An Australian surrogacy advocate agency has called the abandonment of baby Gammy in Thailand as “disgusting” and “outrageous” but says the couple, believed to be West Australian, may have been within their rights to do so.
Surrogacy Australia’s executive officer Rachel Kunde told Gary Adshead on Radio 6PR that although what the parents did to Gammy, who has Down syndrome, was immoral, any contract or agreement may have been broken when the surrogate mother refused to abort the child.
“It’s just disgusting that someone has actually done this,” Ms Kunde said.
“That they could commission someone to have a baby for them then choose to not take that baby just because it was imperfect.
"There’s certainly moral obligations here. Any person, let alone any parent, can’t think how could anyone do this. It’s outrageous.
“We don’t know what was in that agreement, however, it’s possible when she chose not to terminate the baby she could have broken that agreement, so it was well within the Australian couple’s right to do what they’ve done.
"But, of course, morally? There’s a moral issue. “
Seven-month-old Gammy’s plight - abandoned by his Australian biological parents who brought his twin sister home and left him with the surrogate mother in Bangkok - was broken by Fairfax Media’s Lindsay Murdoch last week.
Since then, Australians have responded to the story and pledged more than $200,000 to assist Gammy and his surrogate mother.
Ms Kunde said hundreds of Australians travelled to Thailand and countries with surrogacy programs but there were no local laws governing the arrangements.
She said any possible termination would have been discussed early in the agreement or contract, most possibly arranged by an agent.
“How legally binding that contract is I’m not sure but there certainly would have been a contract and they would have had independent legal advice and they would have had extensive counselling before entering into this agreement.
“And more than likely the discussion what grounds will we have a termination for would have been discussed prior to the pregnancy.”
Ms Kunde said the biological parents should support Gammy.
“I think the right thing to do would be to take responsibility for their actions – that baby wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for them entering into this agreement.
"So obviously there’s a moral obligation here for them to take responsibility for that child.
"Gammy’s mother loves him very much and she intends to keep him and care for him as one of her own children, at the very least this couple should be providing financial assistance so that Gammy is well provided for the rest of his life."
