That mishap on C-5

We were on the road Monday morning, leaving the house at about 5:30 a.m. so I could catch a 7:50 a.m. flight to Davao on Cebu Pacific. I would usually use the expected hourlong commute from home to airport to catch more zzz’s, but this time, before I drifted off to sleep, my attention was caught by the unusual congestion at that early hour at the foot of the Libis overpass to C-5.

My husband decided to veer right, taking Ortigas to reach the next turnoff to C-5 near Valle Verde, but even before we reached the intersection to C-5, vehicles in front of us had begun making U-turns, apparently because they had already been stalled for some minutes. The hubby overheard a street vendor—where would we be without these ubiquitous uziseros who function as informal heralds of current events?—telling another motorist that there had been a “huge” accident near Market! Market! A minute or so later, the radio station broadcast a report involving a cargo truck loaded with sand that had stalled on an overpass near Bonifacio Global City. For some reason, the truck’s brakes failed then caused what is commonly known as a “carambola” (the rather colorful term for a vehicle pileup) when it slid down and crashed into seven vehicles behind it, killing a laborer aboard a glass delivery truck (the last of the vehicles on the line), injuring several other drivers and passengers, and causing a traffic snarl that lasted well into noon.

It’s an interesting story by whatever measure, but that morning my main concern was whether I would reach Terminal 3 and make my flight. My husband and I agreed to take the Edsa route and reached the airport just in the nick of time. Still, I had my cell phone ready, in anticipation of texting my friends in Davao about the horrible traffic and asking if I could postpone my flight for the next day.

* * *

OTHER commuters weren’t so lucky. A friend shared on Facebook that her driver sought all possible alternative routes, only to end up, about three hours after leaving her home in Cainta, in her in-laws’ home in La Vista on Katipunan Avenue, which is but a 15-minute drive away on good days!

I expect a drop in productivity was recorded in Metro Manila on Monday, with many students and employees either very late or choosing altogether to absent themselves. I hope employers as well as school administrators were more considerate, viewing the C-5 accident as an “act of God” akin to a typhoon, flood or other natural calamity.

Still, our gripes and the inconvenience we went through pale in comparison to the death of that pahinante (casual laborer) and the orphaning of his family, as well as the suffering of all those injured as a result of a truck crashing into them.

Such are the vicissitudes of life in the city, especially in this metropolis where life can grind to a halt all because of seemingly minor events—a traffic mishap, a stalled vehicle, an untimely rally, a public celebration, a brownout. More fun and frustration, indeed!

* * *

STILL on the news…

Australian authorities, according to a wire report, are considering intervening in the case involving a pair of twins born to a Thai surrogate and the Australian parents. When the babies were born, one twin, the boy, was found to have Down Syndrome, while his sister showed no sign of disability.

The parents decided to take their daughter home but left the boy, since named Gammy, with his surrogate mother in Sri Racha, a seaside town. The report did not say if the Australian couple continued to send support for the son they left behind. But Pattaramon Chanbua, who is 21, said she feels neither anger nor hatred toward the couple and is willing to forgive them.

Instead, she worried over the baby girl, saying that she “want[s] to see that they love [her] as much as my family loves Gammy.”

In contrast to the greatness of spirit and generosity of Pattaramon and her family is the despicable behavior of the Australians. This may be the reason Australian officials want to see how they can help Gammy and his mother. The boy, they said, may be entitled to Australian citizenship, a crucial development because Australian citizens are entitled to free healthcare in in their country.

* * *

THE case also illustrates the dilemmas that arise when technology intersects with ethics. This would not have occurred, after all, were it not for the developments in assisted fertility and the growth of surrogacy. Surrogacy evolved as a way to help otherwise childless couples yearning for a child of their own to fulfill their dreams. As well, it provided a way for women to help others achieve their fondest dreams, albeit in the context of a transaction.

But parenthood—“natural” or assisted—demands responsibility as well as wish-fulfillment. The surrogates and their children are not mere merchandise. The babies born out of such arrangements should not be seen as mere products of commerce which, when they turn out to be unsatisfactory or flawed, can be “returned to sender,” discarded or abandoned.

Parenthood is a risk, as parents discover when their otherwise pliant and pleasant children grow into sullen teens. But when a man or a woman decides to enter the realm of parenthood, implicit in the “contract” is an agreement, a commitment, to look after the consequence of that decision.

To be facetious, there is a “no return, no exchange” policy governing parenthood. To leave the Australian couple unscathed is to favor their “commercial” interests over their ethical (and moral and spiritual) responsibilities. It is to say that children matter only when they are “perfect,” and that flawed children deserve rejection or abandonment.