The Australian Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing Australia’s surrogacy laws to ensure they’re fit for purpose and reflect the population’s current views.
One aspect being considered is whether surrogates should be allowed to receive financial payments for gestating a fetus on behalf of another person or couple.
The commission’s final report is expected in July.
Currently, only “altruistic” surrogacy arrangements are permitted. This means the surrogate volunteers to carry the pregnancy and receives no financial incentive or compensation for the time or risk involved.
“Commercial” surrogacy arrangements are available in some countries around the world, meaning surrogates are able to contract their gestational services for a fee. Examples include Georgia, Ukraine and some states in the United States.
One study of ten surrogacy agencies in the US found significant variation in the amount commercial surrogates were paid. They report most “compensation packages” were listed in the range US$30,000–70,000, but it was not always clear what the breakdown for these packages was.
Another study of 30 specific contracts cited rates of US$18,000–$50,000, with an average payment of US$23,000.
In India, commercial surrogacy arrangements involving foreign nationals were banned in 2015. This ban was then extended to everyone by 2022
Before this, the average payment reported for commercial surrogates was US$5,000.
Thailand followed a similar pattern. Once a major hub for international commercial surrogacy, it also banned the practice in 2015.
The much publicised case of “baby Gammy” a child born through commercial surrogacy in Thailand, is often cited as the catalyst for the changes in surrogacy law in Thailand and beyond.
Baby Gammy was the genetic child of an Australian commissioning couple. But he was born with Down syndrome and a congenital heart condition and was not brought back to Australia with his twin sister.
This sparked international concern over the ethical and legal obligations to children and surrogates involved in transnational surrogacy arrangements. [Ed: Not to mention that the commissioning father was a convicted pedophile! Why is this not mentioned?]
Another potential type of paid surrogacy arrangement Australia might consider is “compensated”, rather than “commercial” surrogacy.
In a compensated model, surrogates would be paid a standardised rate for each month of completed gestation, in addition to having their expenses reimbursed. The regulation of the standard fee is often considered the key difference to the commercial model, with no bidding or broker competition allowed.
Israel’s unique state-controlled surrogacy payment model is arguably one example of this type of arrangement. While still typically referred to as “altruistic” rather than “commercial”, this model does allow strictly regulated payments to compensate a surrogate’s “time and suffering”, rather than just permitting reimbursement of direct expenses.
How could a fair price be calculated?
[Ed: There is no fair price for a human life.]
One way to determine a fair price for compensated surrogacy in Australia would be to make the rate similar to what surrogates are paid for commercial surrogacy in other high income countries, such as the US.
Multiple submissions to the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of surrogacy laws suggested A$1,000–$2,000 per month would be reasonable, based on the results of these kinds of discussions. This is 20–50% of minimum wage.
Another method would be just to use minimum wage as the rate, equating to just over A$4,000 a month.
Also, this would be one occupation where it is not only possible but essential that you sleep on the job.
Would a reduced rate be payable if the surrogate was otherwise employed during the same “work hours”? Or would a surrogacy payment be better classified as an additional loading on top of their regular salary? How would surrogacy as a “second job” be taxed?
The review of Australia’s surrogacy laws is trying to ensure couples aren’t forced to travel overseas to have a family. If the commission recommends adding compensated surrogacy as an option in Australia, and the government accepts this recommendation, more debates are likely to follow.
[Ed: No one is forced to go overseas because having children is not compulsory. Suggesting people should be able to buy a baby for sums they would pay for a car is unethical in the extreme. Women and children are not for sale.]
Source: Should surrogates be paid for carrying other people’s babies? And how much would be enough?
Is there one single word in this article (apart from editorial interventions) about the rights of the child? The author, whoever it is, should be utterly ashamed of themselves and when they look back on their writing career (and whatever career they hold at present) they should be utterly and totally embarrassed (at minimum) at having written this peon to selfishness and utter ignorance of the most basic of human rights, the right not to be bought and sold, the right to be a child who is not subject to market forces or treated like a commodity – nay not ‘like a commodity’ but as a commodity. I hope that in the future the writer comes to the recognition that to save their reputation, any ethical aspirations they may develop (if at all possible), an avoidance of public shame they must seek to cast this article into the desert, renounce authorship, and never ever cite it on any cv or resume!