IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0214097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociodemographic characteristics of 96 Indian surrogates: Are they disadvantaged compared with the general population?

Author

Listed:
  • Virginie Rozée
  • Sayeed Unisa
  • Elise de La Rochebrochard

Abstract

Commercial surrogacy in emerging countries such as India is often associated with exploitation of vulnerable women, the assumption being that it is performed by poor and uneducated women for rich intended parents. However, the hypothesis that surrogates are poor women has rarely been confronted with field data. The objective was to compare the socioeconomic characteristics of Indian surrogates interviewed in social studies with those of Indian women in the general population in order to provide preliminary data on whether surrogates have a specific profile and are indeed disadvantaged compared with their counterparts. The study analyzes the data from four cross-sectional studies carried out in India among surrogates between 2006 and 2014. Surrogates were recruited through clinics, agencies and agents. Data were collected during face-to-face interviews. The resulting convenience sample included 96 Indian surrogates. Their sociodemographic characteristics were compared with those of the general population extracted from Indian national surveys. The surrogates interviewed had their first child at a younger age than women in the general population, but they tended to have a smaller family. Their social situation tended to be better than that of the general population in terms of education, employment and family income. These results provide first empirical evidence moderating the common assumption that Indian surrogates are the poorest and least educated women. This does not mean, however, that exploitation does not exist. More studies are needed to confirm these results and to explore the issue in new international destinations for surrogacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Virginie Rozée & Sayeed Unisa & Elise de La Rochebrochard, 2019. "Sociodemographic characteristics of 96 Indian surrogates: Are they disadvantaged compared with the general population?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-9, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214097
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214097
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214097
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214097&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0214097?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fortunato Pesarin & Luigi Salmaso, 2010. "The permutation testing approach: a review," Statistica, Department of Statistics, University of Bologna, vol. 70(4), pages 481-509.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diane Tober & Charlotte Kroløkke, 2021. "Emotion, embodiment, and reproductive colonialism in the global human egg trade," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 1766-1786, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roman Tikhonov & Aleksey Masyutin & Vadim Anpilogov, 2021. "The Relationship Between the Financial Performance of Banks and the Quality of Credit Scoring Models," Russian Journal of Money and Finance, Bank of Russia, vol. 80(2), pages 76-95, June.
    2. Demuynck, Thomas & Salman, Umutcan, 2022. "On the revealed preference analysis of stable aggregate matchings," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(4), November.
    3. Antonio D’Ambrosio & Sonia Amodio & Carmela Iorio & Giuseppe Pandolfo & Roberta Siciliano, 2021. "Adjusted Concordance Index: an Extensionl of the Adjusted Rand Index to Fuzzy Partitions," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 38(1), pages 112-128, April.
    4. Laurens Cherchye & Thomas Demuynck & Bram De Rock & Joshua Lanier, 2020. "Are Consumers Rational ?Shifting the Burden of Proof," Working Papers ECARES 2020-19, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    5. Chenyuan Hu & Shuoyan Zhang & Tianyu Gu & Zhuangzhi Yan & Jiehui Jiang, 2022. "Multi-Task Joint Learning Model for Chinese Word Segmentation and Syndrome Differentiation in Traditional Chinese Medicine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-13, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214097. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.