Indian couples, doctors and surrogates alike oppose surrogacy ban

Draft legislation seeking a ban aims to prevent impoverished women from being exploited. But some doctors and surrogates say the lucrative practice can actually be empowering, reports Rebecca Bundhun

Surrogate mothers (L-R) Daksha, 37, Renuka, 23, and Rajia, 39, pose for a photograph inside a temporary home for surrogates provided by the Akanksha Infertility Clinic in Anand on August 27, 2013. ManShow more

MUMBAI // Jyoti Chawan gave birth to a child a year and a half ago when she became a surrogate mother for an infertile couple from Mumbai.

She was never told the gender of the child and she was paid 450,000 rupees (Dh24,675) for carrying the baby.

Coming from a very poor background, that was a huge sum of money for Chawan, 30, who spent her earnings on desperately needed medical treatment for her husband and mother.

She also used the money to build a house to replace the asbestos shack she was living in with her two young children, now aged 10 and 4.

These days, she sells artificial jewellery on the street to try to scrape together a few rupees to feed her family.

“My husband and mother have both passed away since then,” she said. “I want to become a surrogate again so I can make some money to look after my children.”

But soon, acting as a surrogate may not be an option for the widow.

Draft legislation cleared by India’s union cabinet last week seeks to ban the practice of commercial surrogacy in India. The bill proposes that only “altruistic” surrogacy be allowed, which means that only money to cover expenses can be given to the surrogate.

Even then, it must be a close relative that carries the child and the couple should have been married for at least five years. It would be banned completely for foreigners.

This is intended to avoid cases where impoverished women might be exploited.

There are also concerns that the practice might be misused by some women who turn to surrogacy to maintain their figures – not because of genuine medical factors. The practice is often referred to as “rent-a-womb” and critics liken it to outsourcing.

The bill would have to be passed by the upper and lower houses of parliament before becoming law and is due to be taken up by parliament in the winter session, which starts in November. For now surrogacy is still legal for Indians.

Nayana Patel, who runs the Akanksha Infertility Clinic in the town of Anand in Gujarat, has been at the forefront of India’s commercial surrogacy industry.

She said that the bill was “disappointing” for both surrogates and infertile couples. Dr Patel said that surrogacy was “empowering” for the surrogates, rather than exploitative.

“By practising surrogacy, many poor women have been able to educate their children, build houses and start their own business,” said Dr Patel. The legislation would “destroy the chances of poor families to earn a livelihood”.

Her clinic, which began offering surrogacy in 2003, attracted a number of foreign couples from countries including the UK and the UAE, where commercial surrogacy is illegal.

Costs of surrogacy in India are very competitive. Fees at Dr Patel’s clinic used to start at $30,000 (Dh110,200) for foreign couples compared to costs in the US that would go well above $100,000.

But the practice for overseas patients ended last November, when authorities issued a notice to clinics across India, ordering them to stop receiving foreigners for surrogacy treatment.

Legalised in India in 2002, the commercial surrogacy industry in the country is estimated to be worth $2.3 billion a year, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry.

Duli Chand, 49, an autorickshaw driver from New Delhi, and his wife, Shakundala, 48, a housewife, turned to commercial surrogacy after trying to have a child for more than twenty years through IVF treatment, as they could not conceive naturally.

“Surrogacy was our last hope of having our own child and our son was born in April,” said Mr Chand.

He spent more than one million rupees on surrogacy, with most of the funds obtained through loans.

“What will people like us do if surrogacy is banned?” he asked. “I’m sure there are a lot of people like us who want to have their own child and there is no other solution for them.”

Rita Bakshi, the chairman of the International Fertility Centre in New Delhi, which organised the surrogacy for the couple, said that thousands of surrogate mothers have seen their lives transformed by the fees they receive.

“This surrogacy bill should be revised and rather than banning commercial surrogacy as a whole, the government should set certain rules and regulations to ensure fair surrogacy practices in India,” Dr Bakshi said.

Jatin Shah, who owns the Mumbai Infertility Clinic and IVF Centre, which oversaw the surrogate birth of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son in 2013, said he was “shocked” to hear about the government legislation to ban commercial surrogacy.

“Also, how can you stop single mothers from opting for surrogacy,” Dr Shah said. “There are women who have high-flying corporate careers and they didn’t find the right partner and they want to be a mother.”

Many former surrogates say that they would be eager to do it again. They are saddened that the practice may be banned and they may not have the opportunity to make more money.

One example is Parvati Gogawle, 27, a widow in Mumbai who in 2014 had a baby girl for a couple in the UK. Her husband was killed when he fell from a train, and the earnings from surrogacy presented an opportunity for her to provide for her son, now eight.

Mumbai resident Ayesha Shaikh, 25, delivered twins for an Indian couple based in the United States this year. She earned 500,000 rupees from this, which she used to buy an autorickshaw for her husband, to create ongoing earnings for their family. She also deposited money for her child’s education and took out a home loan to buy a house.

“All of this would have been impossible if I had not been a surrogate,” she said.