Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 491–501 | Cite as

Reproductive Ethics in Commercial Surrogacy: Decision-Making in IVF Clinics in New Delhi, India

  • Malene TanderupEmail author
  • Sunita Reddy
  • Tulsi Patel
  • Birgitte Bruun Nielsen
Original Research


As a neo-liberal economy, India has become one of the new health tourism destinations, with commercial gestational surrogacy as an expanding market. Yet the Indian Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Bill has been pending for five years, and the guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research are somewhat vague and contradictory, resulting in self-regulated practices of fertility clinics. This paper broadly looks at clinical ethics in reproduction in the practice of surrogacy and decision-making in various procedures. Through empirical research in New Delhi, the capital of India, from December 2011 to November 2012, issues of decision-making on embryo transfer, fetal reduction, and mode of delivery were identified. Interviews were carried out with doctors in eighteen ART clinics, agents from four agencies, and fourteen surrogates. In aiming to fulfil the commissioning parents’ demands, doctors were willing to go to the greatest extent possible in their medical practice. Autonomy and decision-making regarding choice of the number of embryos to transfer and the mode of delivery lay neither with commissioning parents nor surrogate mothers but mostly with doctors. In order to ensure higher success rates, surrogates faced the risk of multiple pregnancy and fetal reduction with little information regarding the risks involved. In the globalized market of commercial surrogacy in India, and with clinics compromising on ethics, there is an urgent need for formulation of regulative law for the clinical practice and maintenance of principles of reproductive ethics in order to ensure that the interests of surrogate mothers are safeguarded.


Reproductive ethics Surrogate mothers Informed consent Decision-making Embryo transfer Fetal reduction Delivery 


Statement of Competing Interests

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interests in connection with this article.


  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics. 2004. Surgery and patient choice: The ethics of decision making. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 84(2): 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armour, K.L., and L.C. Callister. 2005. Prevention of triplets and higher order multiples: Trends in reproductive medicine. The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing 19(2): 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckmann, C.R.B., F.W. Ling, B.M. Barzansky, W.N.P. Herbert, D.W. Laube, and R.P. Smith. 2010. Obstetrics and gynecology, 6th ed. Baltimore and London: Wolters Kluwer and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  4. Boivin, J., T.C. Appleton, P. Baetens, et al. 2001. Guidelines for counselling in infertility: Outline version. Human Reproduction 16(6): 1301–1304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, L. 1999. Where it hurts: Indian material for an ethics of organ transplantation. Daedalus 128(4): 135–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. 2006. Embryo transfer: One or two? Reproductive Biomedicine Online 12(5): 644–645.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deonandan, R., S. Green, and A. van Beinum. 2012. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(12): 742–745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dickens, B.M., and R.J. Cook. 2008. Multiple pregnancy: Legal and ethical issues. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 103(3): 270–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dodd, J.M., and C.A. Crowther. 2003. Reduction of the number of fetuses for women with triplet and higher order multiple pregnancies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 2: CD003932.Google Scholar
  10. Gupta, J.A. 2010. Exploring Indian women’s reproductive decision-making regarding prenatal testing. Culture, Health & Sexuality 12(2): 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gupta, J.A., and A. Richters. 2008. Embodied subjects and fragmented objects: Women’s bodies, assisted reproduction technologies and the right to self-determination. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5(4): 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). 2005. National guidelines for accreditation, supervision and regulation of ART clinics in India. Accessed June 6, 2015.
  13. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Committee for Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. 2008. FIGO committee report: Surrogacy. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 102(3): 312–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. 2010. The assisted reproductive technologies (Regulation) Bill 2010 (ART Bill). Accessed June 6, 2015.
  15. Minocha, A.A. 2010. The socio-cultural context of informed consent in medical practice. In Understanding Indian society: Past and present, edited by B.S. Baviskar and T. Patel, 231–253. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar
  16. Mishra, U.S., and M. Ramanathan. 2002. Delivery-related complications and determinants of caesarean section rates in India. Health Policy and Planning 17(1): 90–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nandraj, S. 1994. Beyond the law and the Lord: Quality of private health care. Economic and Political Weekly 29(27): 1680–1685.Google Scholar
  18. Palattiyil, G., E. Blyth, D. Sidhva, and G. Balakrishnan. 2010. Globalization and cross-border reproductive services: Ethical implications of surrogacy in India for social work. International Social Work 53(5): 686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pande, A. 2010. Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother worker. Signs 35(4): 969–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Prakash, G. 1999. Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Price, F. 1999. Beyond expectation: Clinical practices and clinical concerns. In Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted conception, edited by J. Edwards, S. Franklin, E. Hirsch, F. Price, and M. Strathern, 29–59. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Ramskold, L.A., and M.P. Posner. 2013. Commercial surrogacy: How provisions of monetary remuneration and powers of international law can prevent exploitation of gestational surrogates. Journal of Medical Ethics 39(6): 397–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Reddy, S., and I. Qadeer. 2010. Medical tourism in India: Progress or predicament. Economic and Political Weekly 45(20): 69–75.Google Scholar
  24. Sarojini, N., V. Marwah, and A. Shenoi. 2011. Globalisation of birth markets: A case study of assisted reproductive technologies in India. Globalization and Health 7(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schenker, J.G., and J.M. Cain. 1999. Report of the FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 64(3): 317–322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Scheper-Hughes, N., and L. Wacquant. 2002. Commodifying bodies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Smerdon, U.R. 2008. Crossing bodies, crossing borders: International surrogacy between the United States and India. Cumberland Law Review 39(1): 15–86.Google Scholar
  28. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (SOGC-CFAS). 2008. Guidelines for the number of embryos to transfer following in vitro fertilization: No. 182, September 2006. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 102(2): 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wimalasundera, R.C., G. Trew, and N.M. Fisk. 2003. Reducing the incidence of twins and triplets. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 17(2): 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. World Health Organization Division of Family Health. 1994. Indicators to monitor maternal health goals. Report of a Technical Working Group, November 8–12, 1993. Geneva: World Health Organization, publication no. WHO/FHE/MSM/94.14.Google Scholar
  31. Wu, C.L. 2012. IVF policy and global/local politics: The making of multiple-embryo transfer regulation in Taiwan. Social Science & Medicine 75(4): 725–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malene Tanderup
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sunita Reddy
    • 2
  • Tulsi Patel
    • 3
  • Birgitte Bruun Nielsen
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health SciencesAarhus UniversityAarhus NDenmark
  2. 2.Centre of Social Medicine and Community healthJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Sociology, Delhi School of EconomicsDelhi UniversityDelhiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyAarhus University Hospital, SkejbyAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations