Australian couple abandon surrogate twin with Down's syndrome in Thailand

[Elley Mae]

If these people paid a lady to have a baby for them and one baby is what they wanted then I don't have a problem with their decision, the surrogate/adoption has me confused as to whether or not the babies were/are blood related to the couple. Seems weird to me that they would have to leave the country to get someone else to carry their baby, versus them buying a baby from a pregnant woman in another country. So, if they paid for this woman to have a baby that they would then adopt and she had two (twins) and one was special needs I don't have a problem with them not taking that child. I do wonder why it took 6 months for this to surface or did it take 6 months for the adoption to go through. IDK I wonder if they even knew about the second child, maybe this went viral for the money. jmo idk

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It should happen before he deteriorates. He needs proactive care and someone in Australia needs to set up a petition to the Government to ensure this happens.

I hope there are surgeons here who have seen his story already offering their services.

 

[Supernovae]

If these people paid a lady to have a baby for them and one baby is what they wanted then I don't have a problem with their decision.

It's not like buying a washing machine.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

In regards to the couple who didn't want to raise him, it's their loss in the world's biggest way .. they could have learnt a lot about love from their son IMO.

 

[gitana1]

Yes, you can not enforce this part of the contract. There was a similar case in US. Fetus had severe defects, surrogate refused to abort. She moved to another state to have the infant. Couple did not take the infant. My point is, someone who doesn't believe in abortion should not agree to surrogacy. Unless they are in the same wavelength with the bio parents in regards to abortion.

The woman did not flee the state to have the baby. She fled the state so that the parents could not take custody and put the baby in foster care. The couple did not take the Infant because the surrogate fled so they couldn't. I know of no contract that absolves bio parents of responsibility for a child except for adoption contracts. It's unconstitutional.

And why are we placing the responsibility for this on the surrogate? Parents who cannot face raising a child with disabilities are the ones who shouldn't enter into such contracts because they cannot force an abortion nor absolve them selves of responsibility to a disabled child, via such a contract.

 

[gitana1]

If these people paid a lady to have a baby for them and one baby is what they wanted then I don't have a problem with their decision, the surrogate/adoption has me confused as to whether or not the babies were/are blood related to the couple. Seems weird to me that they would have to leave the country to get someone else to carry their baby, versus them buying a baby from a pregnant woman in another country. So, if they paid for this woman to have a baby that they would then adopt and she had two (twins) and one was special needs I don't have a problem with them not taking that child. I do wonder why it took 6 months for this to surface or did it take 6 months for the adoption to go through. IDK I wonder if they even knew about the second child, maybe this went viral for the money. jmo idk

Wow. I'm stunned by this. You are advocating treating babies like chattel, like a commodity. Treating surrogacy as if it is paying for a commissioned product is a bio ethics nightmare. Legitimizing the abandonment of "defective" human merchandise, to suffer in squalor, is among the worst kind of eugenics.

Welcome to Huxley's Brave New World, or North Korea, oor communist China in its heyday.

 

[gitana1]

It doesn't make it good if somebody's natural child turns out to have severe defects either. But it happens. In which case abortion is an option. I am not sure why it's not right for someone to have the same option just because they are using reproductive technology. All of this is usually specified in a contract. I don't know what kind of a contract this couple had with a surrogate, but sometimes a surrogate will agree to abortion in a contract but refuse to actually have one. In which case it can not be forced.

A surrogate is a human being, not reproductive technology. You don't get to choose what happens to another adult's body. If they were deciding not to implant their own embryos because there were signs of chromosomal issues, that's one thing. This is another.

 

[gitana1]

BBM- I guess therein lies the rub- Down syndrome does not automatically constitute SEVERE MENTAL ISSUES. Nor does it automatically constitute SEVERE Physical issues.

My son, as well as many individuals I know are extremely high functioning mentally and emotionally.

I know many adults with Down syndrome who did not/do not have severe health or physical issues. Many have no health issues, at all.

Are we now aborting any fetus who presents with a medical issue?

My perfectly typical and ultimately healthy second child... a daughter- was born with the exact same heart defects her brother was- they closed on their own within the first 6 months of her life- which many VSD's and ASD's do. What if we had aborted her?

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this. I do appreciate your viewpoint and understand it.

Maybe it hits too close to home for me.

I'm glad it does though.

Thank you for this post. People with Down Syndrome are people. They are human beings with certain challenges, but otherwise, IMO, the same as any human being with the same needs, desires, ambitions, and questions about life that we all have.

With early intervention kids with this condition can soar

I recommend to any who haven't seen it to watch Monica and David, which is about a Cuban-American couple with Down Syndrone who are getting married. It's precious. It really let's the viewer see their humanity, abilities, challenges, their potential and their hearts. It's available on Netflix. Loved it!

P.S. And boy can they dance!!!!

 

[jjenny]

A surrogate is a human being, not reproductive technology. You don't get to choose what happens to another adult's body. If they were deciding not to implant their own embryos because there were signs of chromosomal issues, that's one thing. This is another.

An adult who agrees to carry the fetus and than to give up the infant once the infant is born. Or to have an abortion if the fetus is abnormal (assuming that's in the contract).

 

[1&2&3]

This case is beyond sickening! The bio-parents are very selfish people because upon learning the surrogate was carrying one twin with a disability, they wanted her to have an abortion to destroy two babies. They were willing to kill their one healthy baby so they would not be bothered or embarrassed by a special needs child. We don't know what their reasoning was other than the one wasn't wanted.

This surrogate may love Gammy as much as her own children, but she faces many factors in trying to raise a special needs white child, living in poverty, in a third world country. At 21, she has a six year old, she did not know what surrogacy was, so it is probably safe to say she has little education. Therefore, her knowledge or information on raising a DS child is non-existent and there is no government help for her.

Bless her heart! She wants to do what's best for Gammy and care for him. She just does not know what is ahead of her. And then she does have a husband, so he may be really upset about this extra child that has joined the family! She is much more human than the people who are his bio-parents!

It would be great if the parents could be located and charged with something! Walking off and leaving a child is not acceptable. JMO

 

[jjenny]

No, the abortion wouldn't have removed both fetuses. It's called selective reduction. In case of multiples selective reduction is often done to improve the chances for other fetuses (as multiples is a dangerous pregnancy and most are born premature). Abortion could have removed one fetus and left the other. I presume that is what they wanted done.

 

[Athena12]

Poor little babe. What soulless monsters those parents are.

 

[PrimeSuspect]

It doesn't make it good if somebody's natural child turns out to have severe defects either. But it happens. In which case abortion is an option. I am not sure why it's not right for someone to have the same option just because they are using reproductive technology. All of this is usually specified in a contract. I don't know what kind of a contract this couple had with a surrogate, but sometimes a surrogate will agree to abortion in a contract but refuse to actually have one. In which case it can not be forced.

We don't know what was in the contract, but imo, the biological parents are in the wrong.

They wanted a baby on the cheap, they chose to go through an agency that uses women who are very poor, who knows if you or I were in the same position we would not take the money to better the lives of our own children? Can you honestly say you wouldn't?

It's easy to criticize when we live in a affluent society of which these biological parents belong. We shouldn't use poor people for our own benefits. The parents deserve to feel shame for many reasons not just deserting their own baby. jmo

 

[gitana1]

No, the abortion wouldn't have removed both fetuses. It's called selective reduction. In case of multiples selective reduction is often done to improve the chances for other fetuses (as multiples is a dangerous pregnancy and most are born premature). Abortion could have removed one fetus and left the other. I presume that is what they wanted done.

75% of women go into premature labor as a result of selective abortion. So apparently the risk to the survival of the remaining fetuses is super high.

An adult who agrees to carry the fetus and than to give up the infant once the infant is born. Or to have an abortion if the fetus is abnormal (assuming that's in the contract).

So? No contract anywhere (except in China, probably), can force a woman to have an abortion. And no contract can transfer the responsibility of an unrelated child she is carrying, to the surrogate if she fsils to have an abortion per the contract terms The only thing those provisions can do is, where they are legal, allow the parents to get out of paying money to the surrogate, if she breaches.

So the risk of having a baby the parent doesn't want, does not lie with the surrogate. It lies with the parents. Thus, like I said, the parents don't gget to choose what happens with the surrogate's body. And as surrogacy deals with a third party's body, there is a huge difference between choosing to abort the baby you are carrying and wishing you could abort the one the third party is carrying.

Therefore, if all the risk really lies with the surrogate, it is the parents who have a duty to not enter into a contract that allows the creation of a kid they don't want.

 

[redheadedgal]

similar case from 2010 in BC: surrogate aborted: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/1...gate-mother-to-abort-fetus-because-of-defect/

 

[BatWoman]

If these people paid a lady to have a baby for them and one baby is what they wanted then I don't have a problem with their decision, the surrogate/adoption has me confused as to whether or not the babies were/are blood related to the couple. Seems weird to me that they would have to leave the country to get someone else to carry their baby, versus them buying a baby from a pregnant woman in another country. So, if they paid for this woman to have a baby that they would then adopt and she had two (twins) and one was special needs I don't have a problem with them not taking that child. I do wonder why it took 6 months for this to surface or did it take 6 months for the adoption to go through. IDK I wonder if they even knew about the second child, maybe this went viral for the money. jmo idk

The babies are biologically the couple's. The surrogate was just the incubator. Surrogacy is illegal in most of Australia so they went overseas. They wanted their own flesh and blood until their flesh and blood was 'faulty'. If they only wanted one child they should have implanted only one embryo. They were lucky in that they got 2 babies, but then wanted an abortion for the boy at 4 months when they found out he had DS. Instead of bringing both babies back to australia and putting the boy up for adoption where he would be entitled to a good quality of life, including free medical care, they chose to desert him in a foreign country in poor conditions with strangers.

I think it only came to light now because his new family couldn't afford the medical treatment he needs urgently.

 

[Sonya610]

I should also have mentioned leaving him as a burden (albeit a much loved one) on this poverty stricken woman.

But do we know the "whole story"? I don't think so.

For all we know the couple asked her to abort and the woman pleaded and said she would raise the baby, the couple may have felt sorry for her and agreed to that. Now in hindsight they are made out to be monsters. Regardless I find the decision to leave the kid in Thailand to be horrid and I just don't see it working out well for him. They should have gone to India for a surrogate, those folks aren't squeamish about abortion.

One article said here are over 60 babies conceived for gay Israeli couples in Thailand too, and Israel is not granting them entrance into the country. What a mess involving people that have too much money and not much common sense!

 

[Elley Mae]

The babies are biologically the couple's. The surrogate was just the incubator. Surrogacy is illegal in most of Australia so they went overseas. They wanted their own flesh and blood until their flesh and blood was 'faulty'. If they only wanted one child they should have implanted only one embryo. They were lucky in that they got 2 babies, but then wanted an abortion for the boy at 4 months when they found out he had DS. Instead of bringing both babies back to australia and putting the boy up for adoption where he would be entitled to a good quality of life, including free medical care, they chose to desert him in a foreign country in poor conditions with strangers.

I think it only came to light now because his new family couldn't afford the medical treatment he needs urgently.

Thanks for more info, Then they are wrong in leaving the boy behind.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://news.msn.com/world/video?videoid=142ce05a-ec44-ca9a-da7e-9144cffb149d

 

[Elley Mae]

Pattharamon Janbua has also revealed that both her babies were unwell at birth and the girl remained in a Thai hospital for a month before the parents took her to Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gamm...other-told-20140803-zzy5z.html?skin=text-only

The crackdown has left an estimated 200 Australian couples who have surrogacy arrangements in Thailand facing an uncertain future for their babies.

Demand for in vitro fertilisation, with the option of choosing the child’s gender, has been growing at more than 20 percent in Thailand where the industry has been largely unregulated.

The country has 44 IVF clinics with four new facilities opening last year.