To think if you pay for a surrogate baby that you decide you don't want you should pay for the op he needs.

[sashh]

An Australian couple have paid a Thai woman to be a surrogate, she had twins but one has Down Syndrome so they left him behind and took his sister home.

He has a hole in the heart (news reporting that it is in addition to DS, actually it is more likely part of the DS) and his mum can't afford his op.

Surely the least you can do is pay for his bloomin' op?

Obviously there should have been an agreement with who pays for what under what circumstances but in reality is a poor person in a developing country going to think about that?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28617912

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-01/mother-of-thai-baby-abandoned-by-surrogate-parents-struggles-to/5642478

He would have less prejudice than if the only mixed race child in the community

It's not a given that a half falang child will suffer prejudice.

The only thing my ex husband's family like about me was the potential for a beautiful half Thai/Half white baby.

Couples where the female is Thai and the man not, get grief becuase of the prositution connotations. But it doesn't necessarily extend to the children.

Thongchai McIntyre being a case in point. His dad was white. His mum Thai. Part of his popularity always was how he looked becuase of his heritage.

This child's origins are known. The only thing I'd worry about in terms of the colour of his skin is if his legal father finds it hard going as time goes on to have a son who so clearly isn't his genetically.

1. The surrogate will not have had a contract or a thorough discussion and agreement about all eventualities. She will have been spun a line by an illegal agency and is most definitely a powerless victim in this.

1. There isn't adoption available at the drop of a hat in Thailand. For the people saying she's broken a 'contract' by refusing to have an abortion... I'm not sure refusing a dangerous unsanitary back street abortion which she would have to pay for probably... Well, that's not exactly an

option anyone on this thread would jump at is it?

1. I don't think anyone is saying the australian parents must care for the child for the rest of their lives. But leaving the child in a country with substantially lower standards in medical or disabled care than they themselves enjoy, with a high probability that the child will die... well, that's clearly immoral.

I wonder if they abandoned the child because in order to have him put in care in Australia, they'd have to explain where they got him? Opening themselves up to scrutiny, and possibly the other 'perfect' and wanted child being removed as well.

They have sacrificed this little baby for their own selfish needs.

Whether they gave the order to abort (closing their eyes to the realities of that & presumably being fine with the potential death of the surrogate), or they decided to abandon the baby to a life of poverty, neglect and pain/ death, by refusing to even arrange better care for him, whilst happily taking the one they wanted back to a life of good medical care, education and standard of living.

I don't think there's a way they come out of this well.

Just to clarify, I think the child would have been better off in aus in foster care before the surrogate mother decided to keep him. Now they've bonded it works be cruel to take him away.

So now instead of doing the right thing originally, I'd say the right thing is to support the mother and baby to stay together and get the best medical care, and also enable the mother to care for the child without being torn between having to work to earn money to live, and caring for her child with downs (not to mention her other children too).

And that situation could beggar them financially, which am having trouble having any sympathy for them as this would be correcting an awful situation they created.

The only way they'd not be totally to blame is if they never knew about the twin situation in the first place. But even then, they were doing something illegal which by its very nature leaves the women open to exploitation. Desperation drives people to do very unpleasant things...

Oh I agree that now he is being raised by his Thai mother he needs medical (and educational which is very important for children with DS) care, with his mother now. The window for him being cared for permanently in Australia is pretty much closed.
Mamma very interesting, thanks. Will her family - given she's a street vendor - "get" how he was conceived do you think?

Will her family - given she's a street vendor - "get" how he was conceived do you think

No reason why not. Surrogacy wasn't a big thing when I was there. But by the looks of it's significant expansion as a business ... in areas of poverty, it won't be unknown. Not least cos I'd expect a decent amount of "grassroots" recruiting of wombs going on and they be keen to spread the word that nobody is asked to have sex with a stranger or "sell" a biological child in order to participate.

But... never underestimate human ability to pick up any convienent stone and use in a row/when drink has been taken. Even if they understand and generally don't have a massive moral issue with surrogacy to allievate economic disadvantage.

I think the husband is the one more likely to cop the worst of that. Snidey comment from workmates, neighbours and drinking buddies that allude to him being cuckold are not beyond the realms of possibility. Which could put pressure on the marriage. Worst case scenario is the marriage crumbles under various pressures, he leaves and takes the pre existing children with him. It's not an impossibility that if it all goes bent the cost of them keeping this child means her losing her other kids.

I think the best bet for them being rather more impervious to judgement and snideness is for continued media/international grassroots interest in the child over the years. Not a blinding spotlight and . Especially something that underlines the high moral points of what they have done. Something that makes people feel good, like "The Thai savoirs of a child abandoned by falang". Big them up like that long term, thus save their face and make them less easy a target. If the people donating today set up a website, in english and thai, intended to maintain longterm interest and donations, that was full of praise for the Thai parents, that could keep the family visible in a postive way long term.

And it might help for the funds raised to be managed externally and ekked out over the child's life so the parents aren't left vulnerable to hoards of firends/family coming out of the woodwork with a sudden need of a "loan" or "investment opportunities". As long as they have an improved, steady and reliable income they could gain significant immuinty from any shitty behavoir towards them. Whereas it is much harder to take on shitty comments about your masculinity/surrogacy AND try to take care of a child with significant needs AND be scrabbling around for money you don't have.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to appeal to a swishy BKK's hospital's desire for excellent international PR by getting them to offer to cover the child's health needs pro bono for life either. To avoid urgent medical needs making a massive hole in the funds raised right from the start. What they and the baby really need is a lifelong stipend.

That together might help protect them from drifting into obscurity and an economic reality that makes them so much vulnerable on many levels, including social pressures and/or derision.

If the parents wanted their surrogate to terminate a pregnancy on their demand they should have chosen a surrogate in a country where abortion is legal and safe.

From today's Sydney Morning Herald

The Thai surrogate mother of abandoned baby Gammy says his Australian biological parents told her they could not take him because they are too old to care for twins.

Pattharamon Janbua has also revealed that both her babies were unwell at birth and the girl remained in a Thai hospital for a month before the parents took her to Australia.

Ms Pattharamon, who is known as “Goy”, told Fairfax Media the father, who is in his 50s, “came to the hospital to take care of the girl but never looked Gammy in the face or carried him”.

Ignored... Gammy, pictured with her surrogate mother Pattharamon Janbua, was forsaken by his biological father.
Ignored... Gammy, pictured with his surrogate mother Pattharamon Janbua, was forsaken by his biological father. Photo: AP

“He did not buy milk for Gammy. He only bought milk for the girl,” Ms Pattharamon said from a Thai hospital where Gammy is critically unwell.

“The twins stayed next to each other but the father never looked at Gammy … not one bottle of milk did he give Gammy,” she said.

“I could say he never touched Gammy at all.”

Read more: www.smh.com.au/national/gammys-australian-parents-too-old-to-take-him-mother-told-20140803-zzy5z.html#ixzz39NtQCiDy

Despicable.

Of course, the Australian couple are claiming they only knew about the girl baby, and blamed the surrogate agency's doctor for not telling them.

I know who I believe.

Not that I think the agency are beyond reproach, not at all. But I don't think the surrogate mother is lying about the parents coming to the hospital and meeting Gammy, etc.

Oh God, that is just awful. How could anyone do that? :(

I know. It's completely inhuman.

This whole thing makes me very angry. I strongly believe that if you enter a surrogacy agreement, you get what you get. Once the fertilized eggs are implanted, you should have no right to tell the mother to abort, nor should you have the option to reject any children born alive.

If the parents think they are too old to have twins, they had no business getting involved with surrogacy in the first place.

Totally agree, Koala. And, to make it worse, this pair have probably fucked it for anyone else in the future - there's bound to be some sort of clamp down on this now - which is probably not a bad thing except for the people desperate to have a baby.

Oh, there will be.

It was already the case that international commercial surrogacy is illegal in 3 states in Australia. Western Australia (where I live, and where this couple are from) was one of the states where it is still legal. Probably not for long.

It's already in the news over here that Thailand will be clamping down, and tighter international surrogacy laws are being called for in Australia.

Those newspaper reports said there were 200 surrogacies in progress that would be affected. I've no sympathy for the agencies, but that's 200+ babies, surrogate mothers and potential parents all of whom will now be very unsure as to what is going to happen. I think the whole thing is very wrong, but I think all of those involved are fairly vulnerable.

I do wonder what goes on in people's minds who think it is a good thing for very poor women to be carrying their babies, often in difficult circumstances. Even excluding the very dodgy ethics what happens during pregnancy can have significant affect on the baby's development, it all seems a very risky undertaking.

Did anyone read ICanSeeTheSun's link?
The agency pushed her to abort at SEVEN MONTHS!
That report about the Father in the hospital is terrible! That is just fucking INHUMAN! I'm just blown away by this coldness!

It's a commodification of life: as if the baby is a product.

'Oh, I only ordered one, not two. And it has to be without defects, or I want a refund and won't accept the delivery.'

That's not how having children works.

You shouldn't be getting a surrogate from impoverished people in the first place. You're taking advantage of a desperate situation. They don't allow you to surrogate here if you make below a certain amount for that reason. Getting pregnant and having to give up your baby is not an easy thing to do, so doing it solely for money can make it very hard on the woman when the time comes to give the baby up. The ethics of surrogacy are a bit dodgy as it is and flirt the very thin line of making your own designer baby.

But more importantly, you don't get to just sit there and pick and choose what baby you take home. You hired a surrogate to give you children, you take the children you get, just like a real pregnancy. They basically left a mother with another financial responsibility, and as the biological parent the father should have to pay child support if he wants someone else raising his child like that.

I want to see both sides of this story investigated.

My sinking heart thinks maybe the father (parents?) is a cold blooded bastard that cherry picked the "best" baby, leaving the beautiful Gammi to whatever his fate may be.

But also, I can see a side that if the agency was lying to them, were they even to know this baby next door was their twin? If they had different medical needs, they might not have been together, or maybe he was told it wasn't their child etc. Hard to know, looks more like the first case scenario, but apparently the parents have been tracked down by the media and they are denying it all (as they would in either circumstance), saying they knew nothing of the twin...

Hopefully the silver lining here is that Gammi gets the treatment he needs, his surrogate seems to really love him and maybe the whole industry will get a shake up as a result.

You shouldn't be getting a surrogate from impoverished people in the first place. You're taking advantage of a desperate situation. They don't allow you to surrogate here if you make below a certain amount for that reason.

Agree. That's why commercial surrogacy within Australia is illegal, full stop. They want to make sure nobody is driven to bearing surrogate children for money.

Unfortunately, that drove the problem overseas. Some Australian states responded by making international commercial surrogacy illegal, too. The rest will probably now follow.

Interesting

I do think though, that if there are any surrogate babies in utero now, then they should be able to go to their genetic parents - but all implantations should stop right now. I don't know how many of those 200 Australians that will affect but it has to stop. I hope too that the Thai govt will allow those in utero at the moment to leave the country - although it may mean that the women carrying them have to forego payment to get over the human trafficking issue. :(

Interesting - so hard to know what went on here. Earlier reports said that the Thai mother said she never personally met the Australian couple. Now she seems to have had quite a bit of interaction with them.
I would LOVE to think that it was the agency rather than the parents who behaved so atrociously. Somehow it would just make me feel better about the situation. Not that that matters in the broader scheme of things.

I do feel desperately sorry for those battling infertility who need a surrogate who would not behave this way.

Another door is shutting to them, too.

Oh God, that is just awful. How could anyone do that?

I think a lot depends on the journey. There is considerable distance between the intended parents and the surrogate. A language barrier, a geographical and cultural one .All that helps lead to a lack of attachement and an increase in the urge to prioritise self preservation. And perhaps more importantly in terms of "distance"... there is a middle man.

The middle man may not have been above trying to extort more money from the intended parents by telling them the surrogate was attempting blackmail and wanted a very signficant sum on top to abort.

And there is one other possibility. The surrogate, or those around her, may have seen the baby boy as a card in a game of poker. We'll keep him and keep quiet about it, but you buy us a house. And that aided the intended parents to fully detach emotionally from the child, not least becuase he became dehumanised when used as a chip.

It could just be that the intended parents are the only "bad guys" in the mix. But humans are rarely divided into clearly black and white catagories. We all have the ability to be selfish and generous depending on circumstances, needs and unexpected events that can throw a curve ball.

So maybe part of the evolution of this scenario to this point was due to less wholly one sided selfishness, or "less than lilly white" intensions. There could have been unrealistic expectations coming from several adult directions that had no place being prioritised at the expense of a child.

There is likely to be a lot of "he said, she said" and most of it will be unprovable either way. The more pressing concernin this specific case is making sure the money raised provides for the child long term rather than the fund being at risk of being drained early on leaving the child high and dry once the spotlight is off him.

I would have concerns that any knee jerk "under the glare of the media spotlight" legal changes re surrogacy in Thailand will be durable. It's not in a great place politically right now. There are upcoming inevitable events that could lead to significant destablisation. I don't think clamping down on surogacy is going to be at the top of anybody's agenda once international attention fades. So it is the countries that produce the intended parents that need to sort out legislation and create sanctions that make the choice so high risk that people are put off from trying to do it via developing countries under the radar.

There's another report in the Sydney Morning Herald which says the surrogate was previously not angry with the couple but is now considering suing them.

It will be interesting to hear their version......