Surrogacy violates Human Rights
The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill, 2010, violates children’s rights, says AVERTHANUS L D’SOUZA
Surrogate motherhood has been known to exist for a very long time, but under circumscribed moral conditions. Under certain circumstances, it might not only be good, but also noble. We are dealing here however, with a proposed legal framework treating surrogate motherhood as a commercial enterprise, involving payments for renting out wombs and involving processes which are highly complex and having unprecedented consequences.
Like all achievements in sciences, the technologies proposed for the application of these achievements are value-neutral. They become good or bad depending on the motives, the methods adopted and the consequences. They can be used either for the good of humanity or for its debasement and ruin; technology is only an instrument in human hands. Commonsense dictates that the use of technology should be governed by moral considerations. A knife can be used to cut vegetables and fruits, but it can also be ‘misused’ to injure or kill someone. Therefore, no technology falls outside the moral realm.
Let us now examine the proposal to make surrogate motherhood legal in India, which is contained in the draft Bill: ‘Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill, 2010’ (ART Bill). The preamble states, inter alia, “The last nearly 20 years have seen an exponential growth of infertility clinics that use techniques requiring handling of spermatozoa or the oocyte outside the body, or the use of a surrogate mother…” It justifies the introduction of the Bill on the ground that: “Besides the fact that every couple has the right to have a child, in India, infertility widely carries with it a social stigma.” But the Bill does not limit itself to enabling infertile couples to have babies with the help of assisted reproductive techniques. It also proposes to legalise surrogacy for purely commercial purposes.
The fundamental flaw of the ART Bill is that it seeks to control the ‘production process’ and is not really concerned about protecting the rights of the child. The primary purpose of the Bill is to establish control over the mushrooming ‘infertility clinics’ in the country and to centralise this control under the authority of the Indian Council of Medical Research’s (ICMR’s) ‘Department of Health Research.’ The draft Bill proposes an elaborate structure, both at the centre as well as at the state level, to register IVF clinics and to monitor their functioning, specially the maintenance of records of donors, recipients, surrogates and children produced as a result of these procedures. The Bill does not address the basic question of the legitimacy of in vitro fertilization. It simply assumes that the procedure is normal. This, precisely, is where the problem really lies.
The attitude underlying the ART Bill is unquestionably and demonstrably violative of the rights of children. Children ‘produced’ as a result of assisted reproductive techniques are viewed simply as products of laboratory manipulations; not as human persons with inalienable rights. They might as well be equated with other commercial products from a factory. The rights of the child are simply ignored.
‘Rights’ are inherent to human beings. They are not conferred by any human authority, least of all the state. Human Rights have to be acknowledged and respected by the government, which has the obligation to ensure that these rights are protected. Since Human Rights are not conferred by any human authority, they cannot be violated by any human authority. In this context also, it must be remembered that apart from the right of every couple to have a child, every citizen has the right to food, clothing, education, shelter and employment. These rights are also fundamental human rights demanding acknowledgment, not just in principle but also in practice.
It has been biologically established that at the very moment of the fusion of a sperm and an ovum, the zygote coming into being is a human person in the fullest sense of the word and, therefore, must get the respect due to a human person. This is not just a philosophical question that is open to a diversity of opinions. It is an ontological fact confirmed by science. To treat the zygote, the embryo or the foetus as a commodity, therefore, is to do grave violence to the dignity of the human person.
The underlying assumption of the ART Bill that a zygote, embryo or foetus can be manipulated according to the whims and fancies of the technologists is fundamentally wrong and ethically abhorrent. It follows, logically, that the entire organisational structure envisaged by the ART Bill is immoral and violates Human Rights.
The Bill does not discriminate between married couples, unmarried couples, single persons or those living in homosexual or lesbian relationships. It treats them all on par for production and allocation of babies. To treat the miracle of birth as a purely chemical process is the ultimate fallacy of the proposed legislation. It violates the fundamental law of nature, which requires that human babies be produced as the result of an intimate exchange of love between a man and a woman who have solemnly pledged to give themselves to each other and to accept the gift of life resulting from their physical, emotional and spiritual union.
Nature has prescribed the biological and moral boundaries within which procreation should take place. Pro-creation is concomitant with Co-creation, which requires the free, loving and informed choice of a married couple to have a baby. Distorting the order of Nature invites dire consequences.
Technology is not the ultimate arbiter of what ought to be. It must conform itself to the moral universe. There is a feeble recognition of this in Section 25 of the draft ART Bill, dealing with sex selection. Presumably, this section has been necessitated by the fact that India has seen a massive destruction of female babies, foetuses and embryos, resulting in a demographic imbalance of frightening proportions. But let us not forget that sex discrimination is only one of many abuses made possible by the new biotechnologies.
Cloning, the creation of inter-species beings, eugenics and other aberrations are a truly frightening prospect. At the root of all this is the attitude that science and technology has the final say in how human beings ought to regulate their lives and build their civilisation. Technology is good only as long as it conforms to morality. Humankind has already witnessed the many tragedies that have resulted from the disregard of moral precepts, which should determine our individual behaviour and social programmes. He who sits on a tiger, advises an ancient Hindu sage, should beware of dismounting.
++++
Students in the House
By Adelmo Fernandes
In the past, we seldom had the opportunity to know what is being discussed within the four walls of the Legislative Assembly. But now, thanks to the local news channels, one can get live and first-hand information about the happenings in the august House, occupied by not-so august people.
I happen to be one of those ‘aam admis’ who spend considerable time in front of the television set watching our representatives, more out of curiosity than anything else and, probably, because I have nothing much to do. Sitting in front of the idiot box and watching the House proceedings makes me feel the same (an idiot).
One thing I could not help noticing was the large number of students in the visitors’ gallery, listening to the discussion with rapt attention. That is when I could not help but compare the conduct of the proceedings in the Assembly with that of a class conducted by a teacher in a school.
The Teacher in the classroom could be compared to the Speaker of the house. If the Teacher is available, then a Substitute Teacher can be compared to the Deputy Speaker. The Members of the Legislative Assembly can be compared to the students in the classroom. But then, the comparison ends just there.
While in the classroom, the students are seen maintaining discipline, discipline in an Assembly Session is the exception rather than the rule. First and foremost, unlike in a school, attendance in the Assembly is not compulsory. The Legislators can stay away at their whims and fancies and there is no one except the Party Whip that can question them in this regard. Unlike in a school, production of a sick-note is not necessary, unless the Member is trying to avoid a three-line Whip.
From time to time, proceedings in the house turn absolutely chaotic. The Speaker struggles to control the Members. Everyone speaks out of turn. And, since everyone is talking, no one listens. This can have a bad influence on the students who come to witness the proceedings.
All too often, the members come storming to the front of the Assembly Hall, better known as the ‘well’ of the house, in an unruly group (thankfully for the legislators, this is not the kind of well they can get drowned in) and raise slogans. Unlike in a school, the honourable Members are not expected to wear a uniform, and come in creative clothing. Different Members have very different ideas about what is good dress sense.
The Members are seen moving in and out of the House without taking permission of the chair. In a classroom, of course, students have to take permission of the teacher, to leave the class.
Will the students present in the visitors’ gallery follow in the footsteps of the Legislators (literally and figuratively)? Well, you never know. In other state assemblies, one sees legislators using microphones, paper weights and whatever is available as missiles. This results in injuries to other members and destruction of public property. Fortunately, the Goa Assembly has never witnessed such a scene. But with politicians, one never knows what may happen…
If at all any such episode ever takes place, it will leave a lasting effect on the young, impressionable minds of the students. On the whole, I am unsure what kind of effect the legislators could be having on the students. Makes me wonder if it is a good idea to allow students watch the proceedings in the House.
