The apex court ban on surrogacy for foreign couples will put paid to a thriving industry in Gujarat. The way out is to have tighter regulations to oversee this market
By RK Misra in Anand
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” slogan was alive and kicking in Gujarat, where surrogacy was a thriving market. However, a recent move to ban surrogacy for foreign couples means that Indian wombs are no longer for hire to non-Indians.
With India emerging as one of the main surrogacy centres in the world, the move has stirred a hornet’s nest. “I don’t think it is a correct decision. Tighten regulations, yes; a ban, no,” says Dr Nayana Patel who heads the Akanksha Infertility Clinic in Anand. She has delivered over thousand surrogate babies and single-handedly turned Anand into a global surrogacy hub.
“It is no longer a few isolated cases. There is an entire economy swirling around surrogacy, imparting tangible benefits to many people, besides filling the childless void in the lives of many,” she says. Interestingly, the development of IVF in India has a basis. While Robert G Edward and Patrick Steptoe successfully pioneered the birth of the world’s first IVF baby, Louise Brown in July 1978, it was Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay, a Kolkata-based doctor, who gave India’s first and the world’s second test-tube baby, Durga alias Kanupriya Agarwal, on October 3, 1978, just two months later.
Surrogacy is the practice of carrying a baby for someone else. It is done either by implanting fertilized eggs that has no genetic relationship with the woman who carries it or alternately, the surrogate mother is artificially impregnated.
THRIVING INDUSTRY
Surrogacy gained momentum over the last decade and, according to a UN-backed study in 2012, is now estimated to be a $400 million industry, with over 3,000 in-vitro fertilization (IVF) centers in the country. With hardly any laws to regulate it, fears have been raised over the exploitation of surrogate mothers. There’s an urgent need to safeguard the rights of the child and the parents who opted to go through it in an alien land.
The issue came up when the Supreme Court in October 2015 pointed out that commercial surrogacy is rampant and trading in human embryos is going on unhindered. A division bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana said that surrogacy tourism should not be allowed and asked the government to bring it within the ambit of the law. It also sought clarification whether a woman who donates her egg in commercial surrogacy is the only mother or both she and the genetic mother are mothers of the child. The court also sought to know whether the practice of commercial surrogacy amounted to exploitation and was inconsistent with the dignity of womanhood or not. The government had informed the court that a bill to regulate the issue was in parliament.
In 2013, a notification was issued by the center permitting import of human embryos for assisted reproduction. This enabled foreign couples to bring in frozen embryos and hire a womb in India. Though the government has worked out the Assisted Rep-roductive Techniques (Regulation) Bill, 2014, it is yet to become law, so ART clinics remain under the supervision of the Indian Council of Medical Research.
Nevertheless, the government has informed the apex court that commercial surrogacy will not be permitted and only infertile Indian couples would be permitted to opt for surrogacy of the altruistic kind.
ART clinics have already been told that foreigners will not be permitted to avail of this facility in India.
However, a court in Mumbai temporarily lifted the government prohibition on foreigners using Indian surrogates, permitting two clinics there to serve them on the condition that they will not take up any fresh cases.Dr Patel says this is a good step. She herself has over 150 such couples, the bulk of them from abroad, in various stages of the IVF procedure.
“People from all over the globe remain in touch over years, going through many procedures before finally coming to India. A sudden decision to ban only sows confusion and generates uncertainty, not only for the foreigner couple, but also for an entire economic industry which has grown around it,” she adds.
A visit to Anand brings out the full import of her statement. The lone hotel where the bulk of foreigners stay is packed with couples from South Africa, Brazil, the US and Ireland to name a few. There is 52-year-old Anthony and his 37-year-old wife Vithia who had a second baby from a surrogate mother in Anand. “It is not just the money, it is Anand’s fame that brings us here. Mexico was also a choice but we chose Anand because it has done impressive work in this field,” he adds.
Dr Patel calls it a win-win situation for all. “Most surrogates belong to lower middle class families and the amount that a surrogate gets for carrying a pregnancy to full term and past delivery—ranging from `4 lakh to `10 lakh—means a lot to her.
In practical terms, it means the education of her children and a dwelling for the family,” she says.
Worried over the implications of the Supreme Court ban, surrogates recently organized a silent protest. Thirty-four-year-old surrogate Madhuben Valand (name changed), a divorcee who looks after her mother and daughter, is angry at the government’s decision. “If the government is in no position to give me a job and look after my family, why should it take away my sole source of income? Am I indulging in any criminal activity?” she asks. Most surrogates share her sentiment.
The decision to permit only Indians is also likely to affect a large number of Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRGs) who have settled abroad and accepted citizenship in the country of domicile. A fair amount of Gujarat’s medical tourism emanates from them. US-based Madhu Dave, who hails from Rajkot, says: “It beats me why a prime minister who hails from Gujarat and lays great emphasis on globalization should choose to impose such a discriminatory ban against the very foreigners whom he keeps inviting to invest in India.”
ONLINE PETITION
This concern is reflected in an online petition against the surrogacy ban by a group of parents in the UK who availed of this service. The petition to the Prime Minister’s Office titled “Stop the Ban on Surrogacy in India” received over 500 signatures. The petition was the initiative of UK-based Rekha Patel who had a baby through surrogacy.
The petition points out that “foreigners seeking surrogacy services are ordinary couples who have most likely endured a fruitless fertility quest for years. Most will have to make a huge personal and financial sacrifice to embark on this journey. Faults, if any, can be addressed by stringent regulation. Banning the practice is not the answer.”
This is a fear many express. “If you impose a blanket ban, you will only drive it underground and then, the remedy will prove deadlier than the disease. Take the example of liquor prohibition in Gujarat. Has liquor vanished after the ban? No, it has not,” stre-sses Dr Patel.
In the end, tighter regulation is the only answer.