surrogacy in india

The surrogacy story: Beyond the Bollywood babies is an industry that needs regulation

Surrogate mothers are workers who deserve no less than those of us who sell mental or manual labour.

On June 27, Tusshar Kapoor became the latest in a line of Bollywood celebrities – after fellow actors Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan – to have achieved parenthood through surrogacy. Unlike the two Khans, however, Kapoor is a single father, and the birth of his baby boy has stirred some debate on the unregulated Assisted Reproductive Technology industry in India, of which surrogacy is a part.

That surrogacy has once again made news is not surprising. The business of a woman carrying another person or couple’s baby to term in exchange for money tends to interest, excite, and divide people. Media reporting on the issue is usually polarised. We see either celebrity tweets gushing thanks for the new life in their lives (interestingly the surrogate mother is almost never thanked in these tweets) or we see horrific headlines about women who are forced to become surrogates and babies who are abandoned in cases of disability.

Away from these two extremes, what is a truer and fairer picture of the conditions of the surrogacy industry? In other words, what is and isn’t the problem here?

Unregulated industry

Currently there exists no reliable source on the size of India’s surrogacy industry, but estimates have placed its value as anywhere between $500 million and $2.3 billion annually. This is a vast and varied industry. Links in its long chain include small clinics, big hospitals, tourism departments, health care consultants, surrogacy agents, law firms, surrogate hostels, and travel agencies. All of this is, however, unregulated. The Indian Council of Medical Research has a set of guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology, but these are non-binding.

An Assisted Reproductive Technology bill has been drafted and redrafted, but is yet to see the light of day. There have been some small, albeit mixed, regulatory victories along the way though. In response to cases where foreign children born to Indian surrogates were refused citizenship by their parents’ countries, the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2012 issued a directive for foreign couples coming to India. This directive requires foreign couples – defined problematically as a man and a woman married for at least two years – to produce a letter from their government stating that it recognises surrogacy, and will permit the child born through surrogacy entry into the country as the biological child of its parents.

What of the surrogates, arguably the lowest rung of the industry pyramid, its most vulnerable actors? Surrogacy is often presented as a win-win situation, one that gives poor women the money they need and infertile couples the children they want. While this is certainly true, it is an incomplete truth. The industry as it operates currently has many ethical, legal, and social problems, and is particularly unfavourable to surrogates.

Information blackout

To be a surrogate, a woman has to be married with children (proven fertility), and have her husband’s consent. In order to ensure that the surrogate is not the child’s genetic mother and that donor anonymity is preserved, in vitro fertilisation, or IVF, is preferred over intra uterine insemination, or IUI.

However, intra uterine insemination – which would artificially inseminate the surrogate’s own eggs if viable – is the simpler, less invasive and less risky procedure as compared to in vitro fertilisation – which uses eggs from the intended mother or a donor to make embryos that are then transferred to the surrogate’s womb. Because IVF has low success rates, multiple cycles (including drugs and injections) may be needed to transfer embryos, and multiple embryos may be transferred in one cycle to increase chances of pregnancy. Further, if many embryos are implanted, the surrogate may have to deliver twins, triplets, or more (often through caesarean deliveries) or the couple may choose to destroy some embryos in the womb through a process called fetal reduction.

Surrogates usually have little or no information about any of these procedures, let alone about their side effects or risks. Post-delivery, the surrogate usually relinquishes the child immediately, after which she receives little follow-up care.

Working conditions

These are just some of the medical vulnerabilities. The surrogate is also socially and economically vulnerable. Most surrogates rely entirely on the agent or doctor for information, and don’t have much negotiating power. They sign a contract that is in English, drawn up by the intended parents, of which they do not usually receive a copy. The amount and pattern of payment to the surrogate is determined by the clinic, and is often a fraction of what the whole arrangement costs. To avoid stigma from their communities, many surrogates stay in hostels, where clinics closely monitor their mobility, sexual and physical activity, but not important things like the maximum number of surrogacies or the interval between them.

Yet, despite this less-than-winsome portrait, we must not look for the answer to surrogates’ woes in false binaries.

The problem with surrogacy is not that reproduction has been split by technology and commercialised by markets – indeed reproduction always was and continues to be mired in unequal power relations – but that surrogates do not have rights as workers.

And let us be clear: surrogates are workers. They may be selling the labour of their wombs, which is a break from the norm of bearing babies within marriage (although who is to say that that is not also an exchange with material and emotional gains), but they deserve no less than those of us who sell mental or manual labour. The solution to the industry’s problems cannot be to ban surrogacy, or to ban commercial surrogacy that is done for money and allow altruistic surrogacy that is done for kin (since when are women better off doing unpaid labour for the iron fist of the family?) What we need is a solidly pro-surrogate regulation that will make their working conditions better.

Women’s agency

Such a regulation cannot be drafted without including the affected – the surrogates themselves. Additionally, given the implications of surrogacy for a wide range of issues – child rights, disability, queer rights, women’s health, and medical ethics, to name a few – these constituencies must also be meaningfully included in the formulation and implementation of a surrogacy regulation.

Such a regulation also cannot be drafted without making a mental shift: women in constrained circumstances can and do make choices. We have to walk the line between respecting women’s choices, however constrained, and improving the circumstances in which those choices are made. Research shows that most surrogates are domestic workers, garment workers or construction workers and come from families that make around Rs 3,000 a month. They opt for surrogacy to earn a lump sum of anywhere between Rs 1 lakh to Rs 4 lakh – which can help pay off a loan, build a pukka house, or help educate their children.

Research also shows that the lives of the poor in India are much too precarious to be greatly improved by one or even a couple of such lump sums. This is what is morally outrageous. This is the real tragedy of the surrogacy story – not that the poor struggle to survive, but that these struggles fail much more than they succeed.

Vrinda Marwah is doing her PhD in Sociology from the University of Texas at Austin. She has worked with Delhi-based Sama, a women’s health rights group, on surrogacy.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Snippets of wisdom on the health care industry by Dr. Kevin Lofton

His sessions stressed on the importance of patient centric healthcare.

At the Hospital Leadership Summit 2017, Dr Kevin Lofton, CEO Catholic Health Initiatives, spoke on the need to focus on patient experience, the role of the leader and shared some ideas from the practices of his own hospital chain. Here are some snippets from Dr Lofton’s presentation that will provide some food for thought. The Bringing Health to Life content hub contains his and many other insights and best practices for healthcare delivery.

The two kinds of willing patients

During the summit, a consensus emerged that the health care industry needs to learn customer centricity from other industries. However, the health care industry is unique in several ways and one of the fundamental differences is the nature of its customer. Dr Lofton spoke about how the customer i.e. the patient in the health care industry is different by way of motivation. He reminded the gathering that nobody willingly seeks out a doctor.

Play

The paradigm shift needed in health care

Dr Lofton emphasised that patient centricity needs to become a part of the very philosophy of a health care facility, a philosophy that drives every action and motivates every employee in the organisation. He described this revaluation of purpose as a paradigm shift. Dr Lofton spoke about how patient centricity starts much before the patient walks into the hospital, that the patient’s tryst with the health care system starts before a visit to the doctor is warranted. In this clip, Dr Lofton provides an example of one such paradigm shift for health care providers.

Play

At the 2017 Hospital Leadership Summit, Dr Lofton shared several such insights from his experience in the US health care system. He emphasised especially on the need of empathy alongside clinical skill among health care providers.

For more insights and best practices for healthcare delivery, visit Abbott’s Bringing Health to Life portal.

This article was produced on behalf of Abbott by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.