Page 18 | 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 · 2014-08-02T06:14:54+00:00

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? [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28617912]] [[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-01/mother-of-thai-baby-abandoned-by-surrogate-parents-struggles-to/5642478]]

thegreylady · 05/08/2014 08:12

The man is named in the article.

StUmbrageinSkelt · 05/08/2014 08:20

The money collected for Gammy is being administered by a respected Australian charity who have made it quite clear they won't be handing it over to his mother willy nilly.

The convictions are a matter of record and the man has done jail time. How they got around the red tape is still a mystery. The couple have been named and are now saying they were traumatised at having to leave Gammy but they believed they would lose their daughter if they fought for him. Which makes zero sense.

Anyone else incensed that Morrison is using this tragedy to grandstand? What about the babies on Nauru and Christmas Island who need care and who are in our concentration camps? Arsewipe.

differentnameforthis · 05/08/2014 08:20

But how on earth would the agency gain from doing that?

Gain from what? Hiding the bad health of a twin? money?

There could have been anything in the dodgy contract they made, so perhaps they were worried a poorly baby would affect the surrogacy & they would lose money?

microcosmia · 05/08/2014 08:24

I will ask MNHQ to take a look at that link and see if it needs to be removed. It Mays be n record but I'm not sure of the legalities re subsequent developments. Originally it linked to a different article

Mammuzza · 05/08/2014 08:27

The cynic in me does find the timing of this story rather interesting. It was only a week or so ago that one of the television stations did rather large story on Indian surrogacy, which was quite widely discussed and debated. A week later, this story comes out. Good timing?

Possibly somebody has been trying to get the story to "catch" for a while and a recent docu. raising interest in the subject made it easier to finally garner some jouno attention.

Or maybe the last six months have been spent in negociations between the mum, the agency and the intended parent... which proved fruitless so going public was chosen as the next step

Did the story break in Australia or did it appear in Thai media first ? If it broke in Thailand and then got picked up by the international media what has been on the telly recently may be nothing more than coincidence.

nauticant · 05/08/2014 08:43

Just to clarify, some posters have said there can be no libel if individuals aren't named. This isn't correct.

www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/lord-mcalpine-cases-underlines-libel-dangers-journalists-jigsaw-identification-online-age

If someone provides the clues for others to put together, there can be libel.

Generally, the media's part in this, hunting around to find people to make salacious allegations and then gleefully publishing them, leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. The media in this country should have in mind what was done to Chris Jefferies.

UsedToBeAPaxmanFan · 05/08/2014 08:53

Theres an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald where a "friend" of the Australian couple has made a statement on their behalf. They are now saying they DID know about the boy but were told that he would die shortly after birth, although they don't explain why they didn't arrange medical treatment and a visa to take him to Oz once it ws clear he would live.

The statement reinforces the argument that the Australuan parents had the power in this all the way through, and that the surrogate has been exploited.

Its a horrible situation, and the Australian couple aren't doing themselves any favours with their statement.

StUmbrageinSkelt · 05/08/2014 08:53

It's not libel though if it actually happened and he was convicted. Which appears to be the case.

God it's horrible though. Just horrible.

nauticant · 05/08/2014 09:06

It's not libel though if it actually happened and he was convicted. Which appears to be the case.

It might be true, but I'm always very wary of accepting things as facts from anyone who's in the business of whipping up a media storm.

CKDexterHaven · 05/08/2014 09:26

The couple have been named now. Seems that it has also been confirmed that the father has served time in prison for molesting young girls. The whole thing is just sinister. Why did this man want this child? Maybe he only wanted a girl for nefarious reasons.

CKDexterHaven · 05/08/2014 09:30

Does anyone thing using poor women from developing countries as surrogates is the act of a good-hearted and considerate person? I don't care about the timing of this story if it highlights the exploitation of the women and the moral minefield relating to the children in these cases.

StUmbrageinSkelt · 05/08/2014 09:38

nauticant, it is true. It's very clear it is absolutely true. Which is sickening beyond belief. He would not be named in the media if there were any doubt at all.

wannaBe · 05/08/2014 09:39

So, the couple knew about the twin but were told he would die shortly after birth so they’re using that as their justification for never having engaged with him, just leaving him there at the hospital to die? Can you imagine the thread on here: “I’m expecting twins through a surrogate but unfortunately one of the twins has downs. We requested that the surrogate terminate the baby with downs but she has refused. As we’ve been told the baby will die shortly after birth we intend to go and collect our beautiful healthy daughter at the hospital and leave the other one there to die. Ibu?”

There are no words to describe the kind of lowlife this couple are. None. The man is a convicted paedophile, and if that were untrue it would have been disputed by now – it hasn’t – it would be a matter of public record anyway so nothing like the Chris Jefferies case where people could just state that they “knew there was something about him,” or the like. And the woman has knowingly employed a surrogate to have a baby with a convicted paedophile, and when they didn’t get what they ordered they thought it ok to just leave an innocent baby to die, his crime? Having a disability.

I hope there is a special place in hell for scum like this. But first off I hope that baby girl is removed .from their care asap, and that this is the beginning of hopefully putting a stop to the baby trade that is international surrogacy. Despicable. I don’t give a toss how desperate someone is for a baby. Nothing, and I mean nothing justifies this

Chiana · 05/08/2014 09:47

Does anyone thing using poor women from developing countries as surrogates is the act of a good-hearted and considerate person? I don't care about the timing of this story if it highlights the exploitation of the women and the moral minefield relating to the children in these cases.

Totally agree. Totally.

I have no problem with altruistic surrogacy. A friend had twins last year for her brother and his husband (then civil partner). Even that was painful for my friend after the birth, despite knowing the twins were going to family members who would love them and let her see them. She actually ended up not seeing them at all for the first 3 or 4 months, her idea. She felt it would be easier to make a clean break.

If that's how a woman in an altruistic surrogacy situation is feeling, imagine how you're feeling when you have no choice but to hand over the baby when it's born to people who are unimaginably richer than you and don't speak your language.

CKDexterHaven · 05/08/2014 09:51

Apparently there are laws in most states of Australia preventing convicted sex offenders from having children through surrogacy. This couple lives in Western Australia where the matter is left to the discretion of the authorities and it was the biological mother's maiden name put on the birth certificate. I don't think all this can be a coincidence. They didn't want to be caught out.

Chiana · 05/08/2014 09:52

Apparently there are laws in most states of Australia preventing convicted sex offenders from having children through surrogacy. This couple lives in Western Australia where the matter is left to the discretion of the authorities and it was the biological mother's maiden name put on the birth certificate. I don't think all this can be a coincidence. They didn't want to be caught out.

Wow, this just gets better and better.

CKDexterHaven · 05/08/2014 09:59

Bingo! I was right before. The paedophile man found his wife through a Chinese marriage agency which 'trains' Chinese women to be the wives of Western men. He found a poor woman with few options to marry him and then he found a poor woman with few options to have his babies.

KoalaDownUnder · 05/08/2014 10:15

Right. So, yesterday the Australian father claimed that they didn't know Gammy existed, and only knew about the girl.

Today, he gets a family friend to tell the media that “Gammy was very sick when he was born and the biological parents were told he would not survive and he had a day, at best, to live and to say goodbye".

Oh, and that the surrogate mother gave birth in the wrong hospital, which somehow negated the surrogacy agreement. (?) Plus, there was political unrest in Thailand and they were confused and yadda yadda.

They keep contradicting themselves, and frankly, I stick by what I said before: their story does not add up.

microcosmia · 05/08/2014 10:16

They have been identified elsewhere but I'm not sure how OK it is to identify the wife in this, though she is identifiable through association with him obviously.

KoalaDownUnder · 05/08/2014 10:24

They have both been well and truly identified now. This is the latest report from The Australian (broadsheet national newspaper):

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wa-man-at-the-centre-of-the-surrogate-baby-gammy-row-has-multiple-convictions-for-child-sex-offences/story-e6frg6n6-1227014277544

Just horrible.

GalaxyInMyPants · 05/08/2014 10:40

I'd be amazed if they're allowed to keep the baby girl if the reports about his convictions are true.

wannaBe · 05/08/2014 10:45

oh the wife is guilty by association. this isn't a quick marriage where they've been married and then decided to buy a baby - they've been married for ten years, she knows of his history, they've presumably been through infertility hence needing a surrogate. She's no victim.

microcosmia · 05/08/2014 11:07

Maybe but I don't know, wannabe. If as reported there is to be a social services investigation she stands to potentially lose a lot but it's not clear how culpable she is in this. I wouldn't want to assume too much in that regard.

Alisvolatpropiis · 05/08/2014 11:08

The revelation about the male half of the Australian couple's convictions has made my eyes pop out of my head.

Explains why they entered into a possibly illegal surrogacy agreement.

In terms of being cared for, Gammy seems to be in a much better place than his twin.

I may have missed it whilst reading the thread, but is there any kind of collection to raise money for his heart problem to be operated on?

ToffeeMoon · 05/08/2014 11:09

Good god, they need to remove that baby girl immediately. I am horrified.