Australian couple abandon Down syndrome baby with Thai surrogate mother

[TallPalm]

She wants to have her cake and eat it too, should never have entered into surrogacy arrangement.
 

Four months into the pregnancy, doctors doing routine checks discovered one of the babies had Down syndrome. They told the Australian parents, who said they did not want to take the boy, according to a source familiar with the case.

They told me to have an abortion but I didnt agree because I am afraid of sin, Ms Pattharamon says, referring to her Buddhist beliefs.

 

Not really, abortion is illegal in Thailand so the responsibility shoudl fall on the selfish and inconsiderate Australian couple.

Edited August 1, 2014 by TallPalm

[CMSteve]

"Australian couple abandon Down syndrome baby"?

 

"Four months into the pregnancy, doctors doing routine checks discovered one of the babies had Down syndrome. They told the Australian parents, who said they did not want to take the boy, according to a source familiar with the case.

“They told me to have an abortion but I didn’t agree because I am afraid of sin,” Ms Pattharamon says, referring to her Buddhist beliefs."

 

At four months of pregnancy, these test are common and you have a legal right to terminate.   Many people realize that they would not be able to care for a special needs child and make that decision.    In this case, the surrogate decided to go against the wished of the Australian donor parents and keep the second baby.   Why would she expect to the Aussie couple to take the baby?     They didn't abandon the baby, this lady had an baby that she was not able to care for and is looking to place blame somewhere else

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by CMSteve

[chooka]

 

Being a surrogate mother is not a evil thing, and bring compensated for it is not evil either.
The only evil part of this story is this couple dumping the twin with Down's syndrome. They were the driving force in the child's birth and should have accepted the responsibility for their actions bringing the child into the world. I feel sorry for the twin they took being raised but such an amoral couple of human effluence. Name them, shame them, and make them stand up and do what they agreed to do! And the the Australian authorities should monitor them for 21 years.

The saddest part is Down's syndrome children are usually totally good natured,
friendly and loving children. Who try hard to be a credit to their families.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

 

Agree 100% with Animatic.... 

 

+1

[TallPalm]

She wants to have her cake and eat it too, should never have entered into surrogacy arrangement.
 

Four months into the pregnancy, doctors doing routine checks discovered one of the babies had Down syndrome. They told the Australian parents, who said they did not want to take the boy, according to a source familiar with the case.

They told me to have an abortion but I didnt agree because I am afraid of sin, Ms Pattharamon says, referring to her Buddhist beliefs.

 

Not really, abortion is illegal in Thailand so the resposnibility should fall on the selfish and inconsiderate Australian couple.

[harrycallahan]

 
She wants to have her cake and eat it too, should never have entered into surrogacy arrangement.

Never helpful, this kind of statement. Does it even help for me to say that Harry never should have written that? I agree that all parties must be brought together to arrange for the child's care.

Most unhelpful comment wilgoster, really if this is the best you can contribute to the discussion perhaps keep it to yourself? On that I'm sure we're all agreed.

[Misterwhisper]

I find the entire surrogacy issue highly controversial, if not morally questionable.

 

If a heterosexual couple turns out to be infertile - because of infertile sperm, infertile eggs, an organic disorder, or any combination thereof - there is a reason for that. It's called natural selection. It's evolution's way to ensure that only the healthiest gene pool of any given species is propagated.

 

Certainly, there is the emotional agony a couple has to endure when they desperately want a child, but can't for one reason or another. Yet IMO the "higher tier" consideration - keeping the gene pool healthy and intact - must take precedence.

 

If a child is so desperately wanted, there still is the very viable option of adopting one from among the millions over millions of orphans in this world. This also has humanitarian merit, as the respective couple is giving a child (although not borne from their own genes) the chance to grow up in a loving family, a chance that this child otherwise would have been denied. 

 

Not that national authorities would make adoption as easy and painless as possible, though. On the contrary. It is no wonder then that many childless couples choose the considerably easier way of simply shelling out a substantial sum to have someone else carry out the child. But in a sense, this practice is tantamount to treating new life like a commodity that changes hand for the right amount of money. It's reminiscent of ordering a new jacket from your neighborhood tailor, because you don't have the skills to sew one yourself. 

 

As per homosexual couples, I think the answer is quite clear cut. By nature, they are not supposed to have a child at all - unless nature evolves to the point that a male can fertilize another male, a female another female. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, sorry.   

 

 

[seabass69]

For those who wish to help http://www.gofundme.com/bxci90

[Eliot Rosewater]

The Australian couple shall now hide behind anonymity laws designed to protect the identity of children in cases of high news interest.

 

 

They need to be named, and to be bought before a court in order to be forced to accept the full consequences of the choices they made. 

Agreed, what a couple of scumbags

[chooka]

 

She wants to have her cake and eat it too, should never have entered into surrogacy arrangement.
 

Four months into the pregnancy, doctors doing routine checks discovered one of the babies had Down syndrome. They told the Australian parents, who said they did not want to take the boy, according to a source familiar with the case.

They told me to have an abortion but I didnt agree because I am afraid of sin, Ms Pattharamon says, referring to her Buddhist beliefs.

 

Not really, abortion is illegal in Thailand so the resposnibility should fall on the selfish and inconsiderate Australian couple.

 

So is certain types of surrogacy apparently.

 

Senior Thai health and legal officials threw Thailand’s booming surrogacy business into crisis on Wednesday when they declared that, according to Thai law, the only legal surrogacy cases were those in which a married couple cannot conceive a child and engage a blood relative to carry their child in an altruistic surrogacy arrangement.

 

They declared as illegal any surrogacy arrangement commissioned by an unmarried couple or a couple whose marriage is not legal in Thailand, such as a same-sex couple.

 

Any arrangement in which money was provided to the surrogate to carry the child was also illegal, they said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-couple-leaves-down-syndrome-baby-with-thai-surrogate-20140731-zz3xp.html#ixzz397BJz1Fj

 

There is also an interview with a Stephen Page, one of Australia’s leading surrogacy lawyers in regards to this particular thread attached to this link.


 

[geodesic]

Being a surrogate mother is not a evil thing, and bring compensated for it is not evil either.
The only evil part of this story is this couple dumping the twin with Down's syndrome. They were the driving force in the child's birth and should have accepted the responsibility for their actions bringing the child into the world. I feel sorry for the twin they took being raised but such an amoral couple of human effluence. Name them, shame them, and make them stand up and do what they agreed to do! And the the Australian authorities should monitor them for 21 years.

The saddest part is Down's syndrome children are usually totally good natured,
friendly and loving children. Who try hard to be a credit to their families.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

 

The problem here is that Thai clinics when facilitating these types of arrangements focus too much on the money. They need to concentrate more on the human and ethical aspects even when that means they might lose the sale.  This possibility should have been discussed before Pattharamon was implanted, and the Australian couple needed to accept that abortion is not a practical option in Thailand unless the health of the mother is threatened. If this causes them to go elsewhere, then so be it. Expecting any Thai girl to agree to an abortion in these circumstance is inexcusable, and I blame the clinic for not imposing and making the couple agree to these terms up front.

 

Under normal circumstances surrogacy is a wonderful gift. Gestational surrogacy is certainly no more immoral than being a nanny, the only difference being that in this case the care for the child begins before birth and you carry the child in your womb instead of swaddled in your arms. You also can't quit once you agree to the job. However, when cultural differences become a serious concern, and doctors begin to overlook ethics in favor of greed, it can change this wonderful act of kindness into horrible act of cruelty inflicted on this innocent child. (And let's not forget his twin sister, who will be deprived of ever knowing her brother...I wouldn't want to try and explain that decision to my child when they got older and learned the truth.)

 

The Thai government needs to regulate this industry. When everyone simply applies their own personal standards, the end result is that the lowest common denominator becomes the standard. And the lowest common denominator here is greedy clincis that are out to make a buck.

 

The Australian government meanwhile needs to send social services over to investigate if this family is really able to provide a loving home to the child they did accept. Their actions leave serious doubts in my mind at least as to whether they are truly ready to be parents.

[geodesic]

Apparently, there is an article in the Thai Rath about this incident as well.

 

Does anyone have a link to that?

 

[chooka]

For those who wish to help http://www.gofundme.com/bxci90

 

 

An outpouring of well wishes and donations is set to transform the life of a Thai surrogate mother whose ill baby was reportedly rejected by his intended Australian parents.

Since an online campaign was launched, the initial fundraising goal of $25,000 has been surpassed, with thousands of dollars being pledged each hour.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/health/2014/08/01/03/40/couple-abandons-ill-baby-born-to-surrogate#USfduRMV7AftEAOi.99

 

Crowd funding for abandoned surrogacy baby surpasses target
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/health/2014/08/01/03/40/couple-abandons-ill-baby-born-to-surrogate#USfduRMV7AftEAOi.99

[iReason]

"Ms Pattharamon never saw the Australian couple."

 "Don’t just think only for money …"

"Under the threat of not being paid, she lied to an official of the Australian embassy in Bangkok about the circumstances of the births…"

 

 

[Time Traveller]

Reading more about this on the Australian news sites, this is like a variation on the sick buffalo story. 

She claims she was young and innocent, refused to abort after found out that the parents did not want the baby with congenital defects, lied to the Australian embassy by saying she was not paid to be a surrogate, then said the agent cheated her out of her money. Now pleading with the Australian media for help? Many genuine "poverty-stricken" people would love to have half the money she earnt from this.  

 

Thousands of Thai mothers give birth to babies with down syndrome every year. This mother - as honorable as she is taking care of the baby - is no different. Except now sees she can make some money from the media! 

[givenall]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

The Australian couple shall now hide behind anonymity laws designed to protect the identity of children in cases of high news interest.

 

 

They need to be named, and to be bought before a court in order to be forced to accept the full consequences of the choices they made. 

 

First make sure this not another scam

[Jingthing]

... 

 

As per homosexual couples, I think the answer is quite clear cut. By nature, they are not supposed to have a child at all - unless nature evolves to the point that a male can fertilize another male, a female another female. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, sorry.   

 

 

Sterile couples "by nature" are not supposed to have children either. I just love the lame excuses to rationalize discrimination. In any case, in many countries, same sex couples DO have children, legally so, and quite often biologically in the case of our wonderful LESBIANS. 

 

I agree in general commercial surrogacy is a thorny ethical area ... but the gay discrimination angle is just plain old anti-gay discrimination. If same sex marriage was legal in Thailand and commercial surrogacy was legal, it would be unlikely that same sex commercial surrogacy would be illegal, and if so, illogical. I understand that in Thailand same sex marriage is illegal, so it is consistent in that case to expand that to commercial surrogacy.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Jingthing

[harrycallahan]

Rushed to hospital with lung infection.
http://m.theage.com.au/national/abandoned-baby-gammy-rushed-to-hospital-in-thailand-20140801-zzj76.html

$55,000 raised, still going.

Give money or the abandoned baby dies. Edited August 1, 2014 by harrycallahan

[Basil B]

If she was not intending to keep the baby in the first place, could she have not given up the baby for adoption straight away, I realise now she has had the baby for 6 months things are different.

 

Another angle is as the babies biological mother and farther, if both are Australian can not the baby be recognised as a Australian citizen? could the Surrogate contract be used as proof, could if a good hearted lawyer in Australia take up the case in Australia and sue both of them for maintenance?   

[BookMan]

The Australian couple shall now hide behind anonymity laws designed to protect the identity of children in cases of high news interest.

 

 

They need to be named, and to be bought before a court in order to be forced to accept the full consequences of the choices they made. 

 

Unusual for you to be part of the hang 'em high brigade.

 

We don't know what the Australian couple did or did not know, nor what the surrogacy agent told them.  We only have one side of the story here.

 

If we believe the article, the Australian couple said well before birth they didn't want the down syndrome baby, so termination was an option.

[PoorSucker]

https://www.facebook.com/HopeForGammy

[mojorison]

Commercial surrogacy is supposedly illegal in Thailand. 

Which would make any contract null and void. If a contract had existed it would surely have had clauses pertaining to the health of the foetus and abortion. Murky stuff, the couple are ethically in the wrong but the birth-mother bought the ticket. Once again the root of this problem can be traced back to a corrupt Thai system, in particular the enforcement of laws.

[Nampetch]

The whole ethos of somebody else manifesting your egg (female), or another man's sperm entering and you (as a female) incubating his baby (which ultimately becomes somedody elses under a contract), should never have been permitted anywhere in the world. I am not religious (although Buddhist - which is a psychology and not a religion in its true sense), yet this whole idea of surrogation is contrary to any normal human discipline concerning children and childbirth. If a couple is not able to childbreed then there are natural reasons for that, which nature itself chooses, and no GOD is involved.

 

I leave it at that, as results such as this one were inevitable, and shall continue until this whole shabang is stopped world wide. One doesn't buy children, and they are not a commodity - especially where gay couples are involved. If one can't stiff and deliver a healthy sperm count to a wife then tough shit. If one's eggs are infertile, as a wife, then also tough shit. Apply yourself to more positive sides of life, and get interested in helping lost children, for example. Or, support foundations for orphans and spend what you would have spent on a child, giving to their education, upbringing and necessities needed to live comfortably. 

[Kooweerup]

If she was not intending to keep the baby in the first place, could she have not given up the baby for adoption straight away, I realise now she has had the baby for 6 months things are different.
 
Another angle is as the babies biological mother and farther, if both are Australian can not the baby be recognised as a Australian citizen? could the Surrogate contract be used as proof, could if a good hearted lawyer in Australia take up the case in Australia and sue both of them for maintenance?   

Under Thai law the person who gives birth is listed on the birth cert as the mother and if she married then her husband as the father. The Aust couple would not be recognised as the parents in Thailand. The Aussies have to request DNA and get author from Thai courts to remove a child from the country The child is automatically a The citizen and the aussie parents will have to apply for citizenship by decent after DNA

[Jingthing]

The whole ethos of somebody else manifesting your egg (female), or another man's sperm entering and you (as a female) incubating his baby (which ultimately becomes somedody elses under a contract), should never have been permitted anywhere in the world. I am not religious (although Buddhist - which is a psychology and not a religion in its true sense), yet this whole idea of surrogation is contrary to any normal human discipline concerning children and childbirth. If a couple is not able to childbreed then there are natural reasons for that, which nature itself chooses, and no GOD is involved.

 

I leave it at that, as results such as this one were inevitable, and shall continue until this whole shabang is stopped world wide. One doesn't buy children, and they are not a commodity - especially where gay couples are involved. If one can't stiff and deliver a healthy sperm count to a wife then tough shit. If one's eggs are infertile, as a wife, then also tough shit. Apply yourself to more positive sides of life, and get interested in helping lost children, for example. Or, support foundations for orphans and spend what you would have spent on a child, giving to their education, upbringing and necessities needed to live comfortably. 

Too bad. It IS legal in some countries and likely to expand. As that is the case, the important thing is that the process be well regulated so that all parties are protected including of course the babies.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Jingthing

[CMSteve]

The baby is a Thai citizen and has social insurance.    The baby will be treated by the hospitals.     

 

to say " Give money or the abandoned baby dies." is sensationalist at best.    Give money to help the child.  

 

 

Rushed to hospital with lung infection.
http://m.theage.com.au/national/abandoned-baby-gammy-rushed-to-hospital-in-thailand-20140801-zzj76.html

$55,000 raised, still going.

  Give money or the abandoned baby dies.

 

[Basil B]

 

The Australian couple shall now hide behind anonymity laws designed to protect the identity of children in cases of high news interest.

 

 

They need to be named, and to be bought before a court in order to be forced to accept the full consequences of the choices they made. 

 

Unusual for you to be part of the hang 'em high brigade.

 

We don't know what the Australian couple did or did not know, nor what the surrogacy agent told them.  We only have one side of the story here.

 

If we believe the article, the Australian couple said well before birth they didn't want the down syndrome baby, so termination was an option.

 

 

Life is cheep, babies are commodities to be bought and sold, just cancel the contract...

 

Ignore the law, not forgetting any religious beliefs of the suffragette mother or their morality and feelings.

 

So did the surrogate mother to be not understand the part in the contract that said if the baby was not perfect it was to be terminated?

 

Lucky for some that they were born before a test for IQ in the womb has been developed.

 

Edit in: Seems to me the fact that the biological parents could not conceive naturally, is the result of a gene to perfect mankind.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Basil B

[ginjag]

 

 

The Australian couple shall now hide behind anonymity laws designed to protect the identity of children in cases of high news interest.

 

 

They need to be named, and to be bought before a court in order to be forced to accept the full consequences of the choices they made. 

 

Unusual for you to be part of the hang 'em high brigade.

 

We don't know what the Australian couple did or did not know, nor what the surrogacy agent told them.  We only have one side of the story here.

 

If we believe the article, the Australian couple said well before birth they didn't want the down syndrome baby, so termination was an option.

 

 

Life is cheep, babies are commodities to be bought and sold, just cancel the contract...

 

Ignore the law, not forgetting any religious beliefs of the suffragette mother or their morality and feelings.

 

So did the surrogate mother to be not understand the part in the contract that said if the baby was not perfect it was to be terminated?

 

Lucky for some that they were born before a test for IQ in the womb has been developed.

 

Edit in: Seems to me the fact that the biological parents could not conceive naturally, is the result of a gene to perfect mankind.

 

 

Off topic a little, I found a dog in need, it was pregnant, took it to the vet and said please terminate and sterilize. Too many dogs roaming around so this will help---she said cannot it's against the law to terminate a pregnancy.

[h90]

Why were no medical checks to see that in time to do something?

[stubuzz]

Gammy, a slightly insulting name for a Down Syndrome baby!

[h90]

In India commercial surrogacy is legal but same sex couples are discriminated against. India is probably the best place to go for this, assuming you're not gay.

 

My understanding is that commercial surrogacy is also legal in the USA but obviously more expensive. The children are eligible for birthright USA citizenship as well. Some states possible for same sex couples as well. Not sure about foreign nationals same sex couples.

 

I think it should be much more regulated, with indeep checks for every family and banning everyone who has just a minor issue. Banning say 99%.

Reason: you can seriously make a child and give it to parents with even a minimal risk that something isn't perfect.

Reason 2: there are enough children without parents which can be adopted

Reason 3: There are already too many humans on this planet.

Reason 4: If the nature doesn't want that a couple gets children than we should accept that.

 

I would only accept to make exceptions when really every possible parameter fits + the family donates 1 Million $ for orphans.

That would discriminate same sex couples but also a lot other people.