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

I agree with you Vivien

The Thai woman wasn't even paid by the couple. They gave her an initial deposit but took the 'perfect' twin without paying her the rest of the money.

Surrogacy is fine in principle but increasingly in reality it involves couples from developed countries taking advantage of impoverished women from developing countries. The women used as surrogates in India are often kept in special homes and are kept away from their own children for months. The whole thing reeks of exploitation of poor women.

She didn't take the money, the couple took advantage of her desperation. Surrogacy for money should be banned worldwide.

The little girl will probably grow up to hate her parents when she finds out. They may come to find they have no child at all when she is old enough to decide she wants nothing to do with such people.

MrsJay and Vivienne I don't think any one has said commercial surrogacy is a good thing-far from it.

But it has happened. The latest point this vile couple lost any right to tell the mother what to do or to be able to walk away from the results was the point immediately before the genetic material was implanted.

Yes the arrangement was wrong but thinking they are free to walk away when it didn't suit them is even worse.

You know, I'd be surprised if this hadn't happened before. I'll bet another symptom of the exploitation is that many women fall pregnant with twins, triplets, or more. Plenty would be born with special needs. This child won't be the first who has been discarded.

lunar and possibly lose her before then?

Presumably they are now in the headlights of social services in Australia?

So they ripped her off by not paying her what she was owed AND left her with the disabled twin?

Fucks sake it just gets worse!

Actually, reports are suggesting that the agent involved didn't pay her the agreed amount.

No surprises that there's an unscrupulous middle man involved.

Sounds like a decent reason to make international surrogacy for profit illegal.

The report I've seen said that the initial agreement was for $AUD11,700.

Then she found out she was having twins, and the agent promised her another $1673 if she had the second baby as well.

Then she found out that one of the babies had Down Syndrome, and the Australian couple said they only wanted the girl, but the surrogate mother refused to terminate the boy because of her Buddhist beliefs.

When the babies were born, the agent took the girl and left the boy.

According to her, the agent paide her most of the money, but still owes her $2341.

You know, I'd be surprised if this hadn't happened before. I'll bet another symptom of the exploitation is that many women fall pregnant with twins, triplets, or more. Plenty would be born with special needs. This child won't be the first who has been discarded.

Absolutely. I hope the publicity this case is getting will help shine a huge fuck off light on the whole practise and set off a siren that the whole thing needs serious attention.

Yes, I can imagine similar things have happened before but we haven't got to hear about them. These women are acting as surrogates precisely because they are voiceless and without options. I dread to think what may have happened to some of the other unwanted babies in these cases.

I've been reading about an altrustic (well they say it is) Icelandic/Australian surrogacy which looks like a potential disaster in the making. For the unborn child, and for the surrogate's existing children.

Putting it together with this one, I think the only thing that will work is an international agreement that no surrogacy will be recognised, and the child removed from all parties at birth, unless all parties go through an approval process before concepetion.

Something like the model used for adoption.

Ie you need to be pre-approved as both intended parent and surrogate. Your contract of surrogacy validated by a court and all countries involved on board/rubber stamping agreement as per who is legally responsible for the child no matter what.

All of that BEFORE anybody gets preganant, and if you don't respect the law and do it "off piste", the state takes the child away from the lot of you.

Given the international nature, the minimum standards of all countries represented by a party (due to habitual residence) must be reached by all parties involved. To make sure that countries with a generally lower barrier don't dictate a lesser degree of safeguarding.

I don't see any other way to get this geenie at least some way back in its bottle and the children back as the over riding priority.

Read the Julia Hollander article how she could let the public now how selfish she is is beyond me, and then to have another child.

OK, let's slow down a little here.

Before I start, I would like to make it clear that this is an incredibly sad, and highly emotive situation for all involved, and I'm not going to dispute that.

HOWEVER, with regard to the parents and the way they have acted, it would absolutely not surprise me that:

A) They never met the surrogate, and liased entirely through the agency.

B) They believe the boy with Down's to have been terminated, and they do not know that their daughter still has a twin.

The agencies that operate these rackets are highly immoral and incredibly unscrupulous (to put it mildly). It would not surprise me one iota that the agency has taken the parents money, pocketed most of it whilst feeding the parents what they want to hear, and screwing over the surrogate at the same time.

Yes, the parents may of course be complete bastards, but they may also be completely in the dark about what's going on. I don't know, because like everyone else on this thread, I'm not directly involved in the situation.

The issue of paying poor women from developing countries to act as surrogates, the issue of the abortion of babies with Down's make this whole sorry scenario even messier.

Calls for them to be named and shamed (and the inevitable death threats, harrassment and assualts that will go along with that), calling for their daughter to be taken away etc may just be a little premature at this stage.

Poor twins, poor sister who will never have that amazing sib relationship,so sad they have robbed their other child of this.

disgusting

Soontobesix I don't understand your point??

Fyrefly, according to news reports, it's true that the parents never met the surrogate and liaised entirely through the agency.

However, I think it's highly unlikely that the parents would have been 'completely in the dark' until now. Apart from anything else, it's been all over the news; they've had plenty of opportunity to make a statement to that effect, even anonymously.

This isn't a simple business arrangement, because the hiring put of a body part falls out of the realms of business.

This sounds like exploitation of a poor and vulnerable woman.

If the Australian couple felt like they were unable to cope with a child with Down's syndrome, they should have adopted the child, brought him to Australia, and surrender him to Australian social services where he would be guaranteed to have his health needs met.

Instead they abandoned him in a third world country, and are presumably not paying any child maintenance.

Firefly according to BBC news

She was told of the child's condition four months after becoming pregnant, prompting the couple to ask her to have an abortion.

They might ?ot have met her but that doesn't sound as if they were unaware of the situation.

I think Fyrefly was suggesting that the surrogacy agency lied to the Australian couple, telling them that the mother had gone ahead with the abortion.

I agree that it's deeply unlikely that the parents know nothing about the boy twin that was left behind - they would have to be living under a rock to have missed it!

Phaedra I'm not saying they were unaware of the fact the baby had Down's Syndrome, I'm saying the agency may have told them the boy had been terminated as per their wishes to keep them on-side, when in fact he hadn't.

Koala this all happened at least 6 months ago, and they will most certainly not be the only Australian couple who will have used Thai surrogacy in that timescale. The addition of Down's Syndrome will narrow the list of potential parents, and I think that there will be an Australian couple out there who strongly suspect that they're the ones being talked about, but may not want to risk putting their head above the parapet in case they're not actually the people involved. This story has also only blown up in the last 24-hours or so - that's not really quite enough time to engage lawyers and put out a properly-composed statement, without adding in the complications of ensuring anonymity. They may make a statement later.

At least he was born to a surrogate. Sounds like if he had been carried by the Australian woman he'd have been aborted before birth, since they're clearly in the sickeningly large camp of people who believe Down's babies don't deserve to live. At least this way he gets to live.