


































Microsoft Word - Commercial Surrogacy_in India     Final 1


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

9 

 

Can coercion be justified when it benefits the poor? The case of 
commercial surrogacy industry in India 
 

Packiaraj Asirvatham  
An independent researcher, India. 

Email: Packiaraj.a@gmail.com 

 

Abstract: Commercial surrogacy in India is a booming industry however the raising number of poor 

illiterate women's participation as commercial surrogate poses serious question of coercion, on the other 

hand it economically empowers them. In this context, this article analyses the crucial question, can 

coercion be justified when it benefits the poor by investigating commercial surrogates’ life stories and 

looking into the various types of coercion discreetly operates. It concludes with few recommendations 

which can help in empowering poor commercial surrogates who involved in commercial surrogacy 

industry in India. 

 

Key Word: Commercial surrogacy, coercion, poverty, reproductive tourism, India   

 

Introduction: Commercial Surrogacy in India is 

a crucial bio ethical issue. According to an 

Indian law commission report commercial 

surrogacy has been viewed as a golden pot for 

poor surrogate women on the one hand, and on 

the other hand as a great help for childless 

couples 1. It is estimated that nearly 200,000 

clinics across the India offer artificial 

insemination, IVF, and surrogacy. The 

Confederation of Indian Industry analyzed that 

commercial surrogacy had grown to a $2.3 

billion industry in India in 2012 2. In this context, 

emerging ethical issues of commercial 

surrogacy are of serious concern as the 

commercialization of reproduction can lead to 

exploitation of women, unfair distribution of 

economic benefits, and legal battles  especially 

in cross-border commercial surrogacy3,4. 

Presently, little research exists about how 

uneducated, rural women who participate in 

commercial surrogacy grasp the facts of 

advanced medical treatments. Moreover, how 

do they correspond with commissioning 

parents  from abroad? Do they really 

understand the surrogacy contracts? Are they 

voluntarily involved in the process or coerced? 

In this context, an increasing number of 

surrogate mothers from economically deprived 

backgrounds pose serious questions about 

coercion. 

 

Approach: This paper explores the basis of a 

commercial surrogate’s coercion and portrays 

how they are forced to participate in commercial 

surrogacy by their family, private sector clinics, 

and the governments. Then it focuses on the 

ethical question: can this coercion be justified 

since it helps their economic development? This 

study will be approached in four stages 1. a 

survey the presence of coercion in the scholarly 

journals 2. an exploration of the main forces of 

coercion 3. an ethical analysis of the ethical 

acceptability of coercion in the context of 

economic development of poor communities and 

4. a series of suggestions to eliminate coercion 

in the commercial surrogacy industry.  

 

Limitation: The parties involved in cross-

border commercial surrogacy are the 

commissioning parents, medical doctor, brokers, 

commercial surrogate, and family and friends of 

the surrogate mother; however, this study only 

focuses on the commercial surrogate women. 

Commercial surrogacy is a broad research topic 

where this study only focuses on cross-border 

commercial surrogacy. The word “coercion” used 

in its basic meaning of “compulsion” or “force”.  

 

The context: Cross-border commercial 

surrogacy is very unique. It is like an  export 

and import business. It occurs not only between 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

10 

 

two parties but between citizens of two 

countries. The issue of cross-border commercial 

surrogacy in India is a  very modern 

phenomenon. When India opened its markets 

in 1991 as part of economic liberalisation many 

industries thrived. For instance, in the state of 

Gujarat, which is the most industrially 

developed state, they adopted commercial 

surrogacy as one of their main business, so it 

has become one of the largest industries. It is 

claimed that the district of Anand, Gujarat is the 

unofficial capital of the commercial surrogacy 

industry5.  

 

As a starting point to understand the issue of 

coercion from practical contexts, I would like to 

present a few of testimonies of commercial 

surrogates from the Anand district, the state of 

Gujarat, India. These testimonies are from 

established studies of Pande and Sarvanan who 

spent considerable time on the field and 

published their results in scholarly journals from 

2009-2010. Pande has predominantly focused 

her studies on Hope maternity clinic in Anand 

where Saravanan researched in Akanshka clinic 

in Anand and Bavishi clinic in Ahemedbad. 

However, they both undertook their studies in 

Anand which is the core of commercial 

surrogacy in India. 

 

Commercial surrogates voices: Let us move 

to the commercial surrogate mothers 

testimonies, they all express their idea on 

commercial surrogacy, their motivations and 

reason to take part in it. Salma expresses that 

commercial surrogacy is a majboori because of 

family circumstances which means compulsion 

or force,  Anjali expressess that she is in 

desperate need for money to take care of her 

child, Vidyaben notes that she was convinced by 

her inlaws and persuaded by a nurse, Meena 

was convinced by her husband to become 

surrogate, Sapna is helping her inlaws to build a 

house, and Raveena committed to commercial 

surrogacy to save the life of her younger 

child6.Regina, a forty-two-year-old surrogate, 

was persuaded by a nurse when she met this 

nurse at a hospital where she treated her 

daughter7. In all these cases, these women are 

persuaded by someone and submitted 

themselves to the commercial surrogacy 

industry. This raises the question of coercion. 

However, Jyotsna Agnihotri Gupta argues that 

the impact of ART on women shifted them from 

subject to object and as the controller of their 

own body. On the contrary, in my perspective the 

rural women involved in the commercial 

surrogacy industry would have not even had the 

right to choose their own life partner for their 

marriage. If that is the case, then how can we 

assume that these women are the controller of 

their own bodies with regard to commercial 

surrogacy?  

 

Types of coercion: Commercial surrogacy in 

India is still an unregulated industry which is 

operating on the basis of the guidelines from the 

Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR). So 

every maternity clinic operates in their own way 

to choose commercial surrogates. Recruiting the 

commercial surrogates is the first and foremost 

step. It is very evident that formal and informal 

brokers are the surrogacy recruiters. They 

include: former surrogates, women who could 

not become surrogates for medical reasons, and 

midwifes in various hospitals. Finding and 

selecting a surrogate is a crucial issue since the 

demand is very high; for example, Dr. 

Khanderia, head of the clinic explains that “at 

the moment (in 2008 and 2009) there are more 

than 300 intended parents on the waiting list”6. 

So commercial surrogates are recruited 

aggressively to meet this heavy demand.  

Especially, there are three main ways in which 

these women are forced to undertake 

commercial surrogacy as their survival strategy: 

firstly, circumstances from family and husband, 

and the patriarchal society and its force; 

secondly, the economic circumstances in which 

the need for money forces the surrogates to 

undertake surrogacy, and thirdly, profit centered 

policies of governments which view commercial 

surrogacy as a beneficial industry force the 

women to undertake commercial surrogacy. 

These are three main categories in which 

coercion is systematically executed.  



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

11 

 

Family driven coercion: India is still a 

patriarchal country where women have limited 

choices especially with reproduction. 

Predominantly the power is vested with men. 

Pande argues that though many women 

accept the fact of social stigma, they 

involve in this industry secretly because of 

the compulsion of their family8. Obviously, 

many of the men from poor background view 

their wives as a money making machine and 

look forward to make use of this new fortune. 

Private clinics also capitalize on this idea. For 

example, the consent of the husband is crucial 

in becoming a commercial surrogate. Every 

commercial surrogate is obliged to get consent 

from her husband 8.Technically, to a large extent, 

the husband’s desire to make money through his 

wife is easily executed by the brokers.  More 

interestingly, there is no space for the 

surrogate’s informed consent and the surrogacy 

contract is in English, a language most of the 

surrogates are unfamiliar with. So systematically 

the in-laws and the husband force the women to 

be a surrogate. More interestingly, most of the 

surrogates sideline the aspect of choice in their 

involvement. They attribute that it is because of 

their family, children, or husband and they also 

express that, “It was not in my hand”9.On the 

whole, commercial surrogates are the product of 

patriarchal societies who lack choices and are 

powerless to make decisions on their own.  

 

Economic needs based coercion: Coercion 

predominantly takes place in the context of 

severe economic need. It is a systematic 

approach to target the people in need of money 

and coerce them to be a surrogate. Nirmala 

narrates how she came to be a broker by 

saying, “I came here to donate eggs, but I was 

refused because of my age. So I started getting 

women from my hospital. It is easy for me to find 

the right women because I used to be a midwife. 

I know which women have very young children, 

which ones are in desperate need of money”7. 

Bailey recalls a surrogate who accepted $1,500 

instead of $2,000 when another woman offered 

for $1,500 10. Sandel claims “coercion is when 

people buy and sell things under conditions of 

severe inequality or dire economic necessity. 

According to this objection, market exchanges 

are not necessarily as voluntary as market 

enthusiasts suggest. A peasant may agree to 

sell his kidney or cornea in order to feed his 

starving family, but his agreement is not truly 

voluntary. He is coerced, in effect, by the 

necessities of his situation”11. As per Sandels 

definition it is very clear that commercial 

surrogates in India are coerced deliberately. 

Obviously, commercial surrogacy travels in the 

line of organ trafficking where brokers convince 

and collect the organ from the vulnerable people 

for payment. Ultimately this systematic coercion 

puts these surrogates into work. Further, Pande 

remarks that the sole strategy is identifying and 

persuading women in desperate need of money 

for their children and she claims that half of her 

interviewees are recruited by brokers12. These 

coerced women who are in severe economic 

need are further persuaded by individual 

counseling session. Their counseling session is 

all about moral justification of commercial 

surrogacy by differentiating it from sex work. In 

addition, they describe this idea through 

convincing parables. For example, by saying 

“just like renting a house for nine months”, 

“God’s gift to serve childless couple”, “mother-

worker” and “act like a vessel”7. On the other 

hand, a commercial surrogate may earn around 

$5000 to give birth to a child which is 

considerably a good earning compare to her 

normal income per year and it is likely her 2-3 

years income altogether. So it is considered as 

economic empowerment however taking into 

consideration of 10 months of intensive labor 

and pre term and post term physical and 

psychological complications and associated 

risks in addition to social stigma victimize the 

commercial surrogate. In this context, being a 

commercial surrogate is like bonded labor with 

legal contracts! 

 

Policy driven coercion: Another very important 

type of coercion is from the government. Many 

scholars like Qadeer, Unnithan, and Jaiswal 

argue that commercial surrogates are 

systematically coerced by government policies. 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

12 

 

They describe how these policies target 

vulnerable communities. For example, Indian 

government classifies commercial surrogacy 

under medical tourism, which is one of the 

potential income generating methods to the 

country, and it encourages the inflow by giving 

special medical visas to foreigners13,14,15. 

Unnithan refers to this as “hyper-fertile bodies of 

poor women subject to state-backed 

technological intervention”16. Qadeer argues that 

the government is willingly commercializing 

public resources to favor international and 

private actors; consequently, it contributes to the 

economic growth of the country17. Meanwhile, 

governments of developed countries also 

indirectly encourage their citizens to access this 

service in India, where it saves a lot of money 

compared to their own context, and “outsourcing 

children” is a viable option to make their citizens 

happy at the cost of third world women. This 

neo-colonialist approach from the developed 

countries and the economic growth centered 

policies of Indian government are deliberately 

pushing commercial surrogates to undertake 

commercial surrogacy. 

 

Reproductive choices and Coercion: 

Contemporary bio ethical debates are 

predominantly focused on the choice aspects of 

participants in commercial surrogacy. 

Commissioning parents always have a high level 

of freedom and reproductive autonomy, who are 

predominantly from western countries, and are 

from wealthy context a large extent 18. Whereas 

the commercial surrogates in India lack choices 

and it is believed that they do not have 

autonomous consent but express, as Amartya 

Sen coined “adaptive preference”. Wilkinson is 

very critical of consent in a coercive context and 

he claims that coercion invalidates the 

consent19. Moreover, there is no assistance to 

protect the decision making authority of 

surrogates in (developing) countries. According 

to Donchin this is one of the main reasons why 

poor women lack autonomy20. 

 

Bailey argues that coercion not just confined to 

the selection of surrogates but exists throughout 

the contract. In addition, she rejects the common 

idea that commercial surrogates are free and 

involved in autonomous choices. She says it is 

hype from Western media and there is no 

evidence for the claim10. Whereas Sama claims, 

‘‘[t]he fertility market issues a price tag to 

reproductive tissues and then appropriates them 

in order to sell the unfulfilled dream to millions of 

people, under the rubric of choice and rights’’21. 

In addition, Bryn Williams-Jones argues that 

“there is a clear contrast between surrogacy in 

developed and underdeveloped countries. In 

developed countries, surrogacy may be a choice 

for women to improve their financial situation 

and perform an altruistic act; in underdeveloped 

countries, surrogacy may be a form of slavery, 

reminiscent of the black nannies who raised 

white children in the American South during the 

slavery era, or in Apartheid South Africa”22. 

Petersen argues that women should reject 

Assisted Reproductive Services (ART) because 

they are coerced by a patriarchal society and 

their choices are not autonomous23. Though his 

argument comes from the perspective of ART for 

childless women it correlates with the 

commercial surrogate women in general. 

However, he argues from a developed country 

context where women have more choices and 

economic independence which can help them, 

to some extent, escape from coercion. Jaiswal 

contends the western liberal feminist perspective 

on surrogacy, which claims that surrogacy is an 

expression of reproductive choice and economic 

autonomy. She argues that in India 

socioeconomic conditions determine their 

choices (poverty, low education levels, 

marginalization in labor markets, and patriarchal 

family and social structures)15. 

 

Ethical acceptability of Coercion in 

Commercial surrogacy: In this context, I argue 

that the primary objection to coercion is that it 

eliminates the freedom of a women and infringes 

upon the autonomy of the surrogate. It is very 

clear that coercion subordinates the woman’s 

ability to reproduce freely and infringes upon her 

autonomy. It uses the woman’s body for material 

benefit against her wishes which is morally 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

13 

 

unacceptable. However, humans always tend to 

gain from using their physical capacities; for 

example, education, physical labor, and 

knowledge development, in a way, helps to 

make money. So why do we oppose the 

involvement of poor women in commercial 

surrogacy? Here, the pressing issue is coercion 

which invalidates the reproductive right of poor 

women and victimizes their reproductive 

capacity. For example, in India the girls who 

trapped in sex trafficking are often coerced by 

brokers by showing economic benefits and false 

promises, many of the girls don't have any idea 

what they are going to do however they believe 

in the promise of the brokers who express that 

“you can get out of poverty if you come with me”, 

they just follow their words and trapped in 

various fields like sex work, bonded labor and so 

on. Commercial surrogate recruitment also 

priorities economic benefit than the nature of job 

and its pros and cons. In addition you may ask 

how their autonomy is violated. It is very simple, 

in Indian context already women don't have any 

right over their body with regard to reproduction 

a large extent, it is their husband who decides. If 

this is the case, being commercial surrogate 

also should be the wish of her husband than 

herself. Then you may argue reproductive 

capacities of women are always subject to their 

husbands wish then whats different with normal 

pregnancy and commercial surrogacy in both 

contexts a woman is coerced by her husband. 

However, within family relationship it is a matter 

of shared responsibility where they involve in 

physical relationship and share genetic materials 

where in commercial surrogacy its mere a 

commercialization of body which is just used as 

means to an end.  They are subjected by their 

husbands to be a reproductive slave.  In addition 

to husband, they are subjects of the doctors and 

the commissioning parents. Saravanan 

interestingly denotes the word “inertness” as one 

of the prerequisites for being a commercial 

surrogate. Inertness is all about being like an 

object which is a subject of others than its own. 

If “inertness” is the prerequisite of a commercial 

surrogate then the commercial surrogacy 

industry considers the surrogate as an 

reproductive object, which does not have any 

wish and can be influenced and coerced. The 

commercial surrogacy industry forces the 

surrogate against her wishes and uses her to 

fulfill the desire of the commissioning parents on 

the one hand and their husbands and close 

family on the other hand.  

 

Obviously, the whole argument of coercion in the 

context of economic benefit is of serious 

consideration. Why can’t a woman benefit by 

using her reproductive capacity though she is 

coerced? For example, even advertisements 

influence customers to purchase a product and 

employ the marketing technique of repeatedly 

contacting the customer and persuading them to 

purchase the service. Is this coercion? Here, the 

customer has the choice to purchase or reject 

the product since they possess money, but in 

the commercial surrogacy context, commercial 

surrogates have reproductive capacity, which is 

really valuable, but do not have money. The 

clinics/brokers who are in need of surrogates 

swindle the reproductive services of poor 

women at the cost of their economic 

vulnerability. It is very important to note that the 

commercial surrogacy industry does not operate 

to develop the economic benefit of the rural 

poor, but it is a commercial industry which is 

completely profit centered and uses poor women 

as their profit-making machine. If these 

industries operate ethically, people automatically 

enroll and there is no need for force. On the 

other hand, in terms of business, coercion is 

never justified as a good business practice. 

Because it is very evident that predominantly 

most of the impoverished surrogates are 

persuaded by showing the economic benefits. To 

prevent coercion, few governments restrict 

payments for reproductive services; for example, 

in the UK commercial surrogates are not 

supposed to be paid, but they can receive 

compensation.   

 

Besides, how these women involve in this, is it a 

well-informed business model in which the 

commercial surrogate is one of the stakeholders 

or just an object which is making profit for 

someone else. The commercial surrogate is 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

14 

 

exploited and subjected by the family, society, 

and even the government. Remarkably, she 

benefits the least compared with the others 

involved in this industry: for example, the clinics 

and commissioning parents. When we weigh the 

benefit and the risk of commercial surrogates, 

the risk is higher than the benefit. They are: 

economic, physical, and psychological risks; 

meanwhile, the whole idea of benefit is also 

questionable in the context of coercion. 

Coercion nullifies the idea of benefit. Benefit is 

about receiving an outcome without any 

compulsion and bargaining in exchange for ones 

labor. According to ILO forced labor defined as, 

“work or service extracted from a person under 

threat or penalty, which includes penal sanctions 

and the loss of rights and privileges, where the 

person has not offered him/herself voluntarily”24. 

In this context, no coercive activity is ethically 

justified as beneficial since it is executed by 

force and considered as forced labor.  

 

More interestingly, coercion is culturally defined 

to an extent in India. For example, people still 

exercise forced marriages in India. However, it is 

not morally acceptable, so according to 

government forced marriage is a crime. If the 

government considers forced marriage as crime 

then it should treat forced reproduction the 

same. Moral standards should never be 

compromised for economic benefit especially by 

the rulers of a country. In addition, the husband’s 

consent is never considered in medicine except 

in family planning in India; however, here, the 

husband’s consent is used as a tool to moralize 

and force women into commercial surrogacy. 

Can a man force his wife to have a baby? That 

is also considered a crime since reproduction is 

about sharing responsibilities through mutual 

cooperation. Forcing a woman to sell 

reproductive services for the benefit of her family 

is never justified or legalized; however, current 

practices endorse the husband’s consent and 

completely remove the ownership of the body of 

the women and subordinate her as a subject of 

her husband’s consent, which is unethical. 

 

On the other hand, the government also forces 

women to be a surrogate. The government 

policy on commercial surrogacy operates in two 

ways: it forces the women from India to 

undertake commercial surrogacy in order to 

benefit the economy, and the governments of 

developed countries promote access to 

reproductive services in India for cost-cutting 

reasons, ultimately for economic benefit. 

However, no one can justify forcing rural women 

into commercial surrogacy in a country where 

the maternal mortality rate is very high and 70% 

of women are affected by anemia during 

pregnancy25. Moreover, encouraging women to 

become commercial surrogates without firm 

regulations and laws increase the risk of 

coercion. Many arguments have been made for 

the development of commercial surrogacy in 

India, they are; “lower costs, the large number of 

women willing to engage in surrogacy, top-notch 

private healthcare, English-speaking providers, a 

business climate that encourages the 

outsourcing of Indian labor, world-famous tourist 

destinations, and the total absence of 

government regulation” (Points 2008). 

Meanwhile, Points is not clear on how women 

“willingly” participate in commercial surrogacy; 

however, he affirms the complete absence of 

government regulation. In terms of social justice, 

the government is the guardian of its people and 

it should never use its citizens to make a profit. It 

is the government’s moral responsibility to 

protect these vulnerable communities rather 

than forcing them to undertake commercial 

surrogacy through the private sector in the name 

of economic development. Consequently, the 

government has failed in its duty of protecting its 

vulnerable citizens from coercion. 

 

Obviously, most of the commercial surrogates 

engage in commercial surrogacy secretly which 

cuts off their social interactions and alienates 

them from their loved ones. They lack social 

acceptance for being a commercial surrogate; 

on the other hand, they experience tremendous 

force by families which creates “reproductive 

refugees”. I deliberately call them “reproductive 

refugees” because of their status in society. It is 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

15 

 

the government’s duty to help them come out of 

the crisis and put a stop the coercion. Protecting 

vulnerable groups from coercion and exploitation 

is always an important thing to be prioritized. 

Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human 

Rights calls for protecting vulnerable 

communities in order to sustain their human 

dignity, promote their human rights and 

fundamental freedom. Article 8 affirms, “In 

applying and advancing scientific knowledge, 

medical practice and associated technologies, 

human vulnerability should be taken into 

account. Individuals and groups of special 

vulnerability should be protected and the 

personal integrity of such individuals 

respected”26. In this context, capitalizing on 

human vulnerability to increase profits by using 

reproductive technologies is against human 

rights, and consequently plunders the human 

dignity of a person. So it is the government’s 

responsibility to enhance the choices of 

commercial surrogates and protect them from 

the coercive forces of private sector clinics and 

patriarchal society in addition to rectify the 

compromising policies. 

 

A call for change: Response to coercion in 

commercial surrogacy varies from exploitation to 

ethics of care. Humbyrd calls for a Fair Trade 

International Surrogacy27 where surrogates are 

fairly treated. However, comparing reproductive 

services to coffee trade and coming to a 

conclusion that fair trade international surrogacy 

is a solution may be misleading since human 

beings and human values are involved in the 

commercial surrogacy industry.  

 

Shalev remarks that the market is driven by for-

profit motivation where there is no moral ideal of 

personal freedom and she emphasizes that the 

liberal autonomy based approach alone never 

solves the problem and it should be 

supplemented by an ethics of care based on 

responsibility, cooperation, and dependence. 

She explains, “An ethic of care and responsible 

self-restraint requires a shift in consciousness: 

from calculation of self-interest and benefit to 

contemplation of our mutual vulnerability and 

interdependence; from observation of others as 

external objects and instruments for our own 

ends, to inner awareness of the seamless web 

of life and relationship in which we are 

implicated by our very nature as human 

beings”28. Unnithan also affirms the crisis and 

calls for contextually-based ethics which moves 

beyond the biomedical frame and issues of 

choice, consent and access alone. She is citing 

Kleinmans distinction between ethics and 

morality and calls for the development of 

morality which is based on social commitments 

may be the answer to solve the issue. On the 

other hand her idea sounds like John Harris’ 

“Green Paper” and “White Paper” concept: 

however, she emphasizes practical commitment 

and action over academic discussion16.  

 

On the whole, coercion is never justified, though 

it benefits the economic development of poor 

communities, since it erases the reproductive 

freedom of every poor commercial surrogate 

and prioritizes money over a woman’s 

reproductive capacities and creates 

“reproductive refugees”. With regard to 

economic benefit, it hardly benefits the women 

who are involved in commercial surrogacy; 

however, it puts them under tremendous 

physical and psychological risk. Though the 

government supports the commercial surrogacy 

industry it is very important to note that people 

are the priority and it is the duty of everyone to 

protect the vulnerable communities from 

coercive forces of economic development. 

 

Conclusion: The issue of coercion of rural, 

poor, women in the commercial surrogacy 

industry in India reveals how vulnerable poor 

women are! Obviously, we can understand the 

lack of the government and private sector’s 

commitment on the issue. Whatever the case, 

coercion should be curtailed since it is unethical 

and commercial surrogacy in India should be 

regulated in order to ensure a better future for 

women since it is impossible to ban commercial 

surrogacy and the successive ban may lead 

poor women to become more vulnerable 

position of exploitation. In this context, it is very 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

16 

 

important to protect the commercial surrogates 

from coercion in order to ensure their human 

dignity, reproductive rights, and fundamental 

freedom. Personally I think the following 

suggestions can help to eradicate coercion since 

it is unethical. The following suggestions will be 

helpful to empower the autonomy of rural 

women which will help to eliminate coercion and 

ensure justice for the commercial surrogates in 

India.  

1. Commercial surrogate’s consent should be 

mandatory and the consent should be an 

“informed consent” rather than “coercive 

consent.” 

2. Availability of alternative choices should be 

encouraged. Empowering woman's decision 

making capacity by protecting their 

reproductive rights can eliminate coercion. 

3. Promoting the husband’s consent which is 

the root of coercion, should be made illegal 

and seeking husband’s consent should be 

stopped. 

4. Broker’s involvement in recruiting 

commercial surrogates should be stopped 

and we should find a better way to recruit 

surrogates through a transparent manner 

without coercion. 

5. Fixed compensation procedure should be 

introduced to protect commercial surrogates 

from cheap bargaining and coercion. 

6. Awareness and education to the rural 

women with regard to their choices and 

rights in commercial surrogacy and to the 

intending parents about the best, ethical 

practices in commercial surrogacy. This will 

empower commercial surrogates and 

eliminate coercion.  

 

Acknowledgment: I thankfully remember the 
guidance of Prof.Kris Dierickx and comments by 
Prof.Pascal Bory on this manuscript. 

 

Author’s contribution: Author conceived the 
idea, perceived the knowledge, and drafted the 
manuscript.  

 

Conflict of interest: None 

 

 

References: 

1.  Lakshmanan AR. Report No. 228 AUGUST 
2009. October. New Delhi; 2009.  

2.  Mahabal KB. Tehelka - India’s Independent 
Weekly News Magazine. 2011; Available 
from: 
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?file
name=Ws080611ChildLabour.asp# 

3.  Wertheimer A. Exploitation and commercial 
surrogacy. Denver Univ Law Rev. 
1997;74(4):1215–30.  

4.  Gamble N. Crossing the line: the legal and 
ethical problems of foreign surrogacy. Reprod 
Biomed Online. 2009;19(2):151–2.  

5.  Yasin F. Booming Surrogacy Industry in India 
Raises Legal, Social Concerns [Internet]. 
March 10. 2011. Available from: 
http://www.globalpressinstitute.org/global-
news/asia/india/booming-surrogacy-industry-
india-raises-legal-social-concerns?page=2 

6.  Pande A. It May Be Her Eggs But It’s My 
Blood”: Surrogates and Everyday Forms of 
Kinship in India. Qual Sociol [Internet]. 
2009;32(4):379–97. Available from: 
http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s1
1133-009-9138-0 

7.  Pande A. Commercial Surrogacy in India: 
Manufacturing a Perfect Mother-Worker. 
Signs J Women Cult Soc [Internet]. 
2010;35(4):969–92. Available from: 
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1
086/651043 

8.  Pande A. Not an “Angel”, not a “Whore”: 
Surrogates as “Dirty” Workers in India. Indian 
J Gend Stud [Internet]. 2009;16(2):141–73. 
Available from: 
http://ijg.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/097152
150901600201 

9.  Pande A. “ At Least I Am Not Sleeping with 
Anyone ”: Resisting the Stigma of Commercial 
Surrogacy in India. Fem Stud 36. 
2010;2(2):292–312.  

10.  Bailey A. Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a 
Reproductive Justice Account of Indian 
Surrogacy. Hypatia [Internet]. 2011 Nov 
9;26(4):715–41. Available from: 
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1527-
2001.2011.01168.x 

11.  Sandel MJ. Michael J. Sandel. Rev Lit Arts 
Am. 2001;21:77–97.  

12.  Pande A. Commercial Surrogacy in India: 
Manufacturing a Perfect Mother-Worker. 
Signs J Women Cult Soc. 2010;35(4):969–91.  

13.  Whittaker  a. Challenges of medical travel to 
global regulation: A case study of reproductive 
travel in Asia. Glob Soc Policy [Internet]. 2010 
Dec 13 [cited 2012 May 8];10(3):396–415. 
Available from: 
http://gsp.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/14680
18110379981 

14.  Reddy S, Qadeer I. Medical Tourism in India: 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2017; 8(3):9-17 

 

17 

 

Progress or Predicament? Econ Polit Wkly. 
2012;xlv(20):69–75.  

15.  Jaiswal S. Commercial Surrogacy in India: An 
Ethical Assessment of Existing Legal 
Scenario from the Perspective of Women’s 
Autonomy and Reproductive Rights. Gend 
Technol Dev [Internet]. 2012 Mar 9 [cited 
2012 May 12];16(1):1–28. Available from: 
http://gtd.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/09718
5241101600101 

16.  Unnithan M. Infertility and Assisted 
Reproductive Technologies ( ARTs ) in a 
Globalising India : Ethics , Medicalisation and 
Agency. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2010;2(1):3–18.  

17.  Qadeer I. Benefits and threats of international 
trade in health: A case of surrogacy in India. 
Glob Soc Policy [Internet]. 2010 Dec 13 [cited 
2012 May 12];10(3):303–5. Available from: 
http://gsp.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/14680
181100100030206 

18.  Crozier GKD, Martin D. How to address the 
ethics of reproductive travel to developing 
countries: a comparison of national self-
sufficiency and regulated market approaches. 
Dev World Bioeth [Internet]. 2012 Apr [cited 
2012 May 12];12(1):45–54. Available from: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2242045
1 

19.  Wilkinson S. The exploitation argument 
against commercial surrogacy. Bioethics 
[Internet]. 2003 Apr;17(2):169–87. Available 
from: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1281218
3 

20.  Donchin A. Reproductive tourism and the 
quest for global gender justice. Bioethics 
[Internet]. 2010 Sep [cited 2012 May 
12];24(7):323–32. Available from: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2069091
6 

21.  ARTs and Women [Internet]. New Delhi: 
Sama; 2006. Available from: 
http://www.samawomenshealth.org/pubs/book
.pdf 

22.  Bryn Williams-Jones. Commercial Surrogacy 
and the Redefinition of Motherhood. J Philos 
Sci Law [Internet]. 2002;2. Available from: 
http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/pa
pers/comsur_williamsjones.html 

23.  Petersen TS. A woman’s choice? – on 
women, assisted reproduction and social 
coercion. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 
2003;7:81–90.  

24.  Ruwanpura KN, Rai P. Forced Labour : 
Definitions , Indicators [Internet]. Geneva; 
2004. (18). Available from: 
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---
ed_norm/---
declaration/documents/publication/wcms_081
991.pdf 

25.  Mittal S. Addressing Iron Deficiency Anemia: 

12 x 12 Initiative [Internet]. New Delhi; 2012. 
Available from: 
http://whoindia.org/en/Section6/Section324_1
467.htm 

26.  Report of IBC on the Principle of Respect for 
Human Vulnerability and Personal Integrity. 
Paris; 2011.  

27.  Humbyrd C. Fair trade international 
surrogacy. Dev World Bioeth [Internet]. 2009 
Dec [cited 2012 Mar 5];9(3):111–8. Available 
from: 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1950829
0 

28.  Shalev C. An Ethic of Care and 
Responsibility: Reflections on Third-Party 
Reproduction. Med Stud [Internet]. 2012 Mar 
23 [cited 2012 May 6]; Available from: 
http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s1
2376-012-0074-z 

 


