Outsourcing Pregnancy
India is known as the land of outsourced IT departments and call centers, but the latest outsourced service raises the bar: pregnancy. Infertile couples in wealthy countries are beginning to turn to India for surrogate mothers to bear their own biological children because of the high quality of Indian medical personnel and low costs relative to commercial surrogacy programs in World 1 countries. It is entirely legal, and the industry appears to be growing rapidly, with each success story prompting dozens more inquiries.
On the surface, it seems to be a win-win situation: the aspiring parents get the baby they'd hoped for, and the surrogate mother gets generously compensated, by Indian standards. The surrogate typically receives $4,500-7,500, the equivalent of 3-15 years' salary, which enables her to buy a house or pay for her children's education. The lower cost of surrogacy ($10,000 to $30,000) allows middle-class couples in World 1 an affordable chance to have a child of their own.
Critics have raised moral issues, however. What's a "fair" price for a child? What happens if the surrogate wants to keep the baby? For the time being, the price issue is left to the clinics, and surrogates must sign a contract agreeing to give up the child at birth. Each pregnancy clinic has its own policy on meetings between parents and surrogates: Rotunda prohibits contact between the two parties, and the surrogate does not know she is working for foreigners, while others clinics allow the surrogate mother and parents to meet. These issues are compounded by the astounding inequalities, both economic and educational, between the foreign parents and Indian surrogates: the money exchanges represents a "bargain price" for the parents, and a life-changing sum for the mother. Educational disparities are also apparent: "On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signatures."
Although (mostly) restricted to couples with proven fertility problems, there is a fear that upper-income women would choose to "rent a womb" out of convenience rather than necessity, just as they are choosing C-sections. Ultimately, Dr. John Lantos warns, "It raises the factor of baby farms in developing countries."
Image: Meena Kadri (Flickr)
Dorothy Voorhees
in Asia, Economics, India
2 Comments
Share this: digg
| reddit
| del.icio.us
| ma.gnolia
| newsvine
| stumbleupon
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
As long as both parties know what they are getting into I see no problem with this service.
"Although (mostly) restricted to couples with proven fertility problems, there is a fear that upper-income women would choose to "rent a womb" out of convenience rather than necessity, just as they are choosing C-sections."
Are upper-income women really choosing C-sections? It is my understanding in the US that the OB/GYN are choosing C-sections out of liability concerns. We know that westerners put a high value on safety over other values. If Dr.s say to the mother 'it is necessary', or, 'it is safer', is it really the mother making the decision?