Draft law on surrogacy ready to be submitted for NLA review: Thailand

[webfact]

SURROGATION
Draft law on surrogacy ready to be submitted for NLA review
Opas Boonlom
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- THE USE of a surrogate mother remains a grey area for Thailand but there is hope that draft legislation now ready for review by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) will finally bring clarity - and protect children born through the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Because there is no law in relation to surrogacy, people seeking to use a surrogate mother to have a child won't always be able to do this, whether they pay money or not, Thai lawyer Sithichok Sricharoen said.

However, with no legal punishment for using surrogates at present, this meant a special law needed to be passed to make it illegal, he said.

Using a surrogate mother was not human trafficking, because it was about giving birth, Sithichok said. The civil code said a child born to a woman is that woman's legal child; surrogacy was not possible in the current legal perspective.

There are two types of surrogacy: "full surrogacy", which requires an embryo from the spouse's egg and sperm to be implanted to the surrogate mother's womb, and "partial surrogacy", which required the father's sperm and the surrogate mother's egg.

The Social Development and Human Security Ministry has put forward the draft bill, which has been reviewed by legal experts on the Council of State and is pending deliberation by the NLA. Key facets of the draft bill include:

1. The couple wishing to have a child through a surrogate mother must be legally wed.

2. The surrogate mother must be a relative to one of the spouse, but must not be the spouse's parents or child.

3. The surrogate mother must have at least one child before and, if she has a husband, she must get his consent first.

If these components are not met, the applicant must ask for permission from a government-endorsed committee to control the use of ART on a case-by-case basis and the committee's order is final.

4. It is prohibited for anyone to act as a middleman to collect payment or benefits as in a commercial activity or to reap benefits from arranging or encouraging surrogacy. It is also prohibited for a medical professional to carry out the ART procedure for a woman's pregnancy, with knowledge of or with reasons to believe that the woman is a surrogate mother for commercial gain.

5. When a child is born from artificial insemination or ART via donors' egg and sperm, the woman who gave birth shall be the child's legal mother and the woman's husband who consented to the pregnancy shall be the child's legal father. The donors whose egg and sperm were used shall have no right over the child.

6. In a case of a child born via surrogacy, using sperm and egg from a couple who want a surrogate, or others, the couple shall be the child's legal parents but they must allow the surrogate mother to breastfeed the child for at least three months. In cases in which the child is raised in a difficult situation, as per the Child Protection Act, the surrogate mother can sue or demand custody of a child, and a court can base judgement what appears best for the child's happiness and benefit.

There has been much debate in recent years over this sensitive issue. Those who support surrogacy claim the state should not intervene if people's actions don't harm others, saying that surrogacy would mutually benefit the couple and the surrogate mother and prevent child abduction or child trafficking.

Those opposed to surrogacy have said it is immoral and against human nature and would lead to exploitation, such as surrogacy for hire, as well as affecting the child and society. They also raised the question of what to do if a child is born prematurely or disabled, or if the couple changes their mind, and what if the couple only wants one child but the surrogate mother gives birth to twins or triplets.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Draft-law-on-surrogacy-ready-to-be-submitted-for-N-30240331.html

[thenation]2014-08-06[/thenation]

[NongKhaiKid]

I presume this draft has been churned out in response to the publicity and outrage surrounding the Gammy situation.

 

A couple of days seems too little to draft such important legislation unless it was already on the stocks which I doubt.

 

I really do hope all concerned,  including the legal ' experts ' can get it right and not leave loopholes or grey areas.

[Bender]

a new hub for thailand

[geodesic]

In general I support this legislation, but the allowed surrogates are much too restrictive, and as such it will eventually be rendered toothless and in need of amendment after leaving countless families with no choice but to break the law.

 

For example, consider the foreigner who marries a girl with only brothers. Under this law, even if the brothers wives were willing to help, they would be unable because inlaws don't meet the definition of relative. Also, someone could have a lifelong friend that is just like a sister, but under this legislation, they would be prevented from helping.

 

The law needs to be adjusted to take this into account. Inlaws need to be specifically included as possible surrogates, and friends need some way to go before a family court and obtain permission. Couples who want children at this stage have already suffered all manner of indignities, and one more court proceeding would not be too much.

 

While the law is a good idea in theory, a knee jerk proposal like this is not well enough thought out. Some simple changes can still obtain the effect desired without causing unnecessary hardship to those couples who genuinely want to start a family.

Edited August 6, 2014 by geodesic

[Roadman]

I presume this draft has been churned out in response to the publicity and outrage surrounding the Gammy situation.

 

A couple of days seems too little to draft such important legislation unless it was already on the stocks which I doubt.

 

I really do hope all concerned,  including the legal ' experts ' can get it right and not leave loopholes or grey areas.

It was already underway before the Gammy situtation. The thai surrogacy carry on which was exploding to mass proportions was one of the issues that the Junta jumped on within one month of them seizing power, so it has been in the process of being reviewed long befote this latest mess. This one has just highlighted the whole issue of not having transparent systems in place and the process not being legalised and overseen by a relevant government child welfare department.

Pleasing to see also in another of today's topics that the surrogacy clinic or the middle person in this whole carry on was raided and charges are pending.

[NongKhaiKid]

 

I presume this draft has been churned out in response to the publicity and outrage surrounding the Gammy situation.

 

A couple of days seems too little to draft such important legislation unless it was already on the stocks which I doubt.

 

I really do hope all concerned,  including the legal ' experts ' can get it right and not leave loopholes or grey areas.

It was already underway before the Gammy situtation. The thai surrogacy carry on which was exploding to mass proportions was one of the issues that the Junta jumped on within one month of them seizing power, so it has been in the process of being reviewed long befote this latest mess. This one has just highlighted the whole issue of not having transparent systems in place and the process not being legalised and overseen by a relevant government child welfare department.

Pleasing to see also in another of today's topics that the surrogacy clinic or the middle person in this whole carry on was raided and charges are pending.

 

Thanks for that.  It did seem all too fast but there again not unusual if a knee jerk reaction

[Roadman]

In general I support this legislation, but the allowed surrogates are much too restrictive, and as such it will eventually be rendered toothless and in need of amendment after leaving countless families with no choice but to break the law.

 

For example, consider the foreigner who marries a girl with only brothers. Under this law, even if the brothers wives were willing to help, they would be unable because inlaws don't meet the definition of relative. Also, someone could have a lifelong friend that is just like a sister, but under this legislation, they would be prevented from helping.

 

The law needs to be adjusted to take this into account. Inlaws need to be specifically included as possible surrogates, and friends need some way to go before a family court and obtain permission. Couples who want children at this stage have already suffered all manner of indignities, and one more court proceeding would not be too much.

 

While the law is a good idea in theory, a knee jerk proposal like this is not well enough thought out. Some simple changes can still obtain the effect desired without causing unnecessary hardship to those couples who genuinely want to start a family.

Agree. There is the right in the draft to apply to a court outside of the first three criteria. And yes that is vague and should be a family court.

It is however a draft and a starting point.

As the Gammy case has shown however at the moment Thai women are being used and abused by their own professional people as well as overseas parents. Step one of this is removing overseas unrelated people but more importantly money right from the equation. And while no doubt to date there have been some fair thai surrogate and western parents transactions there was apparently enough other cases outside of Gammy that had the Junta act on this early in their take over. The way it was being practiced and for money morally made it no better than human trafficking. Emphasis will now be on western couples having to buy their children from elsewhere.

[desmondspencer]

If the test for down syndrome was conducted, I'm sure none of this sh*t would have hit the fan

Sent from my LG-D505 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Thai at Heart]

Hooray.  

 

Law on the hoof.  Always the best way.  As yet, has anyone actually been proven categorically to have broken any laws?