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

Basically, to sort out any confusion, I'm suggesting the scenario could have panned out like this:

Australian couple engage agency to arrange a surrogate. Money is given to agency.

Agency arranges surrogate, with promise of payment.

The implantation (not sure that's the proper word) is carried out and the pregnancy begins.

It's discovered the pregnancy is twins. Agency promises surrogate more money (at this point I don't think we know if the Australian couple was charged any more?).

It's discovered the boy has Down's Syndrome. The Australian couple ask the agency to ask the surrogate to terminate the boy.

Agency asks surrogate, but surrogate refuses, as is her right.

Agency, afraid to lose "business" (ugh) or money, tells couple the baby has been aborted.

Twins are born. Agency collects girl, gives girl to parents. Parents go home with girl, unaware that the boy they thought was aborted is alive. Agency pockets most of the money and screws over the surrogate.

This is what I'm saying MIGHT have happened. OR the parents could be scum of the first order. I don't know. But the addition of a surrogate agency, which we don't know the name of, adds a lot of questions into the mix.

The agency also could have charged the parents for the termination cost and pocketed that too. Wouldn't surprise me, BUT as I've said before I'm just speculating.

This Guardian article states that it's believed the parents and the surrogate never met. Also that paying for surrogacy in Thailand is illegal, suggesting the agency shouldn't be in existence, and that the parents have acted illegally in that matter.

How dare anyone pick children like dolls anyway. If you pay somone to have a supposedly longed for child, you can't say you don't want them now they have SN.

To me aborting a child because of SN ( unless we are talking an extremely low chance of survival/any quality of life) is like ethnic cleansing or something.

I still don't understand how she could have ended up pregnant with fraternal twins unexpectedly - for fraternal twins you need two separate fertilised eggs, no? If the agency are 'double parking' in their surrogates without proper consent that is deeply dodgy.

I'm going to disagree with the consensus here and say the Australian parents do have a right not take the child on.

If they had had the child biologically they could have had a termination. Yes, they paid for the women to be pregnant but doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a choice on what then happens in said pregnancy. I agree they can't or shouldn't have forced the Thai lady to have an abortion but if Thai lady knew the baby wasn't then wanted by the family, she too had choices to make in regards to what happens next.

In fairness to the Australian couple they might have spent every last penny on affording to do the surrogacy that means financially they couldn't afford to take on a child with Sn or afford to adapt their life to meet the child's needs. They might also have felt emotionally and mentally inprepared to take on the responsibility of a child with sn.

I longed for a child for years but when I got pregnant if drs had told I would have had a child with severe sn I would have had to think about if I could have provided the life the child would have needed or required and if going through this process I realised I couldn't have I could have terminated the pregnancy. I don't think thought process and final outcome cant be a missed out step because they paid for the pregnancy. In a small comparison, if people have ivf and child has severe sn, if said couple decided to abort the pregnancy they would be awful parents and obviously not that desperate for a baby.

This isn't to knock people with sn and without wanting to sound patronising I think it is admirable to say whatever the outcome of the pregnancy I will take what comes the laughter, tears and despair that is involved with all parents and even more so parents of child with severe sn. As your mn stories makes us slightly aware of.

Let's not get into the rights or wrongs of termination for SN, as that's not the point under discussion here.

If you want to discuss that, start a new thread.

that means financially they couldn't afford to take on a child with Sn or afford to adapt their life to meet the child's needs. They might also have felt emotionally and mentally inprepared to take on the responsibility of a child with sn

I would not classify DS as severe Special needs.

We have relative with DS family don't need special adaptation or anything in home!

Everything is dependant on the childs actual needs and the parents ability to deal with it, but with DS aside from the inital not knowing and fear there is little I can see that would need huge help for emotionally or mentally.

The Man who has DS that I know, is a beautiful human being, who is possibly THE best person in his family, funny, kind, helpful, caring...certainly the other siblings all get on far better with their brother who has DS than each other. He is also self sufficient and needs very little help.

I'm going to disagree with the consensus here and say the Australian parents do have a right not take the child on

Nah through a ball they started to rolll (from their own wants and desires) through dubious chanels a child, a little baby the most vulnerable creature humans can have is now in this world and needs help.

Knitted I was just about to say similar. Best outcome for this little boy is he finds a loving family who will meet his health needs and look at him as a person, not at his DS ( if the surrogate can't care for him)

I agree I wouldn't class ds on it's own as severe sn either. But that doesn't mean the couple wouldn't or still think they wouldn't be able to cope etc. Or just by given a diagnosis of ds they didn't get/look for the worse case scenario rather than the positive.

I don't see how "I know a boy with Downs who..." adds much to the discussion.

Lots of people with Downs = lots of different individuals with lots of different levels of disability. You simply can't extrapolate any kind of general rule.

If the child is not biologically either of the Australian couple's, are they legally required to do anything for him, given that surrogacy is illegal in Thailand and therefore any contract I enforceable? Morally responsible yes but.... legally?

Plus, if the contract for surrogacy is illegal then presumably they run the risk of their daughter being removed if they raise their heads above the parapet.

You cannot say downs isn't severe. It can come with a lot of life limiting complications.

Yeah, I can see exactly why that's done Maryz but then if everyone knew that was happening it wouldn't be a surprise if it was twins. The quotes from the surrogate about her having 'a baby in a tube', and the price being raised for twins, made me worry about what she was told. Hmm.

A lot of people with Downs will need lifelong care, which might be something that parents feel they cannot offer.

I do think they should be responsible for the child.

I am also wondering if the agency has lied. In that situation that's just horrendous for everyone.

"Poor countries are full of poor women hiring out their wombs with plenty of middlemen standing by to pocket the cash. It sickens me. The parents are cunts. They didn't even meet the surrogate."

And its been going on for years. Marie Claire did a massive article on it many years ago.

I've been in absolute bits over this this morning.
DD2 is 5 months old, has DS and was born with 2 holes in her heart.
leaving aside the fact that she's the most amazing, laid back, content happy baby I've ever met and everyone adores her, and that it breaks my heart that 95% of these gorgeous wee people are never born, and leaving aside the fact that this little boy has Downs...
what horrifies me more than anything else, is that they left him behind, in a country where the chances are he wouldn't get the life saving treatment he needed.
I've seen DD find feeding beyond her energy levels and being tube fed. I've seen her little chest heaving just trying to get enough oxygen round her body.
I've seen her slow slow weight gain.
I've seen her fall behind other babies and lose ground day by day.
I've seen her do this WHILST getting above adequate medical care, being regularly monitored and scheduled for life saving surgery.
And above all I've seen her go through all of this, looking into the eyes of parents who love her, care for her and she trusts totally!
These HEARTLESS people, his so called parents, took his 'perfect' sister, and left him. Thankfully with someone who cares enough about him to look after him, but who ultimately had no choice.
And they left him to DIE.
They could have returned home with him and handed him over to someone who gave a SHIT and would get him the treatment he needed.
But they callously left him, got on a plane and went home.
And for that I hope their consciences tear them apart for the rest of their lives. And I hope that when his sister finds out what they did, she leaves them to grow old alone with their conscience for company!

On BBC News they are saying the couple "rejected" the child.

That doesn't sound like they were misled by the agency to me...

I'm praying that the above scenario that they don't know about him is true.

People with downs need lifelong support and care I dont thimk they can live fully independent lives so this little boy will need support forever can his mother do that especially in a country that have children working from a young age.

Saggy

I meant know not now , what I meant was I would be ashamed I had abandoned my child, not let a journalist write an article.