Analysis | Would-be Shah Rukh Khans beware: surrogacy bill spells end for India’s US$2 billion ‘rent-a-womb’ industry
- The Surrogacy Regulation Bill promises to make ‘commissioning’ a baby far harder, banning all commercial surrogate pregnancies
- Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan made headlines when his third child was born via surrogacy. Under the proposed new rule, his case would not have been allowed
If India’s parliament passes a proposed new Surrogacy Regulation Bill, cases such as that of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, who had his third child via surrogacy, would no longer be possible.
The strict new bill being considered by lawmakers permits only Indian couples, married for at least five years and childless, to opt for surrogacy. It states that surrogate mothers must be “close relatives” of the recipients and carries strict criteria for surrogate mothers, genetic parents, fertility clinics, medical professionals, and the egg and sperm donors. But most importantly, it bans all commercial surrogacy and states that all women who agree to carry babies to delivery as surrogates must agree to do so for “altruistic” reasons. It also demands all couples applying for surrogate mothers prove their infertility.
Although Khan is credited with bringing acceptance and visibility to surrogacy, by speaking and being seen publicly with his son Abram, his case would have fallen short of the newly proposed laws. In 2013, when Abram was born, Khan already had two children from his marriage with wife Gauri Khan. He was not childless in his marriage, and the couple were clearly capable of having children. Furthermore, in a statement, Khan said Abram was born prematurely, implying that the birth was not as smooth as what some IVF (in vitro fertilisation) centres would suggest.
Although the proposed bill will not be applied retrospectively, it does raise some questions about Khan’s case. Why does a couple who already have children need a surrogate to bear another? Is it offensive to discuss the subject of surrogacy, or unfashionably moralistic because it involves personal choice? Or is it simply a business transaction – outsourcing the labour of birthing to another body? And lastly, should society be so accepting of surrogacy, given that many women commissioned to carry the children inevitably end up poorer than their clients?
These questions are crucial to the debate about a commercial surrogacy industry, whether it is strictly regulated or not. And they even raise the prospect of a scenario described by Nobel laureate Kazuo Ishiguro in his novel Never Let Me Go, where a community of cloned humans exist only to service the medical needs of a more privileged class – providing organs and bodies for use.
“Just because the science makes it possible does not mean commercial surrogacy should be permitted,” says Aarathi Prasad, biologist and the author of several non-fiction books on science. In her book, Like a Virgin, Prasad explores the science and technology of reproduction that makes single-sex conception possible.