PDA

View Full Version : Giving birth becomes the latest job outsourced to India


patriotsblade
12-31-2007, 05:45 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/30/india.wombs.for.rent.ap/index.html

ANAND, India (AP) -- Every night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand's surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years. But the program raises a host of uncomfortable questions that touch on morals and modern science, exploitation and globalization, and that most natural of desires: to have a family.

Dr. Nayna Patel, the woman behind Anand's baby boom, defends her work as meaningful for everyone involved.

"There is this one woman who desperately needs a baby and cannot have her own child without the help of a surrogate. And at the other end there is this woman who badly wants to help her [own] family," Patel said. "If this female wants to help the other one ... why not allow that? ... It's not for any bad cause. They're helping one another to have a new life in this world."

Experts say commercial surrogacy -- or what has been called "wombs for rent" -- is growing in India. While no reliable numbers track such pregnancies nationwide, doctors work with surrogates in virtually every major city. The women are impregnated in-vitro with the egg and sperm of couples unable to conceive on their own.

Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002, as it is in many other countries, including the United States. But India is the leader in making it a viable industry rather than a rare fertility treatment. Experts say it could take off for the same reasons outsourcing in other industries has been successful: a wide labor pool working for relatively low rates.

Critics say the couples are exploiting poor women in India -- a country with an alarmingly high maternal death rate -- by hiring them at a cut-rate cost to undergo the hardship, pain and risks of labor.

"It raises the factor of baby farms in developing countries," said Dr. John Lantos of the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Mo. "It comes down to questions of voluntariness and risk."

Patel's surrogates are aware of the risks because they've watched others go through them. Many of the mothers know one another, or are even related. Three sisters have all borne strangers' children, and their sister-in-law is pregnant with a second surrogate baby. Nearly half the babies have been born to foreign couples while the rest have gone to Indians.

Ritu Sodhi, a furniture importer from Los Angeles who was born in India, spent $200,000 trying to get pregnant through in-vitro fertilization, and was considering spending another $80,000 to hire a surrogate mother in the United States.

"We were so desperate," she said. "It was emotionally and financially exhausting."

Then, on the Internet, Sodhi found Patel's clinic.

After spending about $20,000 -- more than many couples because it took the surrogate mother several cycles to conceive -- Sodhi and her husband are now back home with their 4-month-old baby, Neel. They plan to return to Anand for a second child.

"Even if it cost $1 million, the joy that they had delivered to me is so much more than any money that I have given them," said Sodhi. "They're godsends to deliver something so special."

Patel's center is believed to be unique in offering one-stop service. Other clinics may request that the couple bring in their own surrogate, often a family member or friend, and some place classified ads. But in Anand the couple just provides the egg and sperm and the clinic does the rest, drawing from a waiting list of tested and ready surrogates.

Young women are flocking to the clinic to sign up for the list.

Suman Dodia, a pregnant, baby-faced 26-year-old, said she will buy a house with the $4,500 she receives from the British couple whose child she's carrying. It would have taken her 15 years to earn that on her maid's monthly salary of $25.

Dodia's own three children were delivered at home and she said she never visited a doctor during those pregnancies.

"It's very different with medicine," Dodia said, resting her hands on her hugely pregnant belly. "I'm being more careful now than I was with my own pregnancy."

Patel said she carefully chooses which couples to help and which women to hire as surrogates. She only accepts couples with serious fertility issues, like survivors of uterine cancer. The surrogate mothers have to be between 18 and 45, have at least one child of their own, and be in good medical shape.

Like some fertility reality show, a rotating cast of surrogate mothers live together in a home rented by the clinic and overseen by a former surrogate mother. They receive their children and husbands as visitors during the day, when they're not busy with English or computer classes.

"They feel like my family," said Rubina Mandul, 32, the surrogate house's den mother. "The first 10 days are hard, but then they don't want to go home."

Mandul, who has two sons of her own, gave birth to a child for an American couple in February. She said she misses the baby, but she stays in touch with the parents over the Internet. A photo of the American couple with the child hangs over the sofa.

"They need a baby more than me," she said.

The surrogate mothers and the parents sign a contract that promises the couple will cover all medical expenses in addition to the woman's payment, and the surrogate mother will hand over the baby after birth. The couples fly to Anand for the in-vitro fertilization and again for the birth. Most couples end up paying the clinic less than $10,000 for the entire procedure, including fertilization, the fee to the mother and medical expenses.

Counseling is a major part of the process and Patel tells the women to think of the pregnancy as "someone's child comes to stay at your place for nine months."

Kailas Gheewala, 25, said she doesn't think of the pregnancy as her own.

"The fetus is theirs, so I'm not sad to give it back," said Gheewala, who plans to save the $6,250 she's earning for her two daughters' education. "The child will go to the U.S. and lead a better life and I'll be happy."

Patel said none of the surrogate mothers has had especially difficult births or serious medical problems, but risks are inescapable.

"We have to be very careful," she said. "We overdo all the health investigations. We do not take any chances."

Health experts expect to see more Indian commercial surrogacy programs in coming years. Dr. Indira Hinduja, a prominent fertility specialist who was behind India's first test-tube baby two decades ago, receives several surrogacy inquiries a month from couples overseas.

"People are accepting it," said Hinduja. "Earlier they used to be ashamed but now they are becoming more broadminded."

But if commercial surrogacy keeps growing, some fear it could change from a medical necessity for infertile women to a convenience for the rich.

"You can picture the wealthy couples of the West deciding that pregnancy is just not worth the trouble anymore and the whole industry will be farmed out," said Lantos.

Or, Lantos said, competition among clinics could lead to compromised safety measures and "the clinic across the street offers it for 20 percent less and one in Bangladesh undercuts that and pretty soon conditions get bad."

The industry is not regulated by the government. Health officials have issued nonbinding ethical guidelines and called for legislation to protect the surrogates and the children.

For now, the surrogate mothers in Anand seem as pleased with the arrangement as the new parents.

"I know this isn't mine," said Jagrudi Sharma, 34, pointing to her belly. "But I'm giving happiness to another couple. And it's great for me."

MW
12-31-2007, 07:01 AM
"You can picture the wealthy couples of the West deciding that pregnancy is just not worth the trouble anymore and the whole industry will be farmed out," said Lantos.

There are a few people that I can see doing that.

Cookie Parker
12-31-2007, 07:51 AM
Again, this is not an issues of morality, but one of conscience. I can hear the "religious" scream it's not right and is evil...in reality, like abortion, this is a decision of conscience the surrogate woman reaches.

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 09:52 AM
There are a few people that I can see doing that.

That's a lot of what worries me, that it will become the norm to hire out your pregnancy.

Cookie Parker
12-31-2007, 10:04 AM
That's a lot of what worries me, that it will become the norm to hire out your pregnancy.


Well, what is your fear?

issac the dragon
12-31-2007, 12:38 PM
My fear is that the woman is not being paid nearly enough. I think that the women in poor countrys are going to be exploited.

Isn't it illegal to get paid for that in this country? Why not pay an American woman to do it? She'd be exploited too, but at least we could pass some laws to protect her.

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 01:33 PM
Well, what is your fear?

That it will be one more thing that takes us away from our humanity. Children will be just another commodity.

Semantics
12-31-2007, 01:41 PM
This is interesting.


Americans exploit the citizens of other countries every day. We purchase products manufactured using slave labor and child labor. We allow our government to reward corporations who outsource jobs to countries where there are no labor or environmental laws.


Why is there so much upset about this topic? I saw it being discussed at another board and people acted like this was the worst thing ever, completely immoral, and the end of civilized humanity.

I agree, they don't get paid enough, but they are getting paid much better than the six year old that works fourteen hours per day, seven days a week with hazardous chemicals and inside a factory with no safety equipment to make the sweaters sold in some luxury department stores.

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 01:52 PM
Because there ought to be some things we do that remind us that we are just humans. If this is only for couples with fertility or health problems, then I have far less problem with it.

Sweet Tart
12-31-2007, 02:46 PM
People are exploited for thousands of reasons, and this is really no different than swooping into an impoverished country, flashing a fat wallet, and leaving with an "adopted" baby.

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it, because couples can and should adopt if at all possible. I also know that its sometimes an option for those who cannot conceive, and who could be better parents than some others who pop 'em out yearly.

cassandra
12-31-2007, 03:45 PM
There are a few people that I can see doing that.

Those people have morality issues up the yin yang. We cannot hope to make them more moral.

That's a lot of what worries me, that it will become the norm to hire out your pregnancy.

So what, people have different reasons for everything they do in their life. If they are so shallow to do this and a surrogate is willing to do this for you then I guess everyone who needs to has worked it out.

My fear is that the woman is not being paid nearly enough. I think that the women in poor countrys are going to be exploited.

Isn't it illegal to get paid for that in this country? Why not pay an American woman to do it? She'd be exploited too, but at least we could pass some laws to protect her.

Have you priced that in this country. I am not saying that it is not worth it but this is far more pricey than you are thinking. Over $30,000 for 9 months of carrying a baby where you can go on and do your normal thing as well.

Because there ought to be some things we do that remind us that we are just humans. If this is only for couples with fertility or health problems, then I have far less problem with it.

I am sure you don't mean that infertile people are not humans. :shrug Guess it just reads that way. Sorry but again we can't say who or what can have this. It is open to anyone. Plenty of people who don't need infertility drugs get them.


People are exploited for thousands of reasons, and this is really no different than swooping into an impoverished country, flashing a fat wallet, and leaving with an "adopted" baby.

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it, because couples can and should adopt if at all possible. I also know that its sometimes an option for those who cannot conceive, and who could be better parents than some others who pop 'em out yearly.

I am glad you ended with this comment. Thank you for your understanding. I know lots of parents who would probably not be certified by the state to adopt, let alone another country.

This is a very sensitive issue to me. One that, given that information, I probably shouldn't even comment. I will just leave you with the thought that if you have never been in the depths and despair of infertility you have no idea how much of a blessing this is.

Sweet Tart
12-31-2007, 03:50 PM
Cassandra, know that I was not referring to you and baby Ethie, but those who can fly in and buy a baby without a problem - either by adopting OR whatever means.

cassandra
12-31-2007, 03:56 PM
I know Tart. Those people piss me off too. Everyone thinks that this is just the easiest thing in the world. Only some people can walk in and drop a couple million and go on their merry way. The country has salary requirements, but outside of that everyone should follow the same rules. Can you imagine Brad and Angelina going through half of what I have? :roll

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 05:42 PM
Those people have morality issues up the yin yang. We cannot hope to make them more moral.



So what, people have different reasons for everything they do in their life. If they are so shallow to do this and a surrogate is willing to do this for you then I guess everyone who needs to has worked it out.



Have you priced that in this country. I am not saying that it is not worth it but this is far more pricey than you are thinking. Over $30,000 for 9 months of carrying a baby where you can go on and do your normal thing as well.



I am sure you don't mean that infertile people are not humans. :shrug Guess it just reads that way. Sorry but again we can't say who or what can have this. It is open to anyone. Plenty of people who don't need infertility drugs get them.




I am glad you ended with this comment. Thank you for your understanding. I know lots of parents who would probably not be certified by the state to adopt, let alone another country.

This is a very sensitive issue to me. One that, given that information, I probably shouldn't even comment. I will just leave you with the thought that if you have never been in the depths and despair of infertility you have no idea how much of a blessing this is.

Given that I said that I didn't have as much problem with it if it were only done by couples with fertility or health problems, I believe you know that I don't think any such thing. This is a broader issue than just fertility, and we aren't going to go anywhere with a discussion if people have a chip on their shoulder going in.

And obviously, I said nothing about who could or could not have this.

People here really should try asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions.

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 06:17 PM
I am as pro-fertility treatments as any person out there, and I would never say that not having children makes somebody less human, because that would slam some of the people nearest and dearest to me, and because it just doesn't make any sense to say such a thing-we are NOT defined by our fertility. I understand why these people are contracting out because they want a child so much. I even understand why people might try cloning to have a child.

My point is that people are in a flight from their animal nature, and this could become yet another way that people flee the "inconvinence" of pregnancy, just like some people have fled the inconvenience of caring for their children.

I no more condemn the people who do this to have a child than I have "often said that I don't believe that children can be helped".

Geez. Just ask a question instead of making these assumptions.

cassandra
12-31-2007, 06:26 PM
Because there ought to be some things we do that remind us that we are just humans. If this is only for couples with fertility or health problems, then I have far less problem with it.

I am as pro-fertility treatments as any person out there, and I would never say that not having children makes somebody less human, because that would slam some of the people nearest and dearest to me, and because it just doesn't make any sense to say such a thing-we are NOT defined by our fertility. I understand why these people are contracting out because they want a child so much. I even understand why people might try cloning to have a child.

My point is that people are in a flight from their animal nature, and this could become yet another way that people flee the "inconvinence" of pregnancy, just like some people have fled the inconvenience of caring for their children.

I no more condemn the people who do this to have a child than I have "often said that I don't believe that children can be helped".

Geez. Just ask a question instead of making these assumptions.

I am glad you took the time to tell us what you meant.

Way to jump to conclusions. BTW I said that I was SURE you didn't mean it that way.

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 06:34 PM
I am glad you took the time to tell us what you meant.

Way to jump to conclusions. BTW I said that I was SURE you didn't mean it that way.

And you weren't aiming to dig at me, it just sounded that way. :lol

All you had to do was ask.

Trueblue
12-31-2007, 06:51 PM
The thing is, Ringo and Wabash are going to be rude to me no matter what, because that's how they treat people who don't agree with their politics. They are going to become personally insulting. But you are a decent person. I don't want you to think I harbor such terrible ideas about me!!!!! :)

toxic
01-01-2008, 10:36 AM
Women need to think through their pre-occupation with having children. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE.

It appears to me that the desire to have a barbie doll to dress, show-off, feed and mold into something is a selfish desire, not a self-less one.

MW
01-01-2008, 01:35 PM
My point is that people are in a flight from their animal nature, and this could become yet another way that people flee the "inconvinence" of pregnancy, just like some people have fled the inconvenience of caring for their children.


Women need to think through their pre-occupation with having children. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE.

It appears to me that the desire to have a barbie doll to dress, show-off, feed and mold into something is a selfish desire, not a self-less one.


I agree with this to a point - I see those in "higher circles" hiring someone to carry the child, just like we see the nanny raising the child. The child is of no worth until they have a college degree and can be shown off and used for political / business gain. I don't understand why those people have kids.

OTOH many of us have children for other reasons . . . and raise ours ourselves, hopefully turning them into productive citizens who make tomorrow's world better - even if for just one person.

toxic
01-01-2008, 03:28 PM
I agree with this to a point - I see those in "higher circles" hiring someone to carry the child, just like we see the nanny raising the child. The child is of no worth until they have a college degree and can be shown off and used for political / business gain. I don't understand why those people have kids.

OTOH many of us have children for other reasons . . . and raise ours ourselves, hopefully turning them into productive citizens who make tomorrow's world better - even if for just one person.

Just to clarify, I think I know the types of reasons you are describing. Loving, caring, nurturing, mothering, etc.

Those are basic (animal) instincts that we see in most all mammals. In my mind, they are on the same level as a man's inate instinct to screw every orifice on the planet. For example, polygamists are just men that don't bother to restraint their instinct to maintain a herd of mares. I have that instinct too. :)

I find very few women willing to consider that "loving, caring, nurturing, mothering, ..." is what "they want", and selfish rather than self-less.

Trueblue
01-01-2008, 09:50 PM
I agree with this to a point - I see those in "higher circles" hiring someone to carry the child, just like we see the nanny raising the child. The child is of no worth until they have a college degree and can be shown off and used for political / business gain. I don't understand why those people have kids.

OTOH many of us have children for other reasons . . . and raise ours ourselves, hopefully turning them into productive citizens who make tomorrow's world better - even if for just one person.

I agree.

Being a mother was what I've always wanted to do. I love it.