Suseonline,

Sorry, my post above was in reply to NathanJ. I did not see your post before posting.

Suseonline,

The basic facts we do know:

1. A child is living that has a medical condition they will have to live with for the rest of their lives

2. The child is in Thailand now. If either member of the couple were concerned they should have got professional advice and assistance. Then people might have some sympathy.

To give you an example of this, one day I was at my parents house (about 7 years ago), I had extreme stomach pain that wouldn't go away - and I was yelling. My sister then on the phone explained to the ambulance service what had happened. I eventually found out I had fallen onto my parents tiled flooring and badly hurt myself after having an Epileptic seizure, I was allergic to Epilepsy medication I was on (taking since about eight years of age). I now have a bone density problem to manage, and I am on six medications a week - I take twice daily.

What this couple did is going back to the days of the past when people with medical and social problems were left in homes and other insidious places in Australia - by parents who didn't want them or felt they couldn't keep them - but that was a different time (and a past we can't change) - but in 2014? A full investigation should occur into this case, like we have seen here - otherwise we could end up with more cases like we have seen in Thailand - and be in a de-facto system to the previous policies that existed in Australia.

In terms of reform people won't disagree with major legislative reform and you only have to visit sites like:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-02/outrage-as-australian-parents-desert-surrogate-mother/5643074.

The site has a rating system on it - and the people who submitted comments in favor of the parents got very low ratings. Legislation will be properly debated - because left and right wing people, groups and newspapers won't be able to win the debate. Only the natural parent and the child will win.

NJ,

The single biggest problem is that surrogacy overseas is illegal in NSW if not all Aus. The problem then is that one cannot regulate something that is illegal.

At birth the "adoptive" parents had no right to either child, and if the birth mother chose to keep them, they would have no rights. On the other side of the coin, they had no legal obligation to take both or even one child.

The only way to protect against this case is to make surrogacy legal, and lay down strict guidelines for rights and responsibilities.

I've tried to get some more detailed information on this topic. A lot were www.com = commercial. They all looked like nice family friendly business sites.

However one site I found was more detailed and looked at both sides of this international matter. One important point says:

"Despite the growth in international surrogacy, there remains no international regulation of surrogacy or minimum standards to which states must adhere. Moreover, there are no international conventions, or reciprocal arrangements for the recognition of the legal parentage of a child."

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed87773

Activists aim at embarrassing politicians. They know that governments are short term and politicians are easily bullied by media sensationalism into unstatesmanlike, band-aid populist 'solutions'.

Regulation of inter-country surrogacy is very like Oz gun control: only the respectable, law-abiding, well-intentioned, public-spirited citizens can be expected to comply. BUT they are NOT the ones who can be expected to break laws and act in anti-social, selfish ways. Good citizens are already complying anyhow through their own personal ethics, principles and goodwill to others.

I notice that no-one is talking about the inconvenient truth that it is a rare nation indeed that will willingly give away its healthy young, even where the country is teeming with overpopulation.

I see no effective remedy where $$ changes hands. I do not believe that the best interests of the child will be guaranteed either. Criminals break laws, that is what they are in business to do. Ethics? Principles? What was that too about $$ buying the child you want? See my earlier link,

A girl next time
Designer babies for the well off.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/britains-first-gay-dads-planning-768457

More laws? So what?

Some want the Australian taxpayer to cough up for a salve for their heart worn of their sleeve. What is going to be interesting though will be the copy cats now that there is large dollars in it and just from public donations. That is the problem isn't it? That laws will not ever deter the quick-witted opportunists and crooks from taking advantage, even where the original case was legitimate. There will always be those who stretch the envelope too.

What diplomacy, the necessary agreements and finally well drafted regulations can do is ease the path of good citizens who make good parents and are willing to be accountable. I do not believe for a moment that laws could prevent what has just been reported (goodness knows what was actually agreed and went down in that case) and nor could there ever be an effective remedy where a person does not want a child.

I would never criticise anyone involved in this situation.
Probably the mother is in her 40s, maybe late 40s. Which means she will
die when her son is about 40 with no reliable person to care for him
for the next 40 years of his life.

It is a lifelong burden that you cannot put down just by dying.