surrogacy, Julie Bindel is right, it is human rights abuse

certainly less than donating a kidney.

Is that really certain?

I know some women whose health has been permanently pretty seriously fucked by pregnancy.

And many whose bodies (not just aesthetically) have never been the same.

The more risky a process is to the donor, the more uncomfortable I feel about it being a paid process. Being a surrogate must carry more risk to the surrogate's health than donating blood or sperm or eggs. Perhaps less than donating bone marrow, certainly less than donating a kidney.

Yet (I think) it's the only process with any such compensation.

I've read all your updates with interest. I just wanted to say that I am still convinced certain things should just not be for sale.

Also there are many rights that I wish to have for myself and my children.

The right to sell blood, organs, eggs, sperm, bone marrow, babies and sex are not in that list.

Dystopian novels are full of this stuff.

I hand on heart can say I don't know any surrogates who have made money from surrogacy, I don't know many who have had holidays afterwards and I definitely don't know anyone who has been given a car!! Would love to know where you've read/heard such stories!?

www.kent.ac.uk/law/research/projects/current/surrogacy/Surrogacy%20in%20the%20UK%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

Have a look at this research from uni of Kent - looking at the law around surrogacy. The average 'compensation' is £15 000 and that is on top of any expenses.

It actually breaks down the figures for costs of things like IVF and the 'compensation' ie money paid to the surrogate that is not payment for being a surrogate because that's illegal but just 'compensates' for time and effort.

As I said downthread, it is possible to keep track of how long ago one has donated or sold. Not just possible but currently being done where I live in France, at least.

Depending where in France you are you could donate in France, then travel to Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany by car in the same day.

So far as blood the WHO'S view is

The safest blood donors are voluntary, non-remunerated blood donors from low-risk populations. In the key global fact and figures in 2011 (Fact sheet number 279, in 62 countries, national blood supplies are based on 100% or almost 100% (more than 99.9%) voluntary unpaid blood donations. Forty countries collect less than 25% of their blood supplies from voluntary unpaid blood donors. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) goal is for all countries to obtain all blood supplies from voluntary unpaid donors by 2020 in accordance with World Health Assembly resolution 28.72, which was adopted in 1975

A New Zealand study on the possibility of paying for blood found there was likely to be a drop in donors.

I was just highlighting the risks and potential suffering of the surrogate. It is an ethical minefield when not done altruistically and I hope we never have commercial surrogacy in the UK.

I'm sorry about your traumatic birth Yes, I had one of those (although not in 2007) and its consequences were rather awful. I don't know why you feel it is relevant to this thread, though.

Personally, I wouldn't want to give birth again for love or money but if others want to do it, why should they not be allowed?

I don't believe sex workers these days do end up having children from their line of business though I am perfectly aware of where the vagina leads to.
Without appearing like a stalker cote d'Azur .. I had quite a traumatic birth 6 months ago and read lots if mumsnet threads some
from 2007 and I do believe you also found your birth traumatizing. Imagine having an episiotimy without consent and then having to hand the baby over....

"People who get paid to give blood are far more likely to lie about things that are likely to have their donation refused."

I don't know if you have ever donated blood, but they don't take your word for anything. You get asked about sexual partners etc but they still test your blood for everything before it is admitted into hospitals.

"but the ethical problems around paying is that people with a more desperate need for money might take risks with their health that would be unwise"

As I said downthread, it is possible to keep track of how long ago one has donated or sold. Not just possible but currently being done where I live in France, at least. They won't let you donate more often than is considered healthy.

Why is it ethical to ask someone to take that (minimal) risk for free but not for money?

Because creating a financial incentive for taking that risk makes exploitation and risk taking more likely.

People who get paid to give blood are far more likely to lie about things that are likely to have their donation refused.

Yes, there is a very small risk but the person giving blood is taking that risk, even when no money is involved

You can catch nasty infections while donating blood, which can possibly be fatal

Well which is it? A very small risk or "nasty infections which can possibly be fatal "?

Donations under the NHS are conducted in a tightly regulated environment with professional medical staff. Needles are not re-used.

"It would be unethical to conceal the risk from a blood donor (or a bone marrow or kidney donor, where the risks are more significant)"

Who is talking about concealing risks?

They are not concealed whether you donate for free or get paid for it. You are undertaking the same risk in either case. If it is ethical (even commendable) to donate, why is it so unethical to be paid for it?

...but the ethical problems around paying is that people with a more desperate need for money might take risks with their health that would be unwise.

"So which is it? Potentially fatal? Or not harmful?"

Not harmful that your body loses some of its blood, because it is soon replenished.

Potentially fatal infection is a possibility but with such small probability as to be nearly zero. Sort of like the opposite of winning the lottery.

I wouldn't donate blood in sub-Saharan Africa in a dirt hospital, but in my city in Western Europe where all apparatus is sterile, there is no needle-sharing, and treatment is at hand in the unlikely case of an outside infection, the risk of death is practically non-existent.

Do you disagree?

It would be unethical to conceal the risk from a blood donor (or a bone marrow or kidney donor, where the risks are more significant).

"I suppose selling hair feels less problematic as haircuts happen without medical intervention or entering another's body (with a needle, in the case of blood donation)"

Yes, there is a very small risk but the person giving blood is taking that risk, even when no money is involved.

Why is it ethical to ask someone to take that (minimal) risk for free but not for money?

I suppose selling hair feels less problematic as haircuts happen without medical intervention or entering another's body

Yes, that is a useful distinction.

It is not harmful. If it were, we wouldn't be donating.

Of course blood donation has the potential to be massively harmful, you did a big list of the harms above.

Blood donation is extremely tightly regulated because of the harm it can do.

Removing blood from people's bodies is risky.

You know that. Why are you being a dick about it a few posts down from your lecture to someone else about those risks?

You can catch nasty infections while donating blood, which can possibly be fatal

This is about human beings (myself included), whose bodies make more blood to compensate after blood donation. It is not harmful. If it were, we wouldn't be donating

So which is it? Potentially fatal? Or not harmful?

I haven't googled the entire Internet but I cannot find any example to support your first assertion.

Courts in UK as well as most other Western countries accept that a pregnant woman's well-being trumps that of the fetus she is carrying.

Very much not so in Ireland.

Precariously so in the US, depending on the state.

The U.K. is unusually robust on women's rights in this area.

The creation of contracts that would designate the baby in her body as belonging to other people would seem to fundamentally breach that.

I agree that paid donations of blood, bone marrow etc are problematic.

Very long hair can be donated for wigs. I suppose selling hair feels less problematic as haircuts happen without medical intervention or entering another's body (with a needle, in the case of blood donation)

Bathtime - re "You added the word "massively" in there. I just said it was ethically problematic"

Um, no. See below:

BathtimeFunkster Mon 22-Feb-16 23:15:51
Selling blood is massively problematic ethically.

"Turning human blood into a commodity creates financial incentives for people who are poor to donate more than their body can safely do without"

I'm not allowed to donate more often than is safe. I have been turned back once because a week less than the recommended period had passed since my previous blood donation. Surely this would work if I were paid, just like it is working when I'm not.

"I donate regularly. My body makes more blood to compensate. It doesn't harm me.
Not everything is about you."

Penetrating observation This is about human beings (myself included), whose bodies make more blood to compensate after blood donation. It is not harmful. If it were, we wouldn't be donating.

So far as paid for blood donations the World Health Organisation favours voluntary donations.

www.who.int/bloodsafety/voluntary_donation/en/

"Ethically the difference between womb rent and vagina rent is that usually only one creates a living child."

That would be news to prostitutes throughout history who have fallen pregnant as a result of sex with strangers. Womb is connected to the vagina, and... well... I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.

"And with that brings along many an ethical issue. I winder what happens if this birth goes wrong and the mother refuses intervention which could have a negative effect on her body?"

Pregnant women refuse intervention all the time. I don't think there is any legal or ethical problem there at all. Courts in UK as well as most other Western countries accept that a pregnant woman's well-being trumps that of the fetus she is carrying.