The new draft Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016 approved by the Union Cabinet for discussion in the Parliament has generated ample debate. The new bill looks to ban commercial surrogacy, which in recent times has witnessed a surge in numbers. At the same time, the Government has also put in place conditionalities on who can opt for such an option, and who a surrogate can be. Amongst the most contentious provisions is the ban on surrogates being hired to carry babies from paying client-patients.

The bill proposes to allow only near relatives to act as surrogates, which the Government believes, will help curb the exploitation that surrogates have been reported to have undergone. The intention to stop the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women is laudable, but the solution takes away one ill only to possibly infest another.
 
Given the need-availability mismatch for a whole gamut of areas in healthcare – blood, organs, surrogates and others – India has witnessed a growing black market for them. In the case of solid organs transplantation – where only next of kin are allowed to donate – cases of fraud, cheating and trafficking have been reported.

The new Surrogacy Bill creates a similar regime, where only near relatives will be allowed to act as surrogates. This leaves open the possibility of it to be misused and twisted by a few for monetary benefits.

Surrogates could be “procured”, just like some organ donors are, and fraudulently passed of as relatives for couples in need. The exploitation of vulnerable women, which this bill intends to abate, will only grow.

Surrogates could be “procured”, just like some organ donors are, and fraudulently passed of as relatives for couples in need. The exploitation of vulnerable women, which this bill intends to abate, will only grow.
 
The other most notable issue with near relatives as surrogates is the psychological trauma for the biological mother, the legal mother and the surrogate child as it grows up in a confused environment. Associating with two mothers, and the possibility of the biological mother wanting to assert her rights at a later stage may create disharmony in the family and legal complications otherwise.

Thirdly, commercial surrogacy did give a lot of women access to monetary benefits that they would use for self-sustenance or to support the household. With that means taken away, a lot of already vulnerable women may find themselves precariously placed at home and in society.
 
Thus, the need is to create a system that allows assisted reproductive techniques like IVF and surrogacy to be available to needy couples, curb exploitation of women, ensure no racket in surrogacy rules and procedures and ensure familial safeguards. One solution for this onerous task is for the Government to create a national register of surrogates. An agency that oversees surrogacy would oversee this register and match needy couples with willing and suitable surrogates. 

The couple and the surrogates would remain unknown to each other. The treating doctor overseeing the surrogacy would only manage the clinical intervention and not be involved in the selection of the couple-surrogate match. A list of patients would be sent by the doctor to the overseeing authority that would then match them with a surrogate. In lieu of this service, the surrogates would be paid a consideration divided into a health insurance component for the surrogate and her family, a fixed deposit in a tax-free instrument and a cash component. This would ensure that the monies received are not liable for misuse by people other than the surrogate. Additionally, the surrogates could be given preferential consideration for allocation of funds for small business and self-sustenance through schemes like the Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana. Such a mechanism would effectively resolve current issues and the ones foreseen with the new Bill.
 
The Government would do well to create a regulator for surrogacy that oversees and manages commercial surrogacy. Blanket bans, though convenient, are often fraught with implications that are worse than the problem for which the bans were intended.

--The writer is general manager, Operation &Public Affairs, Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals