A case for surrogacy

India's image as a 'baby factory' seems to have directed the Indian government's move for the surrogacy Bill

This week, India expressed its commitment to renew the visas of the British couple, Chris and Michele Newman, until their daughter, Lily, born via surrogacy in India was issued a British passport.

The Newmans' original visas were due to expire on October 7, after which they were obliged to leave the country, leaving Lily's fate in the balance. The couple mounted a social media campaign in which they expressed their helplessness at being forced to leave their infant with an Indian caretaker until they could return with fresh visas.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj responded by extending their visas till such time Lily's British passport comes along. This legal wrangle showcases just one of the many troubles that couples seeking alternative reproduction technology (ART) face, in India and abroad.

Globally, some 48 million couples are believed to be infertile, resting their hopes for a child on one of several ART procedures. Of these, invitro fertilisation (IVF) is the most popular, but its prohibitive cost remains a daunting challenge for most couples.

In spite of rapid advances in IVF techniques and improved chances of pregnancy with the procedure, an IVF cycle costs $12,000-15,000 in the US. In India, the figure is in the range of $3,000 per cycle, which translates to about Rs 2 lakh. Add the costs of surrogacy - which include compensation to the surrogate and bearing her medical and living expenses for the duration of the pregnancy - and the figure goes north of Rs 10 lakh. The final figure can vary, depending on the number of cycles and the clinic the intended parents approach, but in dollar terms, it is still far less than what it would cost in the West. Little wonder that couples like the Newmans come to our shores to realise their hopes for a child.

Swaraj's generosity towards the Newmans masks her active evangelisation of the new surrogacy Bill, of which she is an architect. This Bill, breathtaking in its lack of sensitivity, bars all parties from surrogacy except infertile straight couples who are Indian citizens. Even for them, the Bill only permits "altruistic surrogacy", the kind where no money changes hands.

The government has sought to present the Bill as an egalitarian document that safeguards the rights of the surrogate, a group that mostly comprises women from underprivileged backgrounds. By outlawing surrogacy, however, the bill will only push the business underground, as more and more couples seek ART to have a child and underprivileged women find in the procedure a ready source of high income.

India's image as a "baby factory" - a despicable term popularised by Western media - seems to have directed the government's action. One of these baby factories - the Akanksha clinic run by Nayana Patel in Anand, Gujarat - has helped more than 500 couples have children. It has transformed the economy of the surrounding areas as surrogate mothers have been able to provide education to their children and material comforts to their families from the money earned.

Surrogacy has also earned a bad name because of the nature of the relationship between the surrogate and the intended parents -a commercial transaction that, to some, lowers the dignity of parenthood.

Instead of outlawing surrogacy, what the government needs to do is look at ART comprehensively and devise guidelines that protect the interests of both, the parents and the surrogate. Beyond this, there are other urgent issues calling for attention. Even accounting for the rupees rates for IVF/surrogacy, the procedure is out of bounds for most Indian couples. Surrogacy is normally the last resort for couples after they have undergone multiple IVF cycles that failed to work. The financial commitment is simply out of the reach of all except a select few. To undergo the trauma of infertility and then to be unable to address it due to financial constraints is the real tragedy that the Bill should have addressed.

This can be done by bringing IVF under the purview of medical insurance, an essential if infertile couples are to reasonably hope to opt for ART. Since 2014, Bharatiya Mahila Bank offers an infertility insurance policy in association with New India Assurance, but its efforts are a drop in the ocean.

It would be easy to give the government the benefit of the doubt. After all, most civil society representations before the women and child development ministry can be reasonably assumed to speak up for the rights of the poor, in this case, the women who choose to become surrogates. If there are fears of exploitation, a regulatory mechanism can be worked out. But by outlawing a process in which rest the hopes of the desperate and the yearning, the government has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

vjohri19@gmail.com