Fine line between assisted reproduction, designing babies

Careers, money and the environment are a number of intertwined factors that affect fertility. Pressured by financial considerations, some couples might choose to delay starting a family. Women who relegate having a baby to the backburner might suddenly find themselves staring at the ticking biological clock when they become ready.

Fortunately, there are options. Often, the problem is low, not complete, infertility. In such cases, in vitro fertilization could be a viable option. During this process, a woman’s egg and a man’s sperm are combined in a petri dish and the resulting embryo is implanted back into the woman’s uterus. When IVF is carried out for this purpose — to help low-fertility couples conceive — I believe most people would agree there are very few ethical dilemmas involved. After all, IVF utilized in these types of circumstances is no different than using Viagra. It simply facilitates reproduction that would otherwise be difficult.

Ethical dilemmas begin to arise when a) one member of the couple is completely infertile, and, therefore, a single egg or sperm donor is needed for the IVF procedure, b) both members of the couple are homosexual, and therefore need a single egg or sperm donor or c) both members of the couple are infertile and therefore need a sperm donor and an egg donor. When donors are involved, it complicates the ethical nature of IVF, for couples could selectively choose their sperm or egg donor and thus selectively choose the traits of their child. Many argue that this process of selecting the traits of their children is a form of eugenics and should not be allowed. Many also argue that there are thousands of children who need to be adopted and that these children should be adopted before new babies are “manufactured.”

While these arguments are perfectly valid, what many people do not realize is that there is a critical difference that separates circumstances “a” and “b” from circumstance “c.” In circumstances “a” and “b,” the resulting child is genetically related to one of the parents, while in circumstance “c,” the resulting child is not genetically related to either one of the parents. In my opinion, this single distinction makes circumstances “a” and “b” ethically permissible and makes circumstance “c” ethically impermissible.

I think most people would agree that there is something wholly special about having a child that is genetically yours, of seeing some qualities of yourself in your child. I do not think it is fair to deny homosexual or half-infertile couples this unique experience. It is certainly true that the couples described in circumstances “a” and “b” would be able to selectively choose the donor, but I believe this is ethically permissible if the child is related to one of the members of the couple. After all, do people not selectively choose their spouse or partner? Even through reproduction by ordinary means, we have some say in the genetic make-up of our child by selecting the person we choose to have that child with.

However, if both members of the couple were infertile and required both a sperm and an egg donor, the couple would be creating a baby entirely unrelated to either of them. The baby would be no different from one they could adopt from an adoption center. In this case, the sole advantage of creating a child through IVF versus adopting a child would be the ability to choose the characteristics of the child. Creating a genetically unrelated baby in this circumstance would be a relatively selfish act, since there are thousands of unrelated babies who need to be adopted.

One must also keep in mind that IVF, like adoption, is an expensive procedure, and this process is only viable for upper-class couples. If these completely infertile upper-class couples were to have genetically superior children, would this not widen the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor? The genetic quality of the upper class would steadily increase over the generations, while the genetic quality of the middle and lower classes would remain of “average” quality. One might argue that this situation could hold true for homosexual and half-infertile upper class couples as well, since they, too, get to select a donor. However, unlike completely infertile couples, these couples only select half of their child’s genetic makeup, since they only select one donor. Thus, for homosexual and half-infertile couples, this genetic quality effect would not be as strong. 

The effects on the resulting child must also be taken into consideration. If a completely infertile couple were to pay a large amount of money for a genetically ideal child, there would be a tremendous amount of pressure on that child to live up to their preconceived expectations.

As new technologies like IVF become available, it is vital that their moral implications be taken into consideration. It is always critical that we ask ourselves the question: Just because we can, should we? While many of these technologies do wonderful things like enable low-fertility couples to have children, these same technologies could also be used to carry out more ethically questionable things like designing genetically ideal babies.

Sources: http://www.dailytargum.com/article/2014/10/fine-line%20between%20assisted%20reproduction%20designing%20babies

Bill to allow singles and same-sex couples to make surrogacy agreements passes on first reading

An amendment to the Surrogacy Law of 1996 was passed on its first reading in the Knesset plenum late on Monday that, if eventually approved, would allow unmarried heterosexuals and homosexual and lesbian couples to commission a surrogate to produce a baby. The amendment was initiated by Health Minister Yael German, under whose auspices the original law is carried out.

In addition to including singles and single-sex couples under the law, it would also expand the number of women who want to serve as surrogates by allowing Israelis to commission them abroad either personally or through a middleman company.  The money that the surrogate would receive for her services would be limited. An approval committee would, as before, have to give its approval before would-be parents are allowed to start the procedure.

German said that in recent years, numerous Israelis have traveled abroad to try to have a child through a surrogate. As the procedure for Israelis is not recognized when carried out abroad, they have faced many legal and ethical problems, especially those involving citizenship for the baby.

The committee headed by National Insurance Institute director-general Prof. Shlomo Mor-Yosef recommended that unmarried women and men without a female partner should be able to go through the surrogacy agreement just like married couples of the two sexes.

German said the amendment forges a balance between the needs of those who want to become parents and protection for surrogates who are paid to carry and deliver their child.

But passage will not be simple, as it was opposed both by religious and women’s rights groups. United Torah Judaism MK Moshe Gafni said the amendment would “destroy the structure of the family, and women will sell their bodies.” Shas MK Nissim Ze’ev compared the bill to “talking about the import of frozen meat.”

Meretz MK Michal Rosin said that despite the goodwill posed by the amendment, “there is a big problem of [renting out] one’s uterus. Women who serve as surrogates are weak [economically] and do it to make a living. Pregnancy and delivery are potentially dangerous, and sometimes, surrogates pay a heavy physical and emotional price. It isn’t like semen samples from men. A lot of work has to be done on this bill,” she said.

A total of 45 MKs approved the bill on its first reading, 15 opposed and three abstained. It will now go to the Knesset House Committee for a decision on what committee will prepare it for its second and third readings. The Bayit Yehudi party gave its MKs the right to decide how to vote themselves.

Under the proposal, once one person initiates a surrogacy agreement, another single can be recognized as a parent of the child without having to adopt it later; this is meant to suit lesbians and homosexuals.

The biological parent would also be able to take ova abroad for fertilization and implantation. Men would be allowed to get donated ova in Israel and take them abroad, while women and couples could import them to Israel to perform the process here.

The surrogate would be entitled to undergo no more than three procedures to insert fertilized eggs in her womb. Heterosexual couples would be able to have up to two babies by surrogacy, while singles would be able to have one. The maximum age of the parent would be raised to 54 years. Foreign clinics where the procedure would be carried out will have to meet ministry standards.

Sources: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Health/Bill-to-allow-singles-and-same-sex-couples-to-make-surrogacy-agreements-passes-on-first-reading-380069

Swedish feminists condemn surrogacy: ‘a global trade with women’s and children’s bodies’

A Swedish feminist organization has issued a policy paper condemning surrogate motherhood and demanding the government legislate a ban on the practice.

The Swedish Women’s Lobby (Sveriges Kvinnolobby) argues that surrogacy exploits the woman’s body and her reproductive organs, and violates poor women’s human rights.

"Having a feminist approach to surrogacy means rejecting the idea that women can be used as containers and their reproductive capabilities can be bought," the policy paper states.

"The right to bodily integrity is a right which should not be able to be negotiated by any form of contract. No matter the regulation or the nature of the contract, it still remains a trade with women’s bodies and with children. The rights of women and children, not the interest of the buyer, must be the focus of the debate surrounding surrogacy."

The paper notes that surrogacy is presently not legal in Sweden. However, the government is investigating the issue with the intent of implementing regulations since it came to light that Swedish citizens have used surrogate mothers abroad, and that children born in this way have been brought to Sweden.

"An end needs to be put to the industry of surrogacy that reduces the female body to a container. If doors for surrogate motherhood are opened, no matter how regulated it may be, children will be viewed as commodities and women as containers," the group stated in the introduction to its campaign against surrogacy, called “Feminist no to surrogacy.“

The campaign cites the resolution on violence against women adopted by the European Parliament in April 2011 to support its position, and notes the European Women’s Lobby’s condemns "both altruistic and so called commercial surrogacy, as, in practice, there is no difference between the two; in both cases, there is a trade in human beings."

"Through the campaign," the group says, "we provide an alternative forum on feminist grounds where the focus lies on women’s bodily integrity and not the rights for childless parents over women’s basic human rights.”

Addressing the issue from the perspective of the exploitation of poor women by wealthy westerners, the policy paper states, "In the majority of the cases of commercial surrogacy, the purchasers come from western countries and the surrogates from third world or developing countries.”

"There is an unequal power-balance between purchasers and surrogates. Western people prey on eastern women’s vulnerable economic situation in their quest for a child. Becoming a surrogate mother is a way for women in socially vulnerable positions to sell what fundamental human rights should protect them from being forced to sell – their own bodies."

The Swedish Women’s Lobby states that it is raising the issue, and voicing its opposition to surrogate motherhood because "we are seeing a trend towards a dismantling of these fundamental rights in favor of the will and want of individuals to become parents in the name of their individual fulfillment."

The group observes that the issue of surrogacy "has been treated within the discourse of reproductive rights and the means of childless parents to have a baby, when the human rights perspective is the only plausible [position] in dealing with this issue. We find that the current investigation in Sweden is being issued on the wrong grounds and that the set of voices that are asking for an investigation are lacking a human rights perspective."

"We therefore call on the Swedish government to forbid surrogacy motherhood," the policy paper concludes.

Sources: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/swedish-feminists-condemn-surrogacy-a-global-trade-with-womens-and-children

SI is not working on 23rd & 24th October 2014

SI is not working tomorrow and day after i.e. 23rd & 24th October 2014, on account of Diwali celebration hence there could be delay in reply to the emails.

However, you may always give us a call in an emergency situation.
HAPPY DIWALI! — at SurrogacyIndia.

Regulation of Surrogacy

Recent cases prove that universal laws are needed to provide clarity and help secure the welfare of surrogate babies.

With news of more arrangements going awry following a surrogacy agreement - this time an ‘unwanted’ twin born to a surrogate in India (in 2012) and allegedly rejected by an Australian couple who said they could not afford to support both children - the issue of lack of regulation of the surrogacy industry has once again come to the fore.

A recent report in the Guardian about surrogacy tourism in Mexico, plus the case of Thai-born baby Gammy, which hit the headlines worldwide, and closer to home the story of a British couple who rejected a twin girl, ‘Amy’, born with congenital myotonic dystrophy to a British surrogate mother, also highlight the need for regulation. How many other tragic cases will come to light before we see change to protect the children and parents involved?

Much of the media coverage of these cases has been replete with misconceptions. It is a widely stated myth, for example, that payments to a surrogate are illegal in the UK. This isn’t true. In fact, the relevant legislation does not prohibit payments from intended parents to a surrogate in the UK, but a third party (for example, an agency) cannot profit from such an arrangement.

In addition, when intended parents come to apply for a Parental Order in the UK (to obtain legal parental status of the surrogate child), they will need to ask the court to authorise any payments made to a surrogate. So, while the level of payments made will be under scrutiny, it is not illegal to pay a surrogate per se.

However, what is indisputable is that currently there is no international regulation of surrogacy, nor international convention dealing with the legal issues involved, leaving children (such as baby Gammy) born of surrogacy arrangements without proper protection or security.

Intended parents, surrogates and surrogate children have to rely on local surrogacy laws - if there are any - which vary from country to country. As was seen in the Gammy case, there is frequently confusion over what the local law actually says in relation to surrogacy.

Some countries such as Mexico have a very liberal approach. (The Guardian highlighted that Mexico is seeing an upsurge in surrogacy as India and Thailand tighten their laws.) Other countries such as France don’t recognise children who are born via a surrogacy arrangement, often leaving children stateless.

It is therefore no surprise that UK and international surrogacy lawyers are calling for worldwide regulation of the surrogacy industry and an international convention to ensure protection of children born of these arrangements. The Hague conference is working on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements but an international convention is likely to be many years off.

The complexities of cross-border surrogacy arise because of the potential number of interested legal systems: where the surrogate lives; where the intended parents live and their citizenship; the country where the birth is taking place and where the surrogacy agreement is entered into.

As a starting point, we urgently need an international code of practice and regulated surrogacy clinics, with fines imposed for contravention.

In the meantime there are three important lessons lawyers can learn from the Gammy case if they are assisting British couples considering surrogacy overseas:

Make sure you have good lawyers advising your clients in the country where the surrogacy is taking place. Before entering into any agreement, it is essential that both the surrogate and the intended parents are fully aware of their rights and duties under the agreement and the impact of local laws that apply to the agreement.

Clients should ensure any agreement covers the worst-case scenario. Issues such as downs syndrome and other pregnancy complications should be discussed and agreed well before a contract is signed and provisions made accordingly.

Check the enforceability of contracts in the relevant country and whether your clients are able to apply for a court order pre- or post-birth to ensure their legal status.

The legal and ethical issues surrounding surrogacy are complex but governments around the world need to face up to the fact that intended parents are still going ahead, despite the risks, often leaving children without proper protection. Why not start here in the UK? With a 2015 election approaching, it will be interesting to see if any of the UK political parties take up the baton and make any proposals in their forthcoming manifestos.

We may not yet be able to change the world but lawyers can certainly push for a better system here in the UK to allow commercial surrogacy in a properly regulated and safe way. Thousands of British couples are choosing surrogacy to take place in the UK and abroad each year, so why not regulate it properly?

Sources: http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/practice-points/regulation-of-surrogacy/5044483.article

Dhantrayodashise & Diwali Celebration at SurrogacyIndia

SurrogacyIndia started the celebration of Diwali with the first day as Dhantrayodashise. SurrogacyIndia wishes you all a PROSPEROUS HAPPY DIWALI — at SurrogacyIndia.

"Linnea" the 342nd baby with SurrogacyIndia

Linnea the national flower of Sweden is blossoming in the orchid of SurrogacyIndia — at SurrogacyIndia.

Facebook, Apple to fund freezing of ovaries by female staff

There is a dearth of senior women in Silicon Valley so the perks offered by Apple and Facebook could be seen as an attempt to rectify the gender imbalance

San Francisco : Apple and Facebook have added an extra incentive to women considering working at the tech giants by giving female employees the option of freezing their ovaries to attract and retain more women in their workforces in Silicon Valley, according to IANS.

Facebook on Tuesday told the NBC News channel that it had been offering this option to its employees since January, while Apple said that it would begin doing so from the beginning of next year.

The procedure allows women to freeze their ovaries during their most fertile years which often coincide with the most productive period in their professional lives.

The quality of ovaries diminish with age, which puts many women in a difficult position as they have to decide whether to delay having a child or not once they are past the age of 30.The cost of the procedure could amount to $20,000, since two ovarian stimulation cycles are normally required for collecting samples, and the US health insurance policies do not usually cover the costs of the procedure.

offers up to $20,000 (£13,000) for egg freezing for female employees. The company also offers adoption and surrogacy assistance and “a host of other fertility services for male and female employees”, the company said, according to The Guardian.

There is a dearth of senior women in Silicon Valley so the perks offered by Apple and Facebook could be seen as an attempt to rectify the gender imbalance.

Apple said in its diversity report this year that its workforce was 70% male, while Facebook reported its workforce was 69% male, the report added.

The tech companies emphasized that egg preservation was one of many family-friendly benefits they offered employees, which include perks like baby bonuses to spend on diapers and meals and benefits for adoptive and same-sex parents, says a New York Times report.

Sources: http://freepressjournal.in/facebook-apple-to-fund-freezing-of-ovaries-by-female-staff/

Apple, Facebook offer women egg freezing insurance plans

Women whose biological clocks are ticking, and who also work for two mega Silicon Valley companies, will now have the insurance option of putting motherhood on ice, literally.

That’s because Apple and Facebook have become the first major employers in the country to offer its employees the option to freeze their eggs.

The coverage is part of a growing trend by the technological giants to attract and retain women in the industry by giving them the option to postpone pregnancy during their formative career years.

Appleinsider says the fertility perk will give the company “an extra edge in wooing top female talent and keeping current employees on board for longer periods.”

The procedure of extracting, freezing and banking a woman’s eggs for later in vitro fertilization, which is called Oocyte Cryopreservation, does not come cheap.

One round can cost between $7,000 and $12,000, not to mention the additional costs of medications as well as egg storage which can run about $500 a year. And many women have to undergo the extraction a second time to get the recommended amount of eggs.

It also does not guarantee that a woman may have a child in the future. According to the website Eggsurance, it’s more like an insurance policy for the possibility of having kids.

It does, however, give a woman an opportunity to save the reproductive cells when they are most viable.

According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the best chance of having a baby is when a woman is in her 20s because fertility declines drastically by the time she is 35 years old.

Both companies will offer up to $20,000 for the procedure in addition to a host of varying other parenthood perks including fertility services for men and women, and adoption and surrogacy assistance.

Brigitte Adams, the founder of Eggsurance, said that by offering the coverage the companies are investing in and supporting women.

“Having a high-powered career and children is still a very hard thing to do,” said Adams.

Apple said that by allowing women to delay their dreams of having children empowers them “to do the best work of their lives as they care for loved ones and raise their families.”

Critics, however, are already pouring cold water on the plan. Some said the policies send a message that work is more important than motherhood.

Others mused that it's really an evil plot. A post on the Valleywag blog is titled "Facebook and Apple Offer Egg-Freezing Perk So Women Never Stop Working."

Sources: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/15/apple-facebook-egg-freeaing-insurace-benefit/

French Gov’t Affirms Its Prohibition of Gestational Surrogacy

PARIS–The French “La Manif pour tous” (Protest for All) movement has gathered 100,000 participants in Paris and Bordeaux on 6 October 2014. This movement, established in 2012, shows the face of a traditional France attaching great importance to the family.  The people often don’t recognize themselves in the proposals of the government.  Last week, Prime Minister Manuel Valls wanted to reassure, and affirmed to be opposed to gestational surrogacy, a practice of “commercializing human beings and merchandising the female bodies”, something intolerable, according to his own words. France also plans a global initiative to get a ruling among the states.

Do Not Touch the Intimacy and the Beliefs
Last weekend, “La Manif pour Tous” has once again shown the sustainability of the movement and its supporters.  Established in November 2012, in reaction to the Taubira law on marriage between persons of the same sex, the movement has grown to a reach that no sociologist or political scientist could have predicted: six large protests, including two that gathered around one million people. With this last rally, the government seems to have understood the message coming from a solid base of the population, defending a “natural” family pattern as the foundation of French society.

This is the card of appeasement PM Manuel Valls played a few days before the rally, admitting he had changed his mind on gestational surrogacy, and recognizing in the public debate the virtue of having evolved government positions. “I think we cannot go towards this kind of procreation that would question our values and principles,” declared the Prime Minister during a press conference in Matignon office. He explained his thinking to the newspaper La Croix: “Family and ethical issues are serious matters that affect intimacy and beliefs.”

The gestational surrogacy and the assisted reproduction for people of the same sex, were actually underlying effects of the first piece of legislation on marriage for all sexes in 2012.  What belonged to the natural state of a human being would be legislated by political ideas. That is why, considering the public outcry that started two years ago, and thanks to a deeper debate, the government is now strictly opposed to the legislation of gestational surrogacy.

“In a world where everything can be bought and sold, where values and principles are not sufficiently coordinated, it is the law’s duty to define limits, to guarantee the base of principles that organizes society’s life,” the Prime Minister declared.

An Ethical Question on International Ruling
In June 2014, the European Court of Human Rights condemned France for refusing to automatically transcribe the parentage act for children born overseas from gestational surrogacy. France didn’t appeal, but insisted that its national legislation could not be questioned by acts committed abroad.

For PM Manuel Valls, states have the responsibility to fight against the commercialization of human beings. A political initiative will thus get started at international level by the French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius, aiming to forbid gestational surrogacy to French citizens abroad. This is an important ethical question for the protection of children, and the fight against merchandising the human body, which must be the heart of concerns of the international community, according to the Prime Minister.

France is indeed a pioneer in the field of medical ethics within its borders, but has no legal means to enforce this law on French citizens travelling abroad.

Examples Abroad
For 60 years, the evolution of medical science has far exceeded the limits of its ethical and legal framework, and trafficking networks of the human body appeared at the same time.

“Farms” of surrogate mothers appeared in India, taking advantage of the poverty and distress of women who became pregnant machines. In South America, the Philippines, Pakistan, and in Kosovo, an organ mafia has developed run by organized crime. In China, organs of prisoners of conscience are being harvested in the basements of military hospitals on a large scale. This highly lucrative business rekindles transplant tourism worldwide.

The merchandising of the human body opens up a world in which man, as the saying goes, “is a wolf to man”, and would amount to the financial sum of his organs, thus excluding the foundations of a civilization:  an indivisible and unique soul for all its citizens, respecting values and ethical principles, and moral foundation for generations to come.

Sources: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1010493-the-french-government-affirms-its-prohibition-of-gestational-surrogacy/

High court put justice before statutory requirements in surrogacy case

Sir James Munby’s award of a parental order after a couple missed a deadline to apply is a sensible interpretation of parliament’s intentions

Judges will seek to apply the law faithfully as laid down by parliament, the deputy president of the supreme court told me this week. Lady Hale, who was responding to my “what if?” question about the Human Rights Act for a special anniversary edition of BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action to be broadcast next week, was saying no more than any judge would. But what happens when a judge comes across a statutory requirement that would lead to an injustice? Can it simply be ignored?

The issue came up in a case decided last week. It was brought by a couple who wanted a surrogate child, presumably because they were unable to have one of their own. We know little about them except that they began legal proceedings in Birmingham.

In 2011, the Birmingham couple made a surrogacy agreement with a married couple in India. The Indian surrogate mother conceived using eggs donated by a third party and sperm from the Birmingham father.

A child was born in December 2011, the surrogate parents confirmed that they wanted to give up their parental rights and responsibilities, and the Birmingham couple brought the child to the UK on a British passport last year. He is well cared for and much loved.

So far, so good. But what the Birmingham parents did not know is that they needed a parental order from the English courts. That would ensure that the child was treated as their own. More importantly, it would extinguish the legal rights and responsibilities of the Indian couple. Without such an order, the Indian mother and her husband would continue to be treated as the child’s parents. They had no wish to remain involved with the child but could not give up those responsibilities without a court order.

The Birmingham couple could have sought an adoption order but that would seem odd, given that one of them is the child’s biological father. A parental order under section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 was the obvious solution.

But there was a problem. Section 54(3) says that “the applicants must apply for the order during the period of six months beginning with the day on which the child is born”. It does not say what should happen if they do not. The Birmingham couple were at least a year out of time.

Not surprisingly, non-compliance with a legislative requirement is not a new problem. It came up as long ago as 1877 when Lord Penzance, sitting as Dean of Arches, drew a distinction between statutory requirements that were “mandatory” and those that were merely “directory”. If mandatory, failure to comply meant that the proceedings failed. If directory, you might be able get round them.

The distinction was well explained in 2005 by Lord Rodger, a law lord. He said:

If your young daughter wants to go out with friends for the evening and you agree, but tell her that she must be home by 11 o’clock, she is under a duty to return by then. But this does not mean that her duty is to return by then or not at all. Rather, even if she fails to meet your deadline, she still remains under a duty to return home. On the other hand, if you contract with a conjuror to perform at your daughter’s birthday party, you want the conjuror and his tricks only for the party. His duty is accordingly limited to performing at the party held on your daughter’s birthday and, if he fails to turn up, he cannot discharge the duty later.

Giving judgment in the surrogacy case last week, Sir James Munby said the courts had to decide which of these categories a case fell into. Did parliament intend non-compliance with the six-month deadline to be fatal? Or did it intend a “sensible” result?

Munby, the president of the family division, pointed out that a parental order “has the most profound personal, emotional, psychological, social and, it may be in some cases, cultural and religious, consequences”. A court had to treat the welfare of the child as paramount throughout his life. Parliament could not have intended a delay of a few months – for which the child had no responsibility – as critical. So he made the parental order that the Birmingham parents had requested.

Munby was able to reach this conclusion using principles of statutory interpretation. But he said he could also have reached the same result by “reading down” the statute under the Human Rights Act. However, he stressed that every case was fact-specific.

Welcoming the decision, a family lawyer specialising in surrogacy work said Munby’s decision to grasp the nettle was long overdue. Pamela Collis, from the law firm known as HowardKennedyFsi, said such orders had been refused in the past. But she asked what would ​now happen to the children involved. “Their inheritance prospects and very being may be coloured by the fact that they have no legal parents,” Collis added.

So unless Munby’s judgment is overturned on appeal – which strikes me as highly unlikely – his next task will be to devise a procedure for historical cases that come to light. But that should not be too difficult. His was a wise judgment and its benefits should be widely shared.

Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/09/high-court-surrogacy-children-parents-munby

Tony Abbott rules out national laws on overseas surrogacy

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has rejected calls for national laws on overseas surrogacy saying it should remain a matter for the states.

Mr Abbott on Thursday said commercial surrogacy was not an issue for the federal government after he was asked about the case of an Australian couple abandoning a surrogate baby in India in 2012, despite Australian consular officials pleading with the couple not to leave without the child.

The ABC revealed on Wednesday that a baby boy was left behind while his parents returned to Australia.

Mr Abbott said although the situation was "distressing" there was no role for the federal government in law reform.

"Surrogacy is a matter for the state governments and while I can understand the interest in this right around the country I think that there are some matters that are quite properly left to the state governments and I certainly don't intend to change the ordinary constitutional arrangements," Mr Abbott said.

The opposition has called for an inquiry into overseas commercial surrogacy.

Labor's foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, said nationally consistent laws on international surrogacy were needed.

"It is important that we have better, more nationally consistent rules relating to commercial surrogacy," Ms Plibersek said.

"Of course commercial surrogacy is banned in Australia but we know that state to state there are different applications of these laws as they relate to commercial surrogacy overseas.

"Clarity and national consistency would be beneficial…..It is very important now that we hear from the federal government what their plans are to encourage consistency in the application of state laws and to clarify the situation as it relates to commercial surrogacy arrangements overseas."

The Family Law Council looked at the situation surrounding international surrogacy last year. It found children born overseas as a result of commercial surrogacy were potentially legally vulnerable.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-rules-out-national-laws-on-overseas-surrogacy-20141009-113n65.html#ixzz3FduJSayd

National laws for international Indians

The year 2015 will mark 100 years of Mahatma Gandhi’s return to India from South Africa and the Pravasi Bhartiya Divas celebrations to welcome overseas Indians to their homeland will be held in Ahmedabad on January 9. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his address to a mammoth gathering at Madison Square Garden in New York, offered lifetime Indian visas to Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) by merging the PIO and Overseas Citizens of India schemes. As a result, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification on September 30 to the effect that the PIO card shall be valid for life and the PIO card holder shall be exempt from police reporting and registration with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office. So far so good. But what will happen when an influx of Non-resident Indians (NRIs) takes place? While we euphorically laud these welcome gates, let us introspect on what laws concerning family and society we offer to our NRI brethren. In a fast-changing scenario of growth and development, it remains to be seen if these laws have kept pace with evolving societal needs. Thus, we have to first make a report card to evaluate our laws and their need.

Outdated laws
According to statistics of the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, over 21,909,875 NRIs have inhabited, settled and thrived in almost 200 countries across the globe. Their actual numbers may be roughly close to 30 million. Undoubtedly, international Indians are an entity by themselves. Thus there is a dire need for a global law to govern their conflicts. The link and retention of their ties with their extended families in India and abroad has found expression in issues relating to immigration, nationality, marriage, divorce, forced marriages, inter-parental child removal, spousal maintenance, division of matrimonial property, inter-country adoptions, succession and inheritance, tenancy of Indian property and surrogacy arrangements. Foreign courts and overseas law practitioners are at sea attempting to resolve these problems given that Indian laws pertaining to these issues have not been amended or updated. The applicability of foreign laws, the validity of judgments pronounced overseas and the verdicts of Indian courts which need expounding, are issues that require interpretation by experts. Personal laws governing global Indians — irrespective of the fact that NRIs have foreign nationalities and overseas citizenships — are all more than five decades old. They do not meet the test of time. They have outlived their utility and do not answer current day family problems in the international perspective. Clash of jurisdictions further compounds problems and result in broken homes and divided families. Indian laws on the subject of custom, marriage, divorce, spousal maintenance, domestic and inter-country adoptions, child abduction, surrogacy, child rights, matrimonial settlements, besides issues of nationality and citizenship found in existing statutory enactments, do not take a call when there are inputs from foreign laws or when there is reconcilement with an overseas court judgment. Interpretation of foreign courts on family law has further coloured the scenario as they provide new dimensions not visualised by Indian law. NRIs searching for relief measures face multiple jurisdictional clashes and are unable to reconcile their rights with corresponding obligations in Indian laws.

Private international law attempts to provide comprehensive answers to these problems. Conventional statutory laws will not address the daily dilemmas of the Indian diaspora. A panacea is thus sought to be a universal answer for aggrieved spouse, the foreign litigant, an overseas practitioner, or any lay person who simply wants to know where he stands. Case law is quoted for reliance but is no permanent answer. Unique case references are not the remedy. What is needed is a permanent answer.

Legislative solutions
The only way this can be resolved is by providing legislative solutions. This is the crying need of the hour before we put up welcome NRI signs. There are a wide range of issues that cause disputes between NRIs across borders. For instance, the law of spousal maintenance in India needs to be delved into. Child laws, issues relating to human smuggling, illegal immigration, business immigration, dual nationality and citizenship perspectives also need to be addressed.

Human rights and the criminal justice system need application in Indian laws. Predicaments concerning surrogacy need dire attention. Law and societal practices need to be in tandem. Our laws have to meet the needs and demands of international Indians. It is no longer a case of international law and Indians; it is about international Indians and the law. Besides discarding outdated legislation, legislators seriously need to make new laws for international Indians. For instance, innocent children are made victims of spousal fights across borders and are used to settle personal disputes. Likewise in commercial surrogacy, a regulatory law is required. Human smuggling and illegal immigration need central laws to save precious human lives who are exploited by unscrupulous agents. Spousal maintenance rights and marital laws need to be updated to keep up with international family law obligations. International adoption of children needs to be governed by a new regulatory law.

As of now, energy has been focussed on commercial laws, giving step motherly treatment to laws which govern family and society in India. Nothing has moved in 50 years; this must change. If we are to invite NRIs, we must first give them a stable home, a happy family life and a comfortable society to live in. Indian laws can no longer exist in isolation; they must be reconciled with laws abroad.

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/national-laws-for-international-indians/article6475942.ece

Surrogacy: High Court grants parental order after deadline

The UK's High Court has granted a parental order following surrogacy despite a six-month deadline for making them having passed, describing strict enforcement of the deadline as 'almost nonsensical'.

The law states that intended parents 'must' make an application for a parental order - for example, to become a surrogate-born child's legal parents and to acquire parental responsibility - within six months of the child's birth. The High Court has ruled, however, that although it was 'common belief' that the court cannot make orders outside of this time (and that alternatively, an adoption order may be sought to acquire parental rights), it may be prepared to accept late applications.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Munby, President of the Family Division, said: 'Can Parliament really have intended that the gate should be barred forever if the application for a parental order is lodged even one day late? I cannot think so'.

'I assume Parliament intended a sensible result. Given the subject matter, given the consequences for the commissioning parents, never mind those for the child, to construe the law as barring forever an application made just one day late is not, in my judgment, sensible. It is the very antithesis of sensible; it is almost nonsensical'.

The case concerned a child born in 2011 to a surrogate mother in India using the intended father's sperm and donated eggs. The intended parents were unaware, however, of the need to apply for a parental order until the father made an application for a residence order upon their separation. The court handing the application pointed out that neither intended parent had parental responsibility.

Parental responsibility confers the right to make important decisions about a child's upbringing, including medical care and education. Legal parenthood affects inheritance and financial responsibilities. However, the court emphasised that a parental order, which grants legal parenthood from which parental responsibility follows, may have wider meanings for families.

'A parental order, like an adoption order, has an effect extending far beyond the merely legal. It has the most profound personal, emotional, psychological, social and, it may be in some cases, cultural and religious, consequences', Justice Munby stated.

Commenting on the decision, law firm Natalie Gamble Associates wrote that there are many more children born following surrogacy with parents who are not their legal parents. 'We know there is a big gap between the numbers of parental orders being made (213 in 2012) and the numbers of children being born through surrogacy to UK parents (reportedly 1,000 cases per year in India alone)', it wrote.

'For children living in the black hole of unresolved legal status, today's ruling is welcome because it means the door may not be closed to a remedy', it said, adding: 'The case also demonstrates, yet again, just how out of date the UK’s surrogacy laws are'.

Sources: http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_458936.asp

SI is closed on Thursday & Friday i.e. 2nd October & 3rd October, 2014

SI is closed on Thursday & Friday i.e. 2nd October & 3rd October, 2014 on occasion of Mahatma Gandhi Jayanti & Dussera hence there could be delay in reply to the emails. 

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

7th day of Navratri at SurrogacyIndia : Dedicated to Goddess Kalratri

The 7th day of Navaratri is dedicated to Maa Kalratri. Ganesha advises to wear Blue so SurrogacyIndia is worshiping by wearing the color which is dedicated today. — at SurrogacyIndia.

NATIONWIDE regulations are urgently needed to cover situations when Australians are engaging surrogates to have children for them.

The range of assisted reproductive technologies available today presents many legal, moral and ethical challenges. These are challenges we can no longer ignore and require national, state and international leadership.

In Australia, altruistic surrogacy is permitted in all states and the ACT, with the proviso that reasonable costs and expenses can be paid only. ACT, NSW and Queensland couples are prevented from seeking commercial surrogates outside Australia. The other states do not prevent residents from seeking surrogates on either an altruistic or commercial basis outside Australia. The Northern Territory has no surrogacy laws. All jurisdictions with surrogacy laws require counselling to be undertaken in some form but, at this stage, only Victoria requires background checking.

I have no doubt that over-whelmingly, babies born through surrogacy have loving, protective parents and families.

However, the recent case of baby Gammy highlights the need for clear and consistent policies that protect children from potential risks.

The arrest of a biological father of twin surrogate children in NSW this month further emphasises the potential risks to children. 

It is well known that predators can be very determined and will seek out ways to procure access to children. It is not unrealistic to consider surrogacy as one method to do this.

The current practise of surrogacy does not adequately consider the risks to the child, nor to surrogate mother or the intended parents.

We apply tests when people are working with children, or when they foster or adopt, so why don’t we consider this for children born into surrogate families as well? Australia is a party to the 1995 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption, which sets out a range of standards for countries to follow that emphasise the best interests of the child and minimise the risk of exploitation and trafficking of children. A similar set of standards does not currently exist in the surrogacy space. 


Surrogacy is a pre-planned arrangement, often by individuals and couples who yearn to become parents and can involve different genetic contributions from the commissioning parents.

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia ratified in 1990, children are afforded a range of rights, including the right to be safe and protected from harm, to be cared for and nurtured, as well as to know who they are and where they came from.  They also deserve robust legal guarantees in terms of citizenship and parentage. Given all this, effective and nationally consistent regulation of surrogacy, including suitability assessments, would provide additional safeguards for children who may be at risk.

There are other options, too, that would-be parents might like to think about. There are now more than 40,000 children in Australia’s out-of-home care systems. These  children desperately need families who can give them a sense of belonging, stability and love. Combined with great parenting, these are the things that will make the most difference for these children and allow them to reach their full potential.

Sources: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2591574/opinion-time-to-strengthen-our-lax-surrogacy-laws/?cs=308

Sixth Day of Navratri at SurrogacyIndia

SurrogacyIndia is celebrating the sixth manifestation of Goddess Durga worshipped on Navratri Shasti is ‘Katyayani’. The goddess is known as Katyayani because she was born to Sage Katyayan. — at SurrogacyIndia.

Maharashtra becomes 1st state to draft surrogacy guidelines

In a first, Maharashtra has got its own set of guidelines to regulate surrogacy in the state. A twomember team comprising top gynaecologists, appointed by the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC), has formulated state-specific surrogacy guidelines and the draft was submitted to the council for scrutiny last week.

The team comprises eminent gynaecologist Dr Sanjay Gupte from Pune and gynaecologist Dr Bipin Pandit from Mumbai. The decision to form the guidelines was triggered in April, after the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) pulled up city's top three surrogacy clinics for flouting visa norms related to couples seeking surrogacy.

MMC has also planned to appoint a state-level committee as a watchdog and convert these guidelines into regulations so that action can be initiated against those flouting the norms.

"The guidelines cover all stakeholders in the process of surrogacy- mainly the surrogate, the couple commissioning the procedure and the doctor," said MMC president Dr Kishore Taori, adding that the draft has been passed, barring a few minor changes.

Surrogacy has continued to be in a grey zone with only a set of Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines formulated in 2005. The Surrogacy Bill is in its final stages but pending in the parliament. Most doctors do not follow the ICMR guidelines properly due to absence of a watchdog.

Therefore, Dr Gupte and Dr Pandit have called for a watchdog committee, consisting of two MMC members, two representatives from the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) centres, arepresentative from the ART bank and arepresentative from an NGO.

"Besides, the couple commissioning the surrogacy should be married for at least two years, should have an authorisation from a doctor confirming fertility issues and a letter from the embassy stating that the baby will get a passport. The couple should be in the country on a medical visa," the guidelines stated.

According to Dr Pandit, surrogates mostly come from a poor background and their exploitation is common. The new set of guidelines states that a surrogate cannot rent her womb for more than three times, has to be between 21-45 years of age and the responsibility to certify that her womb is capable of child bearing rests on the ART centre. The guidelines also allow a relative of the couple to be a surrogate and make it mandatory for the couple to appoint a local guardian to take care of the surrogate.


IN FIGURES

♦ Mumbai has maximum number of surrogacy clinics in the country

♦ Couples from English-speaking countries such as the US, UK and Australia, form the largest chunk of the clientele.

♦ A couple has to shell anywhere between Rs 12-15 lakh for the procedure

♦ Well-known clinics in Mumbai take more than 100 surrogacy cases per year

Sources: http://mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/Maha-becomes-1st-sate-to-draft-surrogacy-guidelines/articleshow/43829143.cms

“There are 20 million infertile couples in India”

How long has the Bill on regulating ART been pending?

It is 15 years since efforts began to bring in a law to regulate the assisted reproductive technologies business in India. In Hyderabad, medically aware and responsible citizens came together to set up a group in 1995 to discuss issues pertaining to the ART business and met every single month. A high-powered committee by the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) was set up which got dissolved; later, people’s participation in the drafting of the Bill was sought; consultations with various commissions — human rights and law — were done. Now the Bill has been finalized from our side a month ago. The Health Ministry received the final draft Bill by September 15. Now that the draft has been finalized and frozen, we have to wait and see what the Cabinet does with it. This Bill is absolutely crucial if the rights of couples seeking infertility treatment, medical service providers and other stakeholders involved have to be safeguarded.

Is there any data available on how many ART centers exist in India?

Unfortunately, no. The ICMR had identified nearly 1,200 ART centers across India. Only a small proportion of these are registered. My guess is it should be four or five times greater than what was identified.

What about the guidelines laid down by the ICMR for fertility clinics?

In 2005, the ICMR framed detailed guidelines to be followed by ART centers. However, at present, the ICMR guidelines have no legal standing. Over 20 million couples in India are infertile. It is a well-established fact that all over the world, between 10-15 per cent of couples in a population are infertile. This has resulted in hospitals and private clinics with offers for ART services mushrooming all over the country. But in the complete absence of legislation, there is scope for malpractices, and right now, there is no way to ensure that these centers follow the ICMR guidelines.

Could you give a few examples of the malpractices in this sector?

I shall narrate a true incident. I knew of a family in which the mother found her son to be infertile. Although the blame for not having a child usually goes to the woman, in this case, the mother was convinced the fault lay with her son, and she took her daughter-in-law to a fertility clinic. The daughter-in-law, it was decided by the family, would be inseminated with sperm donated by a family friend’s son. Because the identity of the donor was known, the daughter-in-law ended up having sexual intercourse with the donor and she became pregnant. This caused the family a lot of distress. But the daughter-in-law did this in order to save her family the expenses of the treatment.

In the draft Bill regulating ART, strict clauses that all donations of semen and egg must be anonymous have been included because as the example above demonstrates, knowledge of the donor can strain existing relationships.

There are other problems too. Many clinics do not test the semen for its quality. Besides affecting the quality of the baby born, diseases can be transmitted this way too. The Bill also restricts surrogate mothers from donating oocytes for reasons that the child should be the biological child of the commissioning parents. However, there are instances now where surrogates are also used as oocyte donors.

Rules and regulations have also been framed in the present Bill which lay down that the surrogate should register her own name in hospital. But the child’s birth certificate does not have the surrogate’s name in it and names the commissioning parent.

Due to the exploitation suffered by surrogate mothers, activists are demanding a ban on it. Yours views?

It is totally undesirable that there be a ban on this. However, rights of the surrogate mother have to be protected and the Bill ensures that.

Sources: http://www.thehindu.com/sunday-anchor/there-are-20-million-infertile-couples-in-india/article6453374.ece

Buddhists Debate Surrogacy Ethics

A seminar organised Sunday by Buddhism advocates heard that surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures raise a number of moral questions and should not be encouraged.

Phra Fukit Chitipanyo, of Wat Jak Daeng in Samut Prakan, said surrogacy is often commercially exploited and those involved — especially brokers and surrogate mothers — are motivated by financial interests.

According to Phra Fukit, surrogacy and IVF are not in line with Samma-Ajiva in the noble eightfold path. Samma-Ajiva, or how to make a living ethically, involves the ethical principle of non-exploitation.

The monks' concerns were shared by guest speakers and participants of the seminar at Suan Mokkh Bangkok, in Chatuchak district.

Several participants agreed IVF procedures can lead to commercial exploitation of women as surrogate mothers.

The seminar took place in the light of a scandal involving 24-year-old Japanese businessman Mitsutoki Shigeta, who reportedly fathered 15 babies via Thai surrogates.

Phra Maha Kirati Thirapanyo, of Wat Pa Boonlom in Ubon Ratchathani, also raised concerns about the disposal of surplus embryos.

The monk said fertility clinics performing IVF procedures implant healthy embryos, but the unused ones are usually destroyed, left to die, or used in research.

Phra Maha Kirati said disposal of unused embryos is considered immoral and unethical by Buddhism advocates.

It is believed that life begins at the time an egg is fertilised by a sperm, he said, so destroying an embryo is tantamount to killing a human life which goes against Buddhist teachings.

As surrogacy has become a business with vast interests at stake, he said, it is important to examine the intentions of those involved when it comes to ethical issues.

Phra Maha Kirati was a physician before he joined the monkhood.

Phra Wichit Thammachito, of Wat Pho Phuek in Nonthaburi, said breakthroughs in medical technology have long posed a number of ethical questions.

He cited organ thefts as an example, following developments in organ transplant technology.

Buddhism advocates should adopt the "right attitude" towards these issues, Phra Wichit said.

It was also suggested that couples should adopt children instead of attempting to have them using surrogates because there are many abandoned children in need of homes.

Sources: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/434864/buddhists-question-ethics-of-surrogacy

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