Taming the international commercial surrogacy industryBMJ 2014; 349 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6334 (Published 23 October 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g6334
- Sally Howard, freelance journalist, London, UK
The recent case of surrogate baby Gammy, left in Thailand by his commissioning parents after being born with Down’s syndrome and a congenital heart defect, provoked censorious press coverage worldwide. “Surrogate mom vows to take care of abandoned twin,” ran the typical headline when the story broke in August. Outrage grew when it emerged that the father had 22 child sex convictions.1
But behind its sensationalised aspects—taking one healthy child from twins and the questionable background of the Australian father—the case was more legally and ethically nuanced than it might have seemed.
Gammy’s gestational mother, 21 year old Thai food vendor Pattaramon Chanbua, told news agency Agence France Presse that she had found out that one of the twins had a chromosomal disorder four months into the pregnancy.1 The commissioning parents, David and Wendy Farnell, told Australia’s Channel Nine television (60 Minutes, 9 August) that they had then urged Chanbua to selectively abort the abnormal fetus.
Abortion is illegal in Thailand, except in cases of rape or incest or endangerment to the mother’s life or mental or physical health.2 It is unclear whether abortion for a birth defect was stipulated in the surrogacy contract between Chanbua and the Farnells. However, Chanbua claimed that she refused to abort the child because it was against her Buddhist faith. She also complained that she has been promised $9300 (£5800; €7300) to carry the children but had not been paid in full.3
Gammy remained in Thailand under the care of Chanbua who, under Thai law, was considered the child’s mother. After the case gained media attention, pressure grew to repatriate the 7 month …