was not human trafficking, because it was about giving birth, Sithichok said. The civil code said a child born to a woman is that woman's legal child; surrogacy was not possible in the current legal perspective.

There are two types of surrogacy: "full surrogacy", which requires an embryo from the spouse's egg and sperm to be implanted to the surrogate mother's womb, and "partial surrogacy", which required the father's sperm and the surrogate mother's egg.

The Social Development and Human Security Ministry has put forward the draft bill, which has been reviewed by legal experts on the Council of State and is pending deliberation by the NLA. Key facets of the draft bill include:

1. The couple wishing to have a child through a surrogate mother must be legally wed.

2. The surrogate mother must be a relative to one of the spouse, but must not be the spouse's parents or child.

3. The surrogate mother must have at least one child before and, if she has a husband, she must get his consent first.

If these components are not met, the applicant must ask for permission from a government-endorsed committee to control the use of ART on a case-by-case basis and the committee's order is final.

4. It is prohibited for anyone to act as a middleman to collect payment or benefits as in a commercial activity or to reap benefits from arranging or encouraging surrogacy. It is also prohibited for a medical professional to carry out the ART procedure for a woman's pregnancy, with knowledge of or with reasons to believe that the woman is a surrogate mother for commercial gain.

5. When a child is born from artificial insemination or ART via donors' egg and sperm, the woman who gave birth shall be the child's legal mother and the woman's husband who consented to the pregnancy shall be the child's legal father. The donors whose egg and sperm were used shall have no right over the child.

6. In a case of a child born via surrogacy, using sperm and egg from a couple who want a surrogate, or others, the couple shall be the child's legal parents but they must allow the surrogate mother to breastfeed the child for at least three months. In cases in which the child is raised in a difficult situation, as per the Child Protection Act, the surrogate mother can sue or demand custody of a child, and a court can base judgement what appears best for the child's happiness and benefit.

There has been much debate in recent years over this sensitive issue. Those who support surrogacy claim the state should not intervene if people's actions don't harm others, saying that surrogacy would mutually benefit the couple and the surrogate mother and prevent child abduction or child trafficking.

Those opposed to surrogacy have said it is immoral and against human nature and would lead to exploitation, such as surrogacy for hire, as well as affecting the child and society. They also raised the question of what to do if a child is born prematurely or disabled, or if the couple changes their mind, and what if the couple only wants one child but the surrogate mother gives birth to twins or triplets.

Sources: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Draft-law-on-surrogacy-ready-to-be-submitted-for-N-30240331.html

Supreme Court to decide plea regarding restrictions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy after 20 weeks

Hon’ble Supreme Court has agreed to examine the constitutional validity of the law that bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless there’s an immediate threat to the would-be mother’s life. The Supreme Court on 5-8-2014 has decided to hear arguments on a plea seeking to extend the 20-week legal limit for abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, allows abortions only till the 20th week of pregnancy for reasons such as severe foetal abnormalities or a grave risk to the pregnant woman’s health.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi posted the matter challenging the legal provision. Medical experts and women’s activists have for years been recommending that abortions be allowed beyond 20 weeks in case of a risk to the pregnant woman’s mental or physical health — even if it is not life-threatening — or severe foetal abnormalities. This is in line with the law in most countries where abortions are legal.

Senior advocate, appearing for petitioners Mrs X and Mrs Y (who suffered due to such provision), argued that the existing 20-week limit under the MTP Act violated women’s rights to bodily integrity as even in the case of severe foetal abnormalities, it forced women to carry pregnancies. He argued that with the advancement in technology, the restriction did not hold good as the abnormalities in the foetus could be detected earlier.

Three people have approached the Supreme Court, seeking an extension of the limit on abortion from 20 to 28 weeks. Patient Mrs. Niketa Mehta in year 2008 approached Hon’ble Bombay High Court for allowing her to undergo abortion after a cardiac defect was detected in the foetus in the 24th week of gestation. However, at that time her petition was rejected by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court stating that provisions allowing MTP up to 20 weeks are constitutional, valid and legal.

 

However, in present petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is argued that, the legislation was made on the basis of a study carried out in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act also came into force in 1971. Now, with advanced technology, there is no harm in women going for abortion at any stage. Even a committee of experts has suggested that extension will cause no mental or physical harm.

The National Commission for Women, the Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of India (FOGSI), the international community and women's groups agree that the 20-week limit imposed by the MTP Act is irrational, outdated and unconstitutional. Out of the 26 million births that occur in India every year, approximately 2-3 per cent foetuses have a severe congenital or chromosomal abnormality, the petition said.

Most countries, which have legalised abortion, allow termination after 20 weeks in case of severe foetal abnormalities or to protect the mental or physical health of a pregnant woman.

However, it is pertinent to note that the period between 16 and 20 weeks is the ideal time to check for anomalies in foetuses through Sonography. Doctors generally ask a patient to undergo tests around the 18th week to find abnormalities.

It is true that some anomalies are picked only at a later stage of pregnancy but don't know whether raising MTP to the 28th week will be a good decision.

http://surrogacyindia.com/updateevent.php?cat_id=5&id=86

Children born through surrogates stranded

SOME 50 children born through Thai surrogates for Israeli couples have remained in Thailand since late last year due to an issue over their travel documents.

Thathree Chaowachata, chief of the Foreign Ministry's Department of Consular Affairs' Legalisation and Naturalisation Division, said these cases included homosexual couples.

Speaking at a Bangkok seminar, Thathree said the parents had applied for the children to leave the country using Israeli travel documents.

However, after consultation with police, he said it was to be determined if using a Thai as a surrogate who was not a blood relative fell within the frame of human trafficking.

Natthajak Patamasingh na Ayudhya, the Office of the Attorney-General's International Affairs Department executive, said interpreting the law in this case would take a long time, so the ruling junta should urgently consider the matter.

He said the Social Development and Human Security Ministry's draft legislation for the protection of children born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) was currently being considered by the Council of State.

The bill would require ART procedures to be completed by a certified doctor, not be advertised commercially and the child must be guaranteed a good future.

Natthajak said that without this bill, people would use legal loopholes to benefit from the surrogacy business, which would lead to more social problems.

The Medical Council of Thailand will meet in mid-August to review its regulation for ART service standards in a bid to prevent abuses such as illegal surrogacy or embryo sex selection.

Council president Dr Somsak Lohlekha said the body would amend the law so it is clearer in the banning of ART for homosexuals and single women, and the banning of egg-donation advertisements.

Somsak said under the law only a spouse's blood relative, who has at least one child, can be a donor. 

 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Children-born-through-surrogates-stranded-30239973.html

 

Obama Signs Historic LGBT Non-Discrimination Order

 

On Monday morning, President Obama signed an executive LGBT non-discrimination order, barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity among federal contractors. The order also protects all federal employees from discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Crucially, Obama did not include the broad religious exemption that some faith leaders had begged the White House for. (These requested exemptions would have allowed religiously affiliated corporations to fire gay and trans workers with impunity.) The executive order does, however, preserve a Bush-era exemption that allows religiously affiliated contractors to continue to preference workers of a certain religion.

The president’s action on job discrimination is probably his biggest single gay rights accomplishment since signing the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” As the gay marriage battle draws to a close, Obama repeatedly targeted LGBT job discrimination as the next frontier of gay rights, urging Congress to outlaw it through federal legislation. But the Republican-controlled House has refused to countenace any sort of LGBT non-discrimination law, even after a bipartisan coalition pushed a weak bill through the Senate. That bill recently lost support from gay rights groups in the wake of Hobby Lobby thanks to its broad religious exemptions, officially flat-lining the effort for the foreseeable future.

Obama’s executive order won’t help nearly as many workers as federal legislation would, though it’s estimated that his ordinance will protect an impressive 20 percent of the American labor force. His order is also a moral victory for the LGBTQ movement, which fretted that Hobby Lobby would lead to a new era of discrimination under the guise of religious liberty. Although the debate over religious exemptions remains fierce and unsettled, Obama’s refusal to hand religiously affiliated companies a special license to discriminate suggests his administration has not bought into the notion that legalizing bigotry is necessary to preserve religious freedom. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/07/21/obama_signs_history_executive_enda_forbidding_lgbt_discrimination.html

Clinic to bulk-bill for IVF parents

Ally, 3, Mark, Lincoln, 7 weeks, and Jane Brown at home in Blacktown.

 

IVF patients are set to save thousands with a new cut-price clinic offering to bulk-bill almost all services. 

Primary Health Care, Australia’s largest medical centre provider, has chosen Sydney to open its first bulk-billing IVF clinic, which will slash the average out-of-pocket expenses for patients to about $500 compared with the average gap of $4000 in private clinics.

The IVF clinic, which opens today at Town Hall in Sydney’s CBD, has already had 300 inquiries.

University of NSW figures show there were more than 61,000 IVF cycles in Australia in 2011. The average cost for treatment is about $8000 with between $3000 and $4000 covered by Medicare.

Primary Health Care chief executive Dr Edmund Bateman said with 60 medical clinics and 150 diagnostic practices nationwide, it was big enough to offer bulk-billed IVF treatment and absorb any additional costs instead of passing it on to patients.

“If the medical procedure has an item number (with Medicare) we will bulk-bill it and you will pay nothing for it,” Dr Bateman said.

Patients would still be charged for services not covered by Medicare such as the freezing of embryos and day surgery, which are expected to cost no more than $500.

Blacktown mum Jane Brown, 37, who used IVF treatment to conceive her two children, Ally, 3 and Lincoln, seven weeks, said bulk-billed fertility treatments would be amazing for “average families,” like hers.

Ms Brown and her husband Mark paid about $5000 each for six IVF cycles over eight years to conceive their two children. “We are still paying for it now but in the long run it is worth it of course,” Ms Brown said.

“There are a lot of average families out there who would not be able to afford it because it is too expensive.”

Infertility support group Access Australia chief executive Dr Sandra Dill was cautiously optimistic of the bulk-billing clinic. “If it is true there would be greater equity of access for treatment because there won’t be any additional costs,” Ms Dill said.

“But we would encourage people to seek advice from a number of clinics to decide what treatment is best.’’

Ms Dill said IVF was a huge burden for many couples.

“We are regularly contacted by people asking for clinics with the best results because they have taken out loans and can’t afford for it not to work.”

Dr Bateman said the IVF clinic had the staff and resources to conduct 5000 cycles are year but could double that if there was a greater demand.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/clinic-to-bulkbill-for-ivf-parents/story-fni0cx4q-1226995515410?nk=056c571f30702139c548e6eb147f4072

Kenya: Judge Makes Groundbreaking Ruling On Surrogacy

Who is your mother? Is she the woman who gave birth to you -- the woman who is genetically related to you -- or the woman who intends for you to be born and plans to take up parental responsibility as outlined in the Children's Act?

Under section 23, parental responsibility means all the duties, rights, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent has in relation to the child. This includes the duty to maintain the child and to provide him with an adequate diet, shelter, clothing, medical care, education and guidance and protect the child from neglect, discrimination and abuse.

Hospitals have to indicate the mother's particulars and name on the notification of birth slip and the registrar of births and deaths has to issue a birth certificate when a child is born. However, there is a dilemma when it comes to registering surrogate children and the recognition of surrogacy agreements.

Whereas the status of motherhood used to be "self-evident" by the pregnancy and birth of a child, new reproductive techniques (discussed in last week's article) have evolved in recent years ahead of jurisprudence, thereby complicating and overwhelming the issue of maternal and reproductive health rights.This means that there is a gap in the Kenyan laws since the laws do not directly address these emerging forms of parenthood.

In surrogacy arrangements, there are potentially three different players with different maternal rights: the donor who supplied the ovum, the woman who gestated and gave birth to the child, and the woman for whom the child was intended. The genetic rule is based on the view that a woman's genetic contribution to a child is the most determinative factor while the gestational maternity rule is primarily based on the emotional and physical connection developed during pregnancy. The intent based maternity rule is based on the fact that at the beginning of every surrogacy arrangement, the commissioning mother has the preconception intent to raise the child and the surrogate mother has the intent to surrender the child. We must not lose sight of the fact that under the constitution at Article 26, life begins at inception.

On June 30, a monumental judgment was delivered by Justice Majanja setting the precedent on how surrogacy arrangements and the conception of motherhood will be adjudicated in Kenya given that Parliament has yet to legislate or develop policy on this matter.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201407100595.html

Sweden to amend the Citizenship Act to include clause of citizenship of a child at birth wef 1st April 2015

The rules on how a child gets Swedish citizenship at birth will be changed so that women and men are treated equal. This means that a child will always be a Swedish citizen at birth if one parent has it.

Source : http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/18540/a/235887

New surrogacy laws to allow couples chance at parenthood

Changes to the Law on Marriage and Family will allow close relatives to become surrogate mothers. Duong Dang Hue, director of the Civil and Economic Department at the Ministry of Justice explains the new reforms. 

Surrogacy has been illegal in Viet Nam for many years, why does MoJ want to revise the Law on Marriage and Family to lift the ban?

The revised law we are drafting will include an article on surrogacy for humanitarian purposes. The idea itself originated with direct requests from the Vietnamese people. 

In Vietnamese culture, many families consider it important to have children to continue the family name. In the north, it is not as important, but in the south, it is. 

It is unfortunate that in our society, a number couples do not have the ability to reproduce and have children of their own. It is especially unfortunate when they themselves are an only child. 

Many couples in need of surrogacy have resorted to asking hospitals for permission to engage in surrogacy. Many doctors reading these letters have felt the pain of these couples and want to help them, but do not want to break the law. This led to a number of doctors submitting a request to MoJ to consider the issue on humanitarian grounds. 

I myself fully support the proposal. Surrogacy is the best solution to this heart wrenching problem and is of humanitarian significance. For women unable to have children, it gives them a chance to experience motherhood. 

Don't you think that if surrogacy is legalised, some people will abuse the law to make money?

Yes, quite a few people have expressed concerns about this. 

In my opinion, these allegations are not substantial. Despite the current ban, breaches are occurring. By legalising surrogacy, we can prevent harmful practices taking place in the shadows and ensure the infants of surrogate couples are receiving appropriate attention from doctors, even in the early stages of pregnancy. 

This is good for babies and surrogates and we can address health complications as they arise throughout the pregnancy. 

Will the new law stipulate conditions on who is eligible for surrogacy and to be a surrogate?

Absolutely, the law will provide the requirements for eligible couples and eligible surrogate mothers.

Here I just want to reiterate that surrogacy will only be granted to couples where the wives, for health reasons, are physically incapable of having children. 

Eligible surrogates must be between the ages of 21 and 40 and be healthy. They must already have at least one child.

Most importantly, the two parties must consent that the planned surrogacy is solely for humanitarian purposes and not for financial gain.

The draft law will also stipulate that the surrogate mother must be a relative of either the husband or wife. In the event the couple cannot find any willing relatives, they may ask a non-relative woman. Do you think this is unreasonable?

Yes, during the drafting process we touched on this issue. We acknowledged there were pros and cons ideas of requiring the surrogate mother to be a relative. 

However, my own position is consistent with the policy's requirements. I favour the notion that the surrogate mother must be a relative, for two reasons. First, to minimise the risk of commercialising surrogacy and second, to ensure the surrogate is more likely to empathise with the couple's desire to have children of their own. 

http://vietnamnews.vn/opinion/243419/new-surrogacy-laws-to-allow-couples-chance-at-parenthood.html

Its Your Day, Doctor's!!!

Thank You

For the hard work, stress
and sleepless nights you have endured!

For the compassion, concern
and kindness you have shown!

And for the obstacles you've had to overcome
in the never ending fight for the best for your patients!!!

Happy Doctor's Day!!!