Gender discrimination

Is a fertility treatment test being misused to select male embryos? Yes, alleges one Mumbai woman

Shubhangi Bhostekar has complained to the Maharashtra child rights panel after a surrogate hired by her husband gave birth to a boy.

A complaint received by the Maharashtra State Commission for Protection of Child Rights early this year has raised concerns that fertility clinics might be misusing technology meant for screening genetic disorders to guarantee the birth of boys.

It is illegal in India to use any technology to select the gender of a foetus. But activists suspect that medical professionals have been using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, or PGD as it is commonly known, to selectively implant male embryos. The PGD technique allows doctors to test an embryo for genetic abnormalities before transferring it to the uterus. It was introduced in India roughly two decades ago. A woman’s complaint to the child rights commission has only strengthened this suspicion.

Shubhangi Bhostekar, 35, said that a surrogate hired by her businessman husband, Prakash Bhostekar, 41, without her knowledge had in September 2016 delivered a male child. Shubhangi Bhostekar claimed the birth of the boy was made possible by sex selection at preconception. The couple have two daughters aged 5 and 14.

Mumbai’s Jaslok Hospital, where the surrogacy procedure was performed, has refuted the allegation of sex selection. A hospital spokesperson said the embryo was implanted into the surrogate’s uterus on the second day of its formation. “At this stage, embryo biopsy for PGD is not possible and hence there has been no misuse of a technology,” the spokesperson said.

The Maharahstra child rights body has asked the Mumbai police to investigate Shubhangi Bhostekar’s allegation. The police have referred the matter to a medical board, consisting of government doctors, for expert opinion, Senior Police Inspector at Mulund station Shripad Kale said.

The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act of 1994 requires that every “Genetic Counseling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic, Ultrasound Clinic and Imaging Centre shall maintain a register showing, in serial order, the names and addresses of the men or women given genetic counseling, subjected to pre-natal diagnostic procedures or pre-natal diagnostic tests, the names of their spouses or fathers and the date on which they first reported for such counseling, procedure or test”.

The Indian Council of Medical Research also maintains a national registry of fertility clinics.

To help couples who are unable to conceive naturally bear children, doctors take reproductive germ cells called gametes from them or donors to create an embryo. The embryo may be screened for genetic abnormalities using the PGD technique before it is implanted into the uterus of the mother or the surrogate. The technique can also be used to determine the gender of the embryo. In fact, a study conducted in Iran, where PGD is widely used for gender selection, found that it was “100% successful in achieving the desired sex”.

This is what worries activists in India. Specifically, such procedures are difficult to monitor and, thereby, regulate, making them prone to misuse. “These clinics are offering such sophisticated treatments but are not being monitored effectively,” said Varsha Deshpande, founder of Lek Ladki Abhiyan, a non-profit that campaigns against sex selection. “It is not a mere coincidence that celebrities and rich people opting for surrogacy are only having sons.”

In 2013, Deshpande filed a case against the actor Shah Rukh Khan and Jaslok Hospital for allegedly predetermining the sex of his third child, who was born through surrogacy. Her petition was eventually dismissed by the Bombay High Court.

Suspicious case

On January 12, 2016, Shubhangi Bhostekar and her daughters were allegedly evicted from their home. In her complaint to the Mulund police, she said her husband had forced her to undergo multiple abortions following the birth of her second daughter because he wanted a male child. “He even took me to Jaslok Hospital in 2014 as he wanted me to undergo infertility treatment,” she told Scroll.in. “He told me treatment at the hospital will ensure the birth of a boy. I was tired of the harassment and decided not to undergo it.”

Jaslok Hospital confirmed the couple had visited infertility specialist Dr Firuza Parikh on August 6, 2014, but had not registered as patients or paid a fee. They wanted to plan for another child but the patient came with a history of having two daughters, two miscarriages and the husband had high blood sugar level, the hospital said. They were told to come back when his sugar levels were under control. Prakash Bhostekar returned after about 17 months, but as a single man who wanted a child through surrogacy. At that time, Parikh did not recall his previous visit, the hospital added.

On March 21, 2017, Shubhangi Bhostekar complained to the child rights commission, alleging that her husband, in pursuit of having a boy, had hired a surrogate through Jaslok and entered into an agreement with her on January 15, 2016, three days after throwing Shubhangi Bhostekar and their daughters out of his home.

Jaslok, however, told the commission they were not aware Prakash Bhostekar was married with two daughters since he had furnished an affidavit saying he was single. The Indian Council of Medical Research’s guidelines require a married person to take spouse’s consent before commissioning surrogacy.

The surrogate delivered a baby boy on September 28, 2016. A month later, Shubhangi Bhostekar approached the police after learning her husband had brought an infant home.

Her lawyer, Siddh Vidya, claimed the police investigated her complaint only after she filed a Right to Information application about the status of the case. “There is enough circumstantial evidence indicating that Prakash opted for surrogacy to have a boy,” said Vidya.

The child rights commission agreed. After receiving Shubhangi Bhostekar’s complaint, it directed the Maharashtra government to “take appropriate action against Prakash Bhostekar and [his mother] Laxmi Bhostekar for sex selection, forceful abortion, for giving false affidavits to the effect that the [marital] status of Prakash Bhostekar is single and for obtaining a male child through surrogacy.”

Pravin Ghuge, chairperson of the commission, said Prakash Bhostekar has violated the rights of his daughters and newborn son. “We are not a medical body but from the submissions made to us it appears the surrogacy was opted for the sole purpose of having a male child,” he said.

Need for regulation

In 1998, Dr Anniruddha Malpani, who runs an infertility clinic in South Mumbai, argued in an article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics for allowing the PGD technology to be used for sex selection.

Twenty years later, Malpani said that the bannon the use of technology for sex selection was to be blamed on cases like the Bhostekars. “The ban has driven the operations underground,” he said. Malpani said that instead of a blanket ban, there could have been a regulatory mechanism to allow couples to select the gender of the child. “What if the couple just wants to balance the sex-ratio in the family?” he asked.

Infertility specialist Dr Kamini Rao, who practises in Bangalore, said discussions around using the PGD technology for sex selection were unwarranted. “The law does not permit it and we have to follow it,” she said.

Still, many couples do ask her to conduct sex selection procedures – “especially couples who are opting for infertility for a second child inquire about sex selection,” she said. “But it is not necessarily only for having a boy. Many couples want a girl.”

Amar Jesani, a researcher specialising in bioethics and public health, said artificial reproductive technologies have made it possible for doctors and couples to select several aspects of the foetus. “It is a well known fact that selection takes place and gender is only one part of it,” he said.

Both Jesani and Rao said legislative regulation of assisted reproductive technologies was required. “The Bill to regulate assisted reproductive technology was never introduced in Parliament,” said Jesani. “And without regulating the ART industry, having a bill for regulating surrogacy is not enough.”

Gita Aravamudan, author of Baby Makers: The Story of Indian Surrogacy, said it was not surprising that doctors were selecting the gender of embryos. “During my research, I learnt of cases where couples chose the gender of the child they bore using infertility treatment,” she said. “The entire industry needs to be regulated.”

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

Why do our clothes fade, tear and lose their sheen?

From purchase to the back of the wardrobe – the life-cycle of a piece of clothing.

It’s an oft repeated story - shiny new dresses and smart blazers are bought with much enthusiasm, only to end up at the back of the wardrobe, frayed, faded or misshapen. From the moment of purchase, clothes are subject to wear and tear caused by nature, manmade chemicals and....human mishandling.

Just the act of wearing clothes is enough for gradual erosion. Some bodily functions aren’t too kind on certain fabrics. Sweat - made of trace amounts of minerals, lactic acid and urea - may seem harmless. But when combined with bacteria, it can weaken and discolour clothes over time. And if you think this is something you can remedy with an antiperspirant, you’ll just make matters worse. The chemical cocktail in deodorants and antiperspirants leads to those stubborn yellowish stains that don’t yield to multiple wash cycles or scrubbing sessions. Linen, rayon, cotton and synthetic blends are especially vulnerable.

Add to that, sun exposure. Though a reliable dryer and disinfectant, the UV radiation from the sun causes clothes to fade. You needn’t even dry your clothes out in the sun; walking outside on a sunny day is enough for your clothes to gradually fade.

And then there’s what we do to our clothes when we’re not wearing them - ignoring labels, forgetting to segregate while washing and maintaining improper storage habits. You think you know how to hang a sweater? Not if you hang it just like all your shirts - gravity stretches out the neck and shoulders of heavier clothing. Shielding your clothes by leaving them in the dry-cleaning bag? You just trapped them in humidity and foul odour. Fabrics need to breathe, so they shouldn’t be languishing in plastic bags. Tossing workout clothes into the laundry bag first thing after returning home? It’s why the odour stays. Excessive moisture boosts fungal growth, so these clothes need to be hung out to dry first. Every day, a whole host of such actions unleash immense wear and tear on our clothes.

Clothes encounter maximum resistance in the wash; it’s the biggest factor behind premature degeneration of clothes. Wash sessions that don’t adhere to the rules of fabric care have a harsh impact on clothes. For starters, extra effort often backfires. Using more detergent than is indicated may seem reasonable for a tub full of soiled clothes, but it actually adds to their erosion. Aggressive scrubbing, too, is counterproductive as it worsens stains. And most clothes can be worn a few times before being put in the wash, unless of course they are sweat-soaked gym clothes. Daily washing of regulars exposes them to too much friction, hastening their wear and tear.

Different fabrics react differently to these abrasive agents. Natural fabrics include cotton, wool, silk and linen and each has distinct care requirements. Synthetic fabrics, on the other hand, are sensitive to heat and oil.

A little bit of conscious effort will help your clothes survive for longer. You can start by lessening the forces acting on the clothes while washing. Sort your clothes by fabric instead of colour while loading them in the washing machine. This helps save lighter fabrics from the friction of rubbing against heavier ones. It’s best to wash denim materials separately as they are quite coarse. For the same reason, clothes should be unzipped and buttoned before being tossed in the washing machine. Turning jeans, printed clothes and shirts inside out while loading will also ensure any abrasion is limited to the inner layers only. Avoid overloading the washing machine to reduce friction between the clothes.

Your choice of washing tools also makes a huge difference. Invest in a gentler detergent, devoid of excessive dyes, perfumes and other unnecessary chemicals. If you prefer a washing machine for its convenience, you needn’t worry anymore. The latest washing machines are far gentler, and even equipped to handle delicate clothing with minimal wear and tear.


Bosch’s range of top loading washing machines, for example, care for your everyday wear to ensure they look as good as new over time. The machines make use of the PowerWave Wash System to retain the quality of the fabrics. The WaveDrum movement adds a top-down motion to the regular round action for a thorough cleaning, while the dynamic water flow reduces the friction and pulling forces on the clothes.

Play

The intelligent system also creates water displacement for better movement of clothes, resulting in lesser tangles and clothes that retain their shape for longer. These wash cycles are also noiseless and more energy efficient as the motor is directly attached to the tub to reduce overall friction. Bosch’s top loading washing machines take the guesswork away from setting of controls by automatically choosing the right wash program based on the load. All that’s needed is a one-touch start for a wash cycle that’s free of human errors. Read more about the range here. You can also follow Bosch on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

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