Legal And Ethical Conundrums In Assisted Reproductive Technologies - A Critique Of Transnational Perspectives
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONUNDRUMS IN ASSISTED
REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: A CRITIQUE OF TRANSNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES Shayani Chakraborty, Department of Law, University of Calcutta, Hazra Campus, 51/1, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700019, West Bengal, India Adamas University, Adamas Knowledge City, Barasat – Barrackpore Road, Jagannathpur,
24 Parganas (North), Kolkata – 700 126, West Bengal, India
ABSTRACT
‘It always seems impossible until it’s done. ’ — Nelson Mandela Women possess an inherent right to procreation as bestowed by nature. Health crises and reproductive issues have rendered modern reproduction a significant critical complication. Although adequate medical care in reproduction is available, it can often prioritise profit for clinical and hospital facilities, thereby jeopardising the lives and health of young women globally. This research critically examined the legal and ethical complexities surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in India and across transnational contexts. It had been observed that while ART revolutionized reproductive opportunities for infertile couples, it also introduced significant legal ambiguities and ethical dilemmas, particularly concerning consent, commodification, and the rights of children born through such technologies.
Through a case-based analysis, this study found that while regulatory interventions strengthened protections for women and surrogate mothers, gaps remained, especially in balancing reproductive autonomy with ethical safeguards. On a transnational level, disparities in regulations resulted in legal uncertainties, child statelessness, and cross-border exploitation. Overall, the research emphasized the urgent need for an internationally harmonized, rights-based approach to regulate ART while respecting sociocultural specificities. Keywords: Assisted Reproductive Technology, Surrogacy, Legal Framework, Ethical Challenges, Women's Rights, Transnational ART, ART Regulation India,
INTRODUCTION
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) have dramatically transformed the landscape of human reproduction, offering new possibilities to individuals and couples facing infertility. From in vitro fertilization (IVF) to surrogacy and gamete donation, ART has not only challenged biological and social constructs of family but also ignited complex legal and ethical debates across national boundaries (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2015). As ART practices increasingly traverse borders—through "reproductive tourism" and cross-border surrogacy—the inconsistencies and contradictions among different national legal systems have become more pronounced, raising questions about the protection of rights for all parties involved, including donors, surrogates, intended parents, and resulting children (Whittaker & Speier, 2010).
The ethical dilemmas surrounding ART are multifaceted, involving issues of consent, exploitation, commodification of the body, and access inequalities (Spar, 2006). While some countries have adopted liberal frameworks that prioritize individual reproductive autonomy, others impose stringent restrictions based on religious, cultural, or moral considerations, leading to a fragmented global landscape (Blyth & Farrand, 2005). Moreover, the absence of cohesive international regulation has fostered practices that may sidestep ethical safeguards, exposing vulnerable populations, particularly women in low-income countries, to potential exploitation (Deonandan et al. 2012). This paper critically examines the legal and ethical conundrums associated with ART from a transnational perspective, highlighting the tensions between local regulations and global reproductive mobility.
It also interrogates the ethical responsibilities of nations, clinics, and intended parents in ensuring equitable, transparent, and non-exploitative ART practices across borders.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
This research adopted a qualitative, descriptive approach to critically analyze the legal and ethical challenges associated with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) from a transnational perspective. Secondary data sources were primarily utilized, including peerreviewed journal articles, international guidelines, legal documents, and ethical position papers. Databases such as PubMed, JSTOR, Scopus, and Google Scholar were extensively searched using keywords like "assisted reproductive technologies," "reproductive tourism," "cross-border surrogacy," "legal frameworks in ART," and "ethical dilemmas in ART."
A comparative analysis technique was employed to assess variations in ART regulations across different countries, including the United States, India, Ukraine, and Australia. Relevant case laws, legislative acts, and policy documents were reviewed to understand the national legal positions and their implications in a globalized reproductive market. In addition, international instruments such as the Hague Conference reports and WHO guidelines were examined to contextualize the ethical frameworks. The research adopted a thematic analysis approach to organize the collected data into major themes, such as rights of intended parents and surrogates, commercialization and commodification concerns, consent and autonomy, and issues of equity and justice.
Special attention was paid to identifying discrepancies between national legal systems and ethical practices within the context of reproductive mobility. Throughout the study, ethical research practices were maintained by ensuring accurate citation of all sources and a balanced representation of divergent perspectives. As this study was based exclusively on secondary data, no ethical approval was required.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
In India, several landmark cases highlighted the evolving legal and ethical challenges in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). These cases demonstrated the complexities regarding parental rights, citizenship of the child, surrogacy regulations, and the commercialization of human reproduction. The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 significantly empowered Indian women by introducing several protective legal frameworks aimed at safeguarding their rights, dignity, and health during ART procedures. Firstly, the Act ensured that women undergoing ART treatments had been given informed consent rights. Clinics and banks were legally mandated to provide complete information regarding procedures, risks, and implications before obtaining written consent from the women involved (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2021).
This protected women from uninformed decision-making and exploitation. Secondly, the Act had regulated ART clinics and banks, making their registration mandatory with a National Registry and State Boards. This move curbed the proliferation of unscrupulous clinics, ensuring that women had access only to accredited, ethical, and quality-assured medical institutions (Gupta & Tripathi, 2022). Thirdly, women had been provided protection against health risks through strict standards for gamete donation and embryo transfer. For instance, egg donors were required to undergo medical and psychological screening, and were entitled to insurance coverage for any health complications arising from the donation process (The ART Act, 2021). Fourthly, the Act had introduced penal provisions against malpractice, prescribing imprisonment and fines for clinics and practitioners involved in violations.
This legal deterrent enhanced women's safety against coercion, misuse, and commercial exploitation. Fifthly, the ART Act promoted privacy and confidentiality. Women's identities and medical records were to be kept confidential, except under circumstances mandated by the law, thus protecting their privacy rights (Sharma, 2022). Lastly, the Act had emphasized ethical practices such as banning the sale of human embryos and gametes, thus preventing the commodification of women's reproductive material and bodies. In essence, the ART (Regulation) Act, 2021 had strengthened the legal and ethical environment around assisted reproductive services in India, providing women with stronger protections, enhancing their autonomy, ensuring quality care, and reducing exploitative practices.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 had a significant impact on the protection, empowerment, and regulation of women's rights within the field of assisted reproduction in India. Before the enactment of this law, women, particularly surrogate mothers and egg donors, had limited legal safeguards. The ART Act, 2021 brought about several reforms that strengthened their position both medically and socially. Table 1. Key ways in which the ART Act, 2021 helped Indian women Health Clinics were required to screen Women's health risks were acknowledged, and financial protection was ensured. Screening and Insurance for Donors egg donors and ensure health insurance coverage for 12 months post-procedure. Ban on Commercial Egg Donation The Act prohibited the commercialization of egg donation, allowing only altruistic donations.
Women were protected from exploitative practices and coercive egg harvesting. Protection The Act mandated comprehensive Surrogate women received better medical care, reduced financial risks, and protection from middlemen exploitation. of Surrogate Mothers insurance coverage for surrogate mothers and banned commercial surrogacy. Limitation The number of permissible ART Women faced fewer health hazards on Number of ART Procedures procedures was restricted to prevent overexploitation of women's bodies. associated with repeated procedures. Grievance ART clinics were mandated to Women had institutional support to Redressal Mechanisms establish grievance cells to address women's complaints. report malpractice, negligence, or abuse.
The mandatory informed consent clause ensured that women had the autonomy to decide about ART treatments with full knowledge of associated risks, benefits, and outcomes. It shifted decision-making power directly to the women involved, rather than leaving it solely with clinics or family members. The health screening and insurance requirement recognized that egg donation and surrogacy posed significant health risks. The provision of 12 months' insurance coverage after egg donation was a major step in ensuring that complications arising post-procedure would not lead to financial burden or medical neglect. By prohibiting commercial egg donation, the law protected women, especially from marginalized communities, from being exploited for financial gain. The move towards altruistic surrogacy and egg donation reduced unethical practices and emphasized bodily integrity and dignity.
The protection of surrogate mothers through mandatory insurance and medical care protocols ensured better healthcare access and reduced the exploitation often facilitated by unregulated agents. Limiting the number of ART cycles that a woman could undergo prevented the physical exhaustion and long-term health risks that frequent procedures could cause. Finally, the creation of grievance redressal systems within ART clinics provided women with avenues to seek justice against malpractice, ensuring better accountability across the sector. Thus, the ART Act, 2021 aimed to protect Indian women involved in ART procedures by ensuring their health, dignity, and rights were not compromised for commercial gains. The Act provided a more ethical, regulated framework where women's reproductive contributions were respected and safeguarded. Table 2.
The key cases and their associated legal issues Case Name Year Key Legal Issue Outcome Baby Manji Yamada
2008 Citizenship
and legal parentage of a child born via surrogacy to foreign nationals. The Supreme Court recognized the child's right to an Indian passport; emphasized need for surrogacy regulation. v. Union of India Jan Balaz v. Anand
2009 Citizenship of surrogateborn twins to a German
couple. The Gujarat High Court Municipality granted Indian passports to the twins; later complexities delayed their immigration. Suchita Srivastava v.
2009 Right
to reproductive autonomy and abortion rights in mentally challenged women. The Supreme Court upheld a Chandigarh Administration woman's right to make reproductive choices, reinforcing reproductive autonomy. in Gujarat. After the twins’ birth, issues arose over their citizenship, as German law did not recognize surrogacy. The Gujarat High Court granted Indian passports, but immigration complexities delayed the children's departure, emphasizing legal gaps in cross-border surrogacy (Pande, 2010). Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009): Although not strictly an ART case, this judgment significantly contributed to reproductive rights discourse. The Court upheld a mentally challenged woman's right to make reproductive choices, reinforcing the principle of bodily autonomy—a foundation for ART ethics (Patnaik, 2010).
Baby Yamini Case (2012): This case highlighted concerns over the exploitation of poor women through commercial surrogacy. Media reports and legal debates revealed that despite guidelines from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), enforcement mechanisms were weak. This case propelled calls for the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill (Sama Resource Group, 2012). Table 3. Issues regarding the ART Act, 2021 Key Themes Identified Observations Citizenship Issues Legal ambiguity for children born through surrogacy to foreign nationals. reproductive autonomy, and regulatory gaps. The findings from different countries were synthesized and are presented below. Table 4. Summary of major legal and ethical issues in ART (Transnational Cases) Country Key Cases/Regulations Major Legal Issue Ethical Concern Identified India Baby Manji Yamada v.
Citizenship disputes; Exploitation of poor surrogate mothers Union of India (2008); Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality (2009) absence of comprehensive surrogacy laws United Johnson v. Calvert (1993) Determination of legal motherhood Genetic vs gestational rights conflict States Thailand Baby Gammy Case (2014) Abandonment of surrogate-born child Lack of accountability in cross-border surrogacy Australia Re Evelyn (1998) Custody rights over a Emotional distress surrogate-born child of surrogate Ukraine Liberal surrogacy laws (no Cross-border Weak protection for surrogate mothers major restrictions) surrogacy for foreigners This case underlined the absence of enforceable protections for surrogate-born children in transnational arrangements (Whittaker, 2015). Australia’s Re Evelyn case focused on emotional and legal conflicts when a surrogate changed her mind about relinquishing the child.
It demonstrated how surrogacy agreements were often unenforceable, leading to intense personal and legal conflicts (Millbank, 2015). Ukraine, meanwhile, promoted itself as a surrogacy hub due to its permissive legislation, attracting international intended parents. However, analysis indicated that weak protections for surrogate mothers exposed women to potential exploitation and post-birth abandonment without legal safeguards (Pennings, 2004). Table 5.
Thematic categorization of issues across countries Theme Observed in Countries Details Citizenship Disputes India, Thailand Children stranded due to conflicting national laws Parental Rights Conflict United States, Australia Disputes between genetic vs gestational claims Exploitation and Commercialization India, Ukraine, Thailand Poor women's vulnerability; commodification of reproduction guidelines, the country later introduced formal legislations to regulate ART practices more systematically. Table 6. Evolution of ART Laws in India Year Law/Guideline Key Provisions Status ICMR Guidelines for Ethical standards for ART clinics; regulation of surrogacy, donor anonymity, and recordkeeping.
Non-binding ART Clinics guidelines (draft) Assisted Reproductive Proposed licensing of ART Draft bill, not passed Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2008 clinics, rights of children born through ART, regulation of surrogacy. Surrogacy (Regulation) Banned commercial surrogacy; Draft bill, replaced later Bill, 2015 allowed only altruistic surrogacy for Indian couples. Assisted Reproductive Mandatory registration of ART Enacted Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 clinics/banks; protection of donors, surrogates, and offspring rights. Surrogacy (Regulation) Permitted only altruistic surrogacy; banned commercial surrogacy; eligibility criteria for intending couples. Enacted Act, 2021 bill aimed to secure the rights of surrogate mothers and intended parents, but it remained pending without legislative action for years (Sama Resource Group, 2012).
Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2015 (Draft) The 2015 bill sought to address rampant commercial surrogacy. It proposed banning commercial surrogacy altogether and permitting only altruistic surrogacy for Indian heterosexual married couples. However, it faced criticism for excluding LGBTQ+ individuals and single persons (Shetty, 2017). Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 The ART Act of 2021 marked a significant legislative step. The Act mandated that all ART clinics and ART banks must register under a national registry. It ensured protection for gamete donors and ART children and penalized non-compliant clinics with heavy fines and imprisonment. It also established national and state boards for oversight (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2021a).
Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 Passed alongside the ART Act, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act banned commercial surrogacy completely and allowed only altruistic surrogacy. It set strict eligibility criteria: intended couples must be married for at least five years, be Indian citizens, and meet specific age conditions. Surrogate mothers must be close relatives and should have previously given birth to at least one healthy child (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2021b). Table 7. Comparison of key provisions in ART and Surrogacy Acts (2021) Eligibility Any intending couple or woman Only married Indian couples (5 years of marriage) (including divorced/widowed women) Penalties Fine up to ₹10 lakh; imprisonment Fine up to ₹10 lakh; up to 10 years imprisonment up to 10 years Commercialization of reproduction was a major concern leading to the strict ban on commercial surrogacy.
Protection of donor and surrogate rights was emphasized, but gaps remained regarding inclusivity for LGBTQ+ and single individuals. Enforcement mechanisms such as mandatory registration and establishment of regulatory authorities marked a major shift towards formalized governance of ART. Critics pointed out the Acts' restrictive definitions of family and parenthood, which excluded non-traditional families (Jaising, 2022). Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) had significantly transformed reproductive healthcare across the globe, yet they simultaneously raised intricate legal and ethical challenges. In the Indian context, the evolution of ART practices reflected broader global trends but also revealed unique regional complexities. This discussion critically evaluated the legal, ethical, and transnational dimensions of ART with a focus on emerging conundrums.
Ø Legal Complexities in India and Globally The legal framework governing ART in India had undergone a major shift with the enactment of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Prior to these Acts, regulation was based largely on voluntary compliance with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines (ICMR, 2005). As a result, unregulated commercial surrogacy and ART tourism thrived, exposing intended parents, surrogates, and children to potential exploitation (Sama Resource Group, 2012). Internationally, countries adopted varied regulatory stances. For instance, while countries like the United States permitted commercial surrogacy in certain states (Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2014), others like Germany and France banned commercial surrogacy entirely (Whittaker, 2016).
India's earlier permissive approach led to its positioning as a global surrogacy hub, particularly for Western couples seeking cost-effective ART services (Pande, 2011).
However, the introduction of India's 2021 legislations brought a stringent regulatory framework, mandating registration of ART clinics and allowing only altruistic surrogacy. While these laws aimed to curb exploitation and protect the rights of surrogates and children, they also raised concerns regarding exclusion. By restricting surrogacy access to only married heterosexual Indian couples, the Acts failed to accommodate LGBTQ+ individuals, live-in partners, and single individuals (Jaising, 2022). Ø Ethical Dilemmas Ethical concerns surrounding ART predominantly centered on commodification, consent, and autonomy. Before regulatory interventions, surrogate mothers, especially from marginalized communities, were vulnerable to coercion and exploitation.
Studies revealed that many surrogates engaged in the process due to financial desperation rather than informed choice, challenging the ethical premise of "voluntary" participation (Dasgupta & Dasgupta, 2014). The issue of donor anonymity and the child's right to know their biological origins further complicated ART ethics. While the ICMR guidelines upheld donor anonymity (ICMR, 2005), ethical arguments emerged advocating for the child’s right to identity, mirroring debates in countries like the United Kingdom where open-identity donation became a legal norm (Blyth & Farrand, 2004). In transnational contexts, ethical concerns heightened when discrepancies existed between the laws of the commissioning parents' country and the host country providing ART services.
Cases where children born through Indian surrogacy arrangements were rendered stateless due to nationality conflicts underscored the urgent need for international legal harmonization (Rotabi & Bromfield, 2012). Ø Transnational Perspectives From a transnational perspective, ART practices illuminated glaring inequities. Wealthy foreigners often engaged in cross-border reproductive arrangements, leveraging economic disparities between developed and developing nations. India's ART industry, estimated at over $400 million by the early 2010s, primarily catered to international clientele (Pande, 2011).
International organizations like the Hague Conference attempted to develop principles for regulating international surrogacy arrangements but faced challenges in achieving consensus due to varying moral, religious, and legal standards among member states (Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2014). Critiques also emerged regarding “reproductive tourism,” a phenomenon where intended parents bypassed restrictive laws in their home countries by seeking ART services abroad. While reproductive tourism allowed access to services otherwise unavailable, it raised ethical concerns about exploitation and inequitable access to healthcare resources in host countries (Inhorn & Patrizio, 2012). Ø Intersectionality of Gender, Class, and Reproductive Rights The ART industry in India vividly illustrated the intersection of gender and class inequalities.
Surrogate mothers predominantly belonged to lower socio-economic strata and had limited bargaining power over contractual terms. This dynamic challenged notions of agency and autonomy in reproductive labour (Rudrappa, 2015). Furthermore, the legislative focus on traditional, heteronormative family structures reinforced exclusionary practices. Feminist scholars critiqued India's ART and surrogacy laws for reinforcing patriarchal norms by legally privileging marital and reproductive heterosexuality (Jaising, 2022). While intended to safeguard participants, the restrictive eligibility conditions arguably curtailed reproductive rights of a diverse set of individuals, including LGBTQ+ couples, single parents, and widowed or divorced persons.
This exclusion stood in contrast to developments in countries like Canada and Australia, where ART services were increasingly accessible to broader family structures (Horsey, 2024). Thus, the Indian legal regime around ART, though progressive in ensuring safeguards against exploitation, remained conservative regarding inclusivity and reproductive rights. The transnational ART landscape illustrated that while commercialization necessitated regulation to prevent exploitation, overly restrictive laws could inadvertently produce new forms of injustice by denying access to non-traditional families. The legal and ethical conundrums of ART highlighted the need for a nuanced, rights-based approach that balanced protection against exploitation with reproductive autonomy.
Global harmonization efforts, combined with culturally sensitive, context-specific national laws, were essential for ethically navigating the future of ART. Conclusion This study critically analyzed the legal and ethical challenges posed by Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in both Indian and global contexts. It had been established that while ART significantly expanded reproductive possibilities, it simultaneously introduced complex legal ambiguities and ethical concerns, particularly regarding the rights of women, surrogate mothers, children, and marginalized groups. In India, the enactment of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, had represented a significant step toward addressing the exploitation and commercialization that had previously characterized the ART industry.
These laws provided greater protection for women’s health, mandated informed consent, regulated clinic practices, and sought to ensure ethical treatment of surrogate mothers and donors. However, they also revealed new exclusions by restricting ART access for LGBTQ+ individuals, single parents, and non-traditional families. On a transnational level, the research found that differences in ART regulations among countries continued to result in legal uncertainties, exploitation of economically disadvantaged populations, and citizenship issues for children born through cross-border surrogacy. The absence of a unified international legal framework remained a pressing concern. Overall, the research concluded that while regulatory advancements had improved the ethical landscape of ART, substantial gaps persisted.
There remained a strong need for continuous legal reforms that balanced protection with autonomy, and for the establishment of internationally accepted ethical standards that prioritized the rights and welfare of all stakeholders involved in assisted reproduction.
References
Blyth, E. , & Farrand, A. (2004). Anonymity in donor-assisted conception and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. International Journal of Children's Rights, 12(2), 89– 104. Blyth, E. , & Farrand, A. (2005). Reproductive tourism - a price worth paying for reproductive autonomy? Critical Social Policy, 25(1), 91–114. https://doi. org/10. 1177/0261018305048961 Dasgupta, S. , & Dasgupta, S. D. (2014). Motherhood interrupted: The experience of surrogate mothers in India. Global Public Health, 9(7), 788–800. Deonandan, R. , Green, S. , & van Beinum, A. (2012). Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(12), 742–745. https://doi. org/10. 1136/medethics-2012-100551 Gupta, R. , & Tripathi, S. (2022). Assisted Reproductive Technology in India: A Review of the Regulatory Framework. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 13(2), 45–63.
Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2014). The Parentage/Surrogacy Project: An updating note. Retrieved from https://www. hcch. net/ Horsey, K. (2024). The future of surrogacy: a review of current global trends and national landscapes, Reproductive Bio Medicine Online, (5): 103764, https://doi. org/10. 1016/j. rbmo. 2023. 103764. Indian Council of Medical Research. (2005). National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India. New Delhi: ICMR. Inhorn, M. C. , & Patrizio, P. (2012). The global landscape of cross-border reproductive care: Twenty key findings for the new millennium. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 24(3), 158–163.
Inhorn, M. C. , & Patrizio, P. (2015). Infertility around the globe: New thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Human Reproduction Update, 21(4), 411–426. https://doi. org/10. 1093/humupd/dmv016 Jaising, I. (2022). Surrogacy and ART laws: Progress or regression for reproductive rights? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7(2), 98–101. Millbank, J. (2015). The new surrogacy parentage laws in Australia: Cautious regulation or "crazy quilt"? Child and Family Law Quarterly, 27(2), 113–136. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2021). The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Government of India. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2021a). The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Government of India. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2021b). The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Government of India. Pande, A. (2010).
Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother‐ worker. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 35(4), 969-992. https://doi. org/10. 1086/651043 Pande, A. (2011). Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: Gifts for global sisters? Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 23(5), 618–625. Patnaik, P. (2010). Reproductive rights: A fundamental right. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(35), 22-23. Pennings, G. (2004). Legal harmonization and reproductive tourism in Europe. Human Reproduction, 19(12), 2689–2694. https://doi. org/10. 1093/humrep/deh479 Robertson, J. A. (1994). Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton University Press.
Rotabi, K. S. , & Bromfield, N. F. (2012). The decline in intercountry adoptions and new practices of global surrogacy: Global exploitation and human rights concerns. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 27(2), 129–141. Rudrappa, S. (2015). Discounted life: The price of global surrogacy in India. NYU Press. Sama Resource Group for Women and Health. (2012). Birthing a market: A study on commercial surrogacy. Sama Publications. Sharma, A. (2022). Legal Dimensions of Reproductive Health in India: Analyzing the ART and Surrogacy Acts. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7(1), 22–29. Shetty, P. (2017). India's new surrogacy bill excludes LGBT community and singles. BMJ, 356, j1387. https://doi. org/10. 1136/bmj. j1387 Spar, D. L. (2006). The baby business: How money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Harvard Business School Press. Sunder Rajan, K. (2011).
Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Duke University Press. Whittaker, A. (2015). Thai mothers, Japanese fathers, and international surrogacy: Making families across national boundaries. Anthropological Quarterly, 88(1), 9–36. Whittaker, A. (2016). Cross-border assisted reproduction care in Asia: Implications for access, equity and regulation. Reproductive Health Matters, 24(48), 7–16. Whittaker, A. , & Speier, A. (2010). Cycling overseas: Care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Medical Anthropology, 29(4), 363–383. https://doi. org/10. 1080/01459740. 2010. 501317