Cheaper Overseas: Surrogate Mothers
December 21st, 2008
[This post was submitted last year by trip and program alumni Angie Dip in connection with the 2008 trip. This issue has been in the news again recently so I am re-running her submitted post.]
“Customer service. Technical support. Administrative and accounting processes. So many services are being outsourced to India. Let?s add another one to the list: pregnancy, or rent-a-womb.
Check out this article from ABC News regarding the cheaper service of surrogate mothers offered overseas in India.
In the United States, the cost of the services of surrogate mothers, which include the in-vitro fertilization to home health care costs from the time of pregnancy to when the baby is delivered, is about $60,000. In India, however, the price is much lower ? just about $6,000 for a successful in-vitro fertilization process.
Some women use this service because they either have medical complications that prevent them from being able to give birth, or, according to a new trend, they want to be mothers but do not want to put their careers on hold for the pregnancy.
The process seems mutually beneficial to everyone. The doctors involved gets paid for their services, the couple who wants the baby gets what they want, and the surrogate mothers get a paycheck that is equal to about ten years? worth of work to take care of their family. Although by supporting the outsourcing of pregnancy, everyone involved would be in a win-win situation, taking advantage of and exploiting the impoverished women in India is depressing to me. But, I understand that this is a great money-making opportunity for these women. Nevertheless, this ?business,? also called reproductive tourism, is thriving in India, bringing in over $400 million a year.
India is a top choice for surrogates because of its low cost, its excellent medical treatment, and its availability of surrogate mothers and English-speaking doctors. In addition, there is little regulation right now in India on this business. (Eventually, there should be stricter rules to prevent women from being abused.) The women usually sign a contract agreeing to hand over the baby to the potential parents. In the United States, on the other hand, some states may allow a surrogate to stake her claim to parental rights during a short period after giving birth.
What other outsourcing opportunities will they come up with next?
Questions to consider:
How do you feel about India outsourcing pregnancy? As a future businessperson, do you think it is okay as long as it?s a win-win situation for everyone involved? Or do you think it is unethical?
If you do not agree, think about the women who are not able to bear children because of medical complications. What if you, like Tracy Thornton from the article, were put in their position? Wouldn?t you want a service like this provided to you?
Do you think China will make a similar approach (to gain more business and compete with India)?
For more on the outsourcing of pregnancy in India, check out these related articles:
Womb for Rent: Surrogate Mothers in India
Prof. Carr addendum:
Good post.
In asking the question, “Is this ethical or unethical?”, avoid the natural reflex to shoot from the hip and pull out the easy and broad statement of “why, yes!” or “why, no!” and instead dig deeper and apply one or more of the commonly studied ethical theories that philosophers have given us to try to sort out these things — Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and Legal Positivisim.
Does an analysis under each yield the same, or different conclusions?
And re: the people discussed in the article, which theory are they using, intentionally or subconsciously, to explain, justify or feel comfortable with their decisions?
And can you think of other people, companies, politicians, governments, religious leaders, and even your classmates and professors, etc. who sometimes ‘flip-flop’ and cherry pick the ethical theory that gets them to the result they want or justify their argument and position?
One example for practice analysis:
“Iraq is a just war and noble cause because our Judeo Christian God says all people deserve liberty and a democracy” is a common natural law justification where one could say, “Of course, this activity is right (code for ethical and moral).”
A utilitarian ethicist and/or disciple would look at Iraq and says, “What? You are nuts. That activity is wrong (code for unethical and immoral) because the costs of being there far outweigh the benefits.”
A legal positivism theorist focuses on the stated law as the baseline for determining what is right (ethical and moral). He/she could go either way on this issue, depending on the law at issue and its interpretation. For example, some believe Bush et al., have violated significant American and international laws re: the Iraq thing. Others argue and interpret said laws were minor or if significant interpret them the other way and conclude said laws were not violated.
What are the weak spots of each theory?
Which theory do you use and consistently adhere to in your everyday personal and professional life? Are you ever guilty of flip flopping to get to the result you really want?
Please keep the above in mind as you analyze any issue you see in China and India that disturbs you because you have not been exposed to it in the US.
And stay tuned. More to come on the ethics issue in a subsequent post …
Professor Carr addendum: Click HERE to check out this piece that came out in the NY Times on this subject. Some interesting comments on this Times‘ blog post. See also this recent Newsweek article that highlights the risks of adoption and how said joy can turn into an (honest) parent’s worst nightmare.
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, China, India, Pre-Departure
2 Comments Add your own
1. Monet | February 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
My husband and I are 7 weeks pregnant with a Surrogate Mother from India. For the people who are against this I am going to assume that you have children already or that you are not infertile..or at least not that you know of at this time. I hope that is not the case for you. I have two beautiful children that I carried on my own and am quite fertile! I have now met the “love of my life” and am in a position now where I cannot carry my own child. My husband is a wonderful man who adores my children. He had a daughter who tragically died..his only child. We were going to adopt. We are a little older and found that we had to be married 5 years to adopt. We are shy of that and decided to adopt internationally. China is a 3-5 year waiting list. We came across the idea of surrogacy. Checked throughout the States and found the expense is out of this world. In total with Dr.s, med’s, surrogate, expenses etc. came between $60-100,000. $60,000 if your lucky. Then you have many of these surromom’s wanting a relationship with the child for the rest of your life, or they want the chlld to know that they carried your child…your genetic child!!!…We are not heartless people, but this is a business contract period. I don’t mind sending photo’s and Christmas cards, but we want our privacy to raise our own genetic children…my eggs, his sperm! Then on top of that the Surrogate Mother (even though NOT genetically linked to our child) has a waiting period after she gives birth to keep MY CHILD! Then try calling Florida…where they have a friend…and another friend that will do it. Is this a ring???..We opted, after much worry and deliberation, to try India. After hours of flights we arrived to see Dr. Patel. We met our Surromom and the procedure was done. We met her family and everything was done in a loving atmosphere and respectful fashion. We have paid for life insurance for her family in case (God forbid) anything were to happen to her. We pay monthly for her food and accommodations. She wants this badly. India is a huge culture shock. Alot of people live in attached units that have rusting tin roofs with mud floors and tarps for walls. With this money, which the prices are going up steadily by the way, she has her own bank acount set up by Dr. Patel…not for hubby! This is her money and she wants to buy a concrete block home for herself and her family. This house has bedrooms and a kitchen, and safety. I want to surprise her with an air conditioner. This has not been as inexpensive as we had anticipated, but compared to the alternatives, at least at this time, India is the place to go. Dr. Patel’s number one priority is the safety of the Surrogate and the baby/babies. Multiples are reduced to twins or a singleton, your choice. The same practice as here. Twins are the highest Dr. Patel will allow and in our contract the Surrogate can choose to abort. Most of the surrogates stay at a Surrohome run by the Patel’s where they can visit with their families. They are there to rest and be pampered. They don’t have to cook or clean or anything. Just be healthy and bond with the other women there. We also pay for this. Drinking and Drugs are taboo with these women. I can honestly say I am a wreck. I am used to carrying my own babies, and I can’t thank Dr. Patel and technology enough for giving me this chance to give my husband his own child. Never forgetting his daughter that passed away, but giving her a sister or brother…or both…and giving our Surromom a new life of her own. This isn’t unethical, and for those who think it is, “Give your head a shake”…and hug your babies close because I have given birth and have found the waiting and not knowing and not being able to carry…torture! I am only getting a taste of what true infertile couples get when they try for years with nothing fruitful…may God bless you all with that bundle of joy…and may all who judge surrogacy, in whatever country…pray that you or a loved one never have to go through anything like this. Be thankful…kiss your babies goodnight…and enjoy them everyday…I do!
2. Alex vanDalen | December 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
From a different perspective I would like to untangle the debate from the rather arbitrary question of ethics and moral righteousness ( ethics and morality after all are quite subjective to culture, time, location, economic background, and numerous other factors ) Instead I would more like to focus on the factors of what Dr. Carr termed “Natural Law, Positive Law, and Utilitarianism”.
Natural Law theories and tenants are based in nature and therefore theoretically valid everywhere. As humans we sometimes find fault with the laws of nature and try to employ a sort of legal positivism to right various injustices that we as societies believe exist in the natural system. Whether this is a “correct” course of action or not is not always clear as this case shows.
Natural Law would seem to exclaim quite clearly that infertile couples should not have children. If their genetic material was suitable for reproduction, then having children would not even be an issue of discussion. However since nature has deemed them unfit I cannot help but find it unwise and completely against the natural order that they persist in pursuing such a course of action. Questions of fairness in this regard are moot. It is regrettable that not everyone can birth their own child, however everyone CAN adopt. (Everyone who is fit to parent that is). The natural order and indeed the genetic viability of our species depends on healthy and natural reproduction, not test tube genetic experiments.
Let us consider what the woman in the above comment has done to satisfy the egos of both herself and that of her husband. First, she has engaged in a form of human trafficking; renting a part of a woman’s body who is too poor or uneducated to make a living in and other manner. Is this far different from prostitution?… After all the organs that are being rented are very close neighbors. This third world woman, now very likely quite demeaned in her culture, is paid a pittance in comparison to what the wear, tear, labor and pain of having a child will really cost. The first world woman makes out the surrogate mother’s living conditions as if it were a first class hotel; however I can’t help but wonder if she would herself live in those same conditions despite the “air-conditioning”. In addition what happens when the baby is born?… as the care and concern was really for the first world baby inside of the third world mother… will the pampering continue?
Second if the risky and invasive fertility treatment that was done to this woman results in more than twins, the fetus are aborted. (As the proud mother beams, ” Multiples are reduced to twins or a singleton, your choice”) It is almost as if she were ordering from a menu at the baby store. Regardless of if one is pro or anti -abortion (I myself am quite a fan of the Chinese policy), this is a needless and unconscionable manufacturing and destruction of human life; all because some poor rich American people cannot have their own spawn.
Taking Utilitarianism in to question (something I don’t usually like to do seeing as how it is a somewhat dated and flawed British construct) do we find the greatest good for the greatest number in this outcome? One rich couple gets their “own” child. One Indian family becomes a tiny step closer to middle class. But how much good could have been produced with that same money, medical equipment, and expertise if it were used in helping the many sick and unwanted orphans in the Calcutta slums. Would it perhaps have helped 100 children… 1000?
To these rich egotistical and barren first world parents I ask?… What is wrong with one of the millions of adoptable children in the world that would love to have a home and family to care for them? Why are they not good enough ? Why not one from India?… are they too brown?..
While my comments are in some part intended to provoke and inflame, they are also intended to make people pause and consider the consequences of their actions. Most actions that we undertake are done in the name of “self”, and in this situation I see little difference. The world does not revolve around one individual, or one family, or one couple’s ability to have children. We are all a part of this planet and must work together to make it function in a healthy and sustainable manner. Barren or not I indented to adopt my child, there are too many homeless ones that need love. We should focus and love the forgotten children that already live in our world before we use our technology, resources, and education to produce new ones, especially if these new ones are produce with no regard to the rights of humans or nature.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed