Kanpur: Surrogacy has been in the news, because a bill to close the floodgates on the surrogates is being introduced in Parliament. More than the issue of surrogacy itself, what really opened another floodgate was the statement of Shushma Swaraj, Minister of External Affairs, that gay couples would not be allowed to go for surrogacy, as it was against our Indian ethos.
I chanced upon an interesting debate on surrogacy on a leading English TV channel. One of the suggestions made by a doctor panelist was that surrogacy be brought under the purview of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), as it was a government body with all the necessary infrastructure and expertise, so there was no need to establish another body for surrogacy. CARA would suffice.
I did not sleep that night because I had studied the CARA document on adoption promulgated on July 17, 2015, by the Ministry of Child Development; but could not recall its various provisions. Though surrogacy and adoption are not quite the same thing, they address the needs of the same section of society – the childless couple. I wanted to check out if gay couples were also banned from adoption, for whatever reason.
Readers may recall that when the CARA guidelines were issued last year, the Missionaries of Charity (MCs), on the advice of some bishops, took the moral high ground and decided to surrender their licenses as adoption centers, because some of the provisions of the new guidelines militated against their religious beliefs. One of the major objections of the MCs was that gay couples had been given the right to adopt. This would be against the Indian “ethos” propounded by Swaraj, for surrogacy, just as it was against the religious “ethos” on which Mother Teresa founded the MCs. What is the truth of the matter?
I studied the 50-page CARA document, with special regard to Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs). There is no reference to gay couples whatsoever. Section 5 on the eligibility criteria of PAPs states that they should be “physically, mentally and emotionally stable” (5a).
It expects such a couple to have “at least two years of stable marital relationship” (5f). The “consent of both spouses is required” (5e). However, it also states, somewhat contradictorily, that PAPs, irrespective of their marital status, and whether or not they have their own biological children, can adopt a child (5b). Couples with more than four children would not be eligible as PAPs (5j).
The PAPs are expected to register online in Schedule 5. They must declare their status as “single/ spinster/ widow/ widower/ divorcee/ separated or married couple”. There seem to be many anomalies here. For example, a separated singleton is still legally married. Then how can such a person adopt without the consent of the spouse (cf 5e)?
The guidelines stipulate that the PAPs should have compatibility (1.15). They also state that “the child’s best interests shall be of paramount consideration” (3a). One could presume this rightness of intention in a childless couple. It would be difficult to establish this in the case of singletons, divorcees and separated persons. Would such persons be looking at the “child’s best interests,” or their own vested interest of security and social acceptance?
When the MCs established their Shishu Bhawan in my hometown, Kanpur, about 50 years ago, I was a frequent visitor. Many abandoned and orphaned children were lovingly cared for. At that time there was a stigma attached to adoption, and ironically, till just a few years ago, Christians did not have the right to adopt, till an amendment in the Juvenile Justice Act. The MCs brought up these children, and even arranged their marriages. I myself have been god father to several of them.
Then the tide turned. Whether it was changed lifestyles, career options, or indiscriminate use of artificial birth control methods – there was a sudden spurt in infertility of couples and a corresponding demand for adoption. Initially the first choice was for a boy child. That prejudice soon disappeared as well, and there was a long waiting list for adoptions. Whether by rule or discretion, I am not sure, but the MCs only entertained those PAPs who were medically confirmed as being infertile. And they did not entertain those who already had children. That was a fair proposition.
Another procedure followed was to look for a physically compatible child. In one case we had to locate a child with mongoloid features like the PAPs, from a distant State. Two children, at most, were shown to the PAPs. Even photography was prohibited, to protect the identity and confidentiality of the children.
Unfortunately, the new guidelines have turned things upside down. Now everything is online, and PAPs are allowed to view the profiles of up to six children, as per their own preferences. I would here fully agree with the MCs that this would amount to compromising the confidentiality of the child, and a grave injustice. Given India’s penchant for boys, and “fair and lovely”, these guidelines are loaded against the girl child and those of swarthy complexions.
Whether the MCs, with their wealth of experience and depth of commitment, should have challenged these unfair (pun intended) guidelines; instead of meekly surrendering their licenses, is now of academic interest only. However, now that the floodgates for surrogates are about to be closed, and the procedures could come under CARA, we needed to revisit the entire issue.
The word “surrogate” literally means a substitute. In the given context it refers to the implantation of an embryo from a couple, for whatever reason, in the womb of a third person, a substitute. The debate on the surrogate is till raging. The government’s proposed legislation is against any form of commercial surrogacy, as is the norm now, and will only allow altruistic (unselfish) surrogacy through close relatives. Imagine somebody’s sister-in-law opting to be a surrogate!! Blood relations are loath to donate blood to “blood relatives”, what then of surrogacy?
In the Bible we find that Hagar, the Egyptian slave girl of Sarah, is the first substitute (surrogate) mother. We know that she was barren and therefore asked her husband Abraham to take Hagar and father a child (cf Gen 16:1-2). Abraham’s grandson Jacob also followed the path of surrogacy, as both his wives, Leah and Rachel (who were sisters) were barren. In turn both of them gave their respective slave girls Zilpah and Bilhah to Jacob to bear children for them (cf Gen 30:3-13).
What lessons can we learn from these biblical surrogacies? The first is the anguish of the childless person. Abraham says to God “What use are your gifts, as I am going away childless, since you have given me no offspring” (Gen 15:2). Rachel echoes similar anguish. She was jealous of her elder sister Leah, who had children by then, and said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die” (Gen 30:1). Are these old wives’ tales (pun intended)? Not so. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated on 11/10/1992 takes due cognizance of these anguished cries (CCC 2374).
Now let us see the effects of these altruistic surrogacies. When Hagar conceived through Abraham she became conceited “and her mistress counted for nothing in her eyes” (Gen 16:4). Resenting Hagar’s conceit, Sarah ill-treated her, resulting in her running away (cf Gen 16:6). Altruism indeed! Childlessness does cause anguish, and even rivalry, as evidenced in the sisters Leah and Rachel, with their respective slave girls thrown in for good measure.
Some of the statements that they make, and the names that they give to their children, are telling. Leah named her first son Reuben, which meant “Yahweh has seen my misery” (Gen 29:32). When Rachel’s slave girl Bilhah bore a child Rachel proclaimed “God has done me justice” (Gen 30:5). Similarly, when the second child was born she said “I have fought a fateful battle with my sister and I have won” (Gen 30:8). Later, when she had her own biological son she said “God has taken away my disgrace” (Gen 30:23).
In the more celebrated case of Sarah we find that God uses even more extraordinary means for her to conceive. In a divine apparition at Mamre, when Abraham was already old, and Sarah was long past menopause (cf Gen 18:11), the divine apparition says that Sarah would conceive a child, Isaac.
Let us now move to the New Testament, where Jesus is questioned about Moses permitting divorce. On the one hand he upholds the indissolubility of marriage, while on the other he makes a calibrated statement “It was because you were so hard hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Mat 19:8). Is this a case of situational ethics, where the specific circumstances determine the law, and not vice versa? Had not Jesus himself said that the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around (cf Mk 2:27)? Will law makers, constitutional or canonical, pay heed?
From the above instances I dare to draw a few conclusions: 1. There can never be hard and fast rules, or water tight compartments, when dealing with deeply personal issues like child bearing 2. Altruistic surrogacy, where the parties are known to each other, would be a conundrum, raising more questions than it answers. Anonymous surrogacy, as presently practiced, is a safer option, especially with the built in safeguard of DNA testing to verify progeny 3. One should understand the anguish of childless couples, and not pontificate to them.
Now let us examine the Catholic Church’s response to surrogacy. Other than personal opinions, there is very little official teaching to go by. The CCC was brought out in 1992, a time when bishops and moral theologians would not have known much about it. There is only one passing reference to surrogacy. It states, “Techniques that entail the intrusion of a third person (surrogate uterus) are gravely immoral. It betrays the spouse’s right to become a father and a mother only through each other” (CCC 2376).
I find this a contradiction in terms. On the one hand we talk of the right of parents to have children, and then deny that right through surrogacy, which is scornfully referred to as a third party “intrusion”! However, in the instant cases of Sarah, Leah, and Rachel, there was situational ethics, and third party intervention (not intrusion). The CCC further contradicts itself when it states that “a child is not a right but a gift. Only the child possesses genuine rights” (CCC 2378). This is the theatre of the absurd. Which celibate old males in boardrooms have made these rules for young couples in their bedrooms? Were the effected parties ever involved in this legislative process?
Let me draw another parallel. In his time Jesus performed many miracles like curing leprosy, blindness deafness etc. Many of these are now curable through advances in medical sciences, the modern miracles. Science is also God’s gift to the human race. So if scientific procedures are used to perform miraculous treatment, are they to be condemned? If, in situational ethics, moral aberrations like sleeping with slave girls could be condoned, the same principles should apply in scientific procedures that puritans would consider “gravely immoral.”
When will we stop pontificating? The recently held Laity Synod had raised great hopes that the genuine issues of married people – like divorce, infertility, surrogacy, family planning etc would be addressed. It was a complete let down. All we got were pious platitudes, like this old howler, “Physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Such childless couples should unite themselves to the Lord’s cross, adopt a child, or perform demanding services for others” (CCC 2379). Ouch! That hurt.
While writing this article I heard Anupriya Patel, Minister of State for Health, (who belongs to my hometown, and studied in a Catholic school here) state that poor women should look for gainful employment, and not “sell their bodies” for surrogacy! It sounded like she was comparing this to prostitution. Shame. It looks like the government and the Catholic Church are on the same page when it comes to surrogacy, and insensitivity to individual aspirations or feelings.
While welcoming the government’s endeavor to regulate (not control) surrogacy, especially to protect poor women from exploitation by avaricious doctors; I would conclude by saying that just as in CARA the child’s interests are paramount, so too in surrogacy, the prospective parents legitimate desires should be considered sacrosanct.
As for the Catholic bishops, it is time that they became more sensitive to ground realities in the family, and involved the actual stakeholders in any process of legislation. It is easy to close the floodgates on unbridled surrogacy, but it it could open up a much bigger floodgate of exodus from the Church, with affected parties saying, “I care two hoots for a church that does not care for me.”
We could, quite literally, be throwing the baby out with the bath water, a flood of it.
(The writer has for years been involved in marriage, family and youth counseling.)