Reproductive Outsourcing

A few weeks ago, I happened to be flipping through the channels and for some reason settled on Oprah. The show was about infertility and the segment that happened to be on was on a very new kind of outsourcing: wombs. Apparently, as the cost of fertility treatments and surrogacy continues to rise in the West, more and more couples are turning to India for the answer. I already find surrogacy to be a dubious ethical practice and I was honestly even more repulsed at the thought of paying Indian women to do it for us. Obviously, it's difficult to find people and costs a lot here for a reason. And obviously the reason we're going to India is because it's cheaper and less regulated. Dubious to the second power. What bothered me the most, perhaps, was that Lisa Ling (who did the investigative work for Oprah) worked very hard to paint this practice as empowering to women every where. She talked about how it was women helping women with American women providing economic empowerment for Indian women and Indian women providing babies for American women. In my opinion, it boils down to Americans using their economic edge to exploit those who live in poverty to do something they probably never would otherwise do: rent their wombs. No women should ever have to be forced to rent her womb to provide food and education for her children.

After a little more research, I found out a few important things about surrogacy in India. The industry is worth $449 million in India. Surrogate mothers are typically paid $2500 with the total cost around $6000 in India in contrast with $15,000 in America plus about $30,000 in agency fees. What else makes India attractive? First, there is ready access to high quality health care in private hospitals at a low cost. Second, it has a high percentage of English speaking doctors. Third, India's laws favor what has been dubbed "reproductive tourism." Indian women sign away their rights to the baby as soon as it is delivered and up to 5 embryos can be implanted. (Much looser laws then say Great Britain). Finally, perhaps the most sinister reason of all, there are plenty of lower-middle class women willing to do it. The lure of earning $2500 in a country where the average per capita income is $500 and 35% live on $1 a day or less is just too much.

Despite the many ways that the media and industry try to spin this as a win-win situation, one surrogate mother summed it best when she said, "How else will us uneducated women earn this kind of money, without doing anything immoral?" Other aspects to consider are that Indian women have fewer rights and are often forced to do the bidding of their husbands and in-laws. The potential for women to be forced into surrogacy is great. It cannot be assured that the money made will go toward the education of that woman's children or the betterment of her living situation, as so many claim. There is also tremendous social stigma. One couple interviewed for an article in the Christian Science Monitor moved to a different town in order to avoid becoming social pariahs after the delivery. An article from the Asia Times Online pointed out that in addition to turning to India to answer out customer service calls, the West is now turning to them to have our babies.

As infertility continues to grow, so do ways to get that all important baby. Money is being thrown around desperately. Anytime there is desperation and money to be had, it reeks of corruption. Now that corruption has the potential to be spread to other people around the world. This practice raises so many ethical questions, I can't even begin to wrap my mind around them. A few examples: what if too many fetuses implant and the woman is unwilling to abort and the biological parents are unwilling to take the additional children? who takes the child if the couple is unable or unwilling to do so, such as in the event of death or divorce (which has happened 65 times in the history of surrogacy in contrast to the surrogate trying to keep the baby only 20 times)? who is spared if there is a condition where only mother or baby can be saved? Obviously, all these situations favor the biological parents because well, they're paying good money for the baby and the women is just another poor Indian. While some may be motivated at least in part by altruism, the motivating factor here is clearly financial. No one should have to sell or rent their body to provide a decent lifestyle for their family. How can we be so selfish and short-sighted? Children are important and special, but at what price? There are already so many children in this world without people to love them, so do we really need to go to such great expense and risk just to have our own biological offspring? Renting your womb is not exactly like micro loans here people. Get a grip.