Skip to main content

The squabble against commercial surrogacy

 Introduction:- 

As per the Black's Law Dictionary surrogacy means the process of carrying and delivering a child for another person. Surrogacy means to carry a child for another woman who is unable to produce one, due to certain complexities. The major types of surrogacy are Natural Surrogacy, Gestational Surrogacy, Commercial Surrogacy and Altruistic Surrogacy.

*Natural/Traditional/Partial Surrogacy:-In this type of surrogacy, there is genetic relation of embryo with surrogate and it is done with her own ovum. Commissioning father can donate the sperm and becomes the genetic father of the child. In this process, the sperm maybe taken from a third male person and in case where there are two females who are commissioning as parents can undertake the process or a single woman can also commission for the child.

* Gestational/Full Surrogacy:-In this type, surrogate acts as a carrier of embryo which is genetically not related to her. The pregnancy is obtained by the IVF and implantation of fertilized embryo is done in the surrogate’s uterus. In this, the embryo is fertilized by the commissioning parents or some other anonymous person.

 *Commercial Surrogacy:-In this type of surrogacy, the surrogate enjoys compensation in monetary terms for the service that she carries out.

*Altruistic Surrogacy:-In Altruistic Surrogacy, no financial benefits are given to surrogate. There are only medical expenses given in monetary terms as compensation by commissioning parents.

The major focus of this article is placed upon the matters which are being highlighted in the “Surrogacy Regulation Bill,2020” which was passed by the Rajya Sabha. Some of the highlights that we will be dealing in this article are as follows: First and foremost this bill completely prohibits commercial surrogacy and only allows altruistic surrogacy meaning the surrogate mothers are not subject to any compensation except for the basic medical expenses and insurance coverage.

Now, one of the most important reason due to the reason why surrogacy is opted is due to the issue of infertility. In India, infertility is considered as a major social stigma. Though, infertility is not that major of a disease, it is very devastating for the intending couples or even for that matter individuals to know that that will never be able to fulfill the socially accepted need for family without any fault of their own. In India, there is an unfluctuating structure and a strong desire of children. Ever since technology has dramatically enhanced in the past years, it has proven to be advantageous to the human life in many ways. Surrogacy has proven to be extremely helpful especially for the sterile married couples wherein evolution of technology has proven to be a boon for these kinds of couples. One of the most dubious ways to have a baby is through the process of surrogacy. Surrogacy is a procedure of reduplication whereby a woman agrees to carry a child and gives birth acting as a substitute forth contracted party/ies. Some of the modes for surrogacy are:-Natural, traditional, straight or gestational. The process of surrogacy has been a long disputed question in India. The ethicality of leasing a womb the moral and legal knottiness surrounding it have always been matters of misgiving.

Major issues and recommendations

One of the crucial changes of the Surrogacy Regulation Bill,2020 also raised a point of the surrogate mother being exploited which is, we believe, one of the reasons why commercial surrogacy is prohibited. But is it really worth prohibiting commercial surrogacy for the reason of exploitation? Is it really agreeable to legally discourage a service because of which a family gets blessed with a child, owing to the fact of exploitation? And thirdly, what exactly does the exploitation argument amount to? Also, in this service why isn’t the possibility of the commissioned parents being exploited taken into account? Due to lack of regulation and lack of transparency, the well as the intended parents surrogate as get exploited and the profit is earned by the middlemen and commercial agencies. However, even if we believe that in surrogacy exploitation does exist, because of which commercial surrogacy has been barred, it sums up to a quite fragile and incapacitated argument, which leads us to our second objective: the bill also draws our attention to (Altruistic Surrogacy), any willing women can perform this service, but the truth to be told: Surrogate women don’t just leap out or they are not manufactured. They are humans too, who perform this service for the greater good of a family, so rather than prohibiting commercial surrogacy which, if done, might actually lead to backfire which might be a starting point for something worse and shoddy than exploitation. Because banning or prohibiting something does not make that thing come to a standstill. So, surrogacy as a service and the conditions under which surrogates work must be improved, a close examination of the surrogates should be conducted wherein their background should be taken into consideration and why the surrogates choose this path should also be given a thought to which will certainly prevent any further stumbling block and a strict regulation should be made for about the transferring of embryos. Those who focus on the inherent inequalities of India’s surrogacy service or people who are cynical about this, only have an inclination towards prohibiting commercial surrogacy. Better understanding of this complex practice should be acquired and it should be open and transparent in medical and emotional exchanges. It is not about expansion of business or India’s tourism(As India is a hub for surrogacy because of its low expense), it is about creating proper and satisfactory guidelines and legislative regulation, because if commercial surrogacy is prohibited, the medical industry of surrogacy will sink and it will be exceedingly onerous to safeguard the child’s as well as the surrogate’s rights. As a matter of fact, there are poor, illiterate women from rural areas who undertake surrogacy and they are put in hostels for taking care of them and they spend nine months worrying about their families and who are unlikely to be paid monetary compensation. During the registration of surrogates, a fee must be set down so that there is no further negotiation and no unreasonable demands should be beseeched from the surrogates as they have their full bodily rights and she should be trusted by the intended couple. Complete reliance should be placed upon the generosity and decision making power of the surrogate. This means is that the surrogate should have respect, appreciation and understanding of the ethical significance of the important role that she plays. 

Conclusion

a technique in respect to compensation must be established and a proper check must be kept on the clinics and surrogate gamete banks to eliminate exploitation. Thus an effective legislation which is balanced in its approach is immediately needed to ensure the protection of the rights of all parties that are involved in this transaction. Surrogacy when completed legally and morally, proves to be a wonderful way for those intended couples who cannot conceive. This issue being not one of the regular transplant issues and hence surrogacy can’t be decided only on the accordance of the doctor and the patient but the rights of the unborn child should also be taken into consideration as well as protected.

In India, legislative implementation has always been challenging, so considering this the lawmakers should bear in mind any other devise or technique that could better the situation and achieve the purpose, because ban on surrogacy is the government’s response to stop exploitative practices but it should also bear in mind that there is no alternative solutions, and a ban does not necessarily cease an action but might result into something worse than that. Hence we conclude there is no rational explanation for not having legalized commercial surrogacy. Therefore, the lawmakers should look into this and consider whether it shall make a proper Act and give India a legal framework to regulate this practice.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree