And so it came to pass: Mail on Sunday - gay male couple offered fertility treatment including surrogacy

The NHS can’t even afford to provide life saving treatment at a decent standard. Fertility treatments should categorically not be available on the NHS.

We should only treat infertility caused by disease.
Sorry I wasn't clear here, I mean the NHS should only treat infertility due to disease.

OrchidInTheSun good for you.

Two men not being able to conceive a baby is not a fertility issue, nor is it a social problems.

It's a basic fact of life but they seem very unfasionable these days. At the same time as oppressing women is coming well back into fashion in a new and shiny 21st century format.

It is obscene that the NHS is involved in a scenario where it is purposefully causing significant health risk to two separate healthy women, entirely and solely for the benefit of two healthy men.

And that's even before you consider the moral implications of creating a child with the express purpose of removing it from its mother at birth.
Agreed 100%

Fertility is part of health, infertility is not the norm.
Yes but there are two issues here. One is the production of an infant who would never be conceived otherwise (the men aren't ill or had cancer, they're just men) and the second is the fact we pay for it.
The first can be used to argue against fertility treatment, yes. In cases where the mother is too old to conceive, that isn't a health issue. She could have had children earlier in life, just like the men could have had sex with a woman and made a baby. The tricky part is when you argue that the former couldn't possibly have had a baby at 22 because she was too poor and hadn't met the right partner, and the men couldn't have lost their gold star because that's conversion therapy.
In both cases the adults have zero right to a baby. None. We should only treat infertility caused by disease. Age isn't a disease and neither is homosexuality.
The second part is about who pays. If an older woman wants to be a mum, there's no moral argument against her trying. I believe she should pay privately as it isn't an illness. But I don't think the men should be able to do likewise as there are two other women involved and plenty of risk of financial or emotional coercion.

Some people can't have children. It can be horrible, but some people never find love either. Ever. What do we do about that?

I have had fertility treatment. I had it because I am not in a relationship with a man so could not conceive naturally. However, I did not have the treatment on the NHS because there is nothing wrong with my fertility and it's not the NHS's remit to solve what are effectively social problems.

This enrages me. Nobody is entitled to have a baby. The NHS should not be using our money to fund this. I do disagree with surrogacy, outright. It’s not fair to intentionally create a child that will be taken from its mother- that is what a surrogate is. I am so annoyed this happens at all, to be paying for it is just horrible.

Regarding who is the legal parent. Similar thing currently in NZ, that they have to apply for adoption. A celebrity, Toni Street, had her third ‘desperately wanted’ baby through a surrogate- a personal friend with a family of her own. Toni couldn’t have another due to health problems. She put it all on IG and got loads of sympathy etc and then posted about the injustice of having to adopt ‘her own child’. She tagged the PM, who replied that the adoption laws def need updating and they’d get on to it. Ffs. Why is everyone so entitled?! Adopt a child! Jesus flipping Christ.

"Discussing this over lunch and my 7 year old daughter exclaimed: that’s not fair! Suppose the baby doesn’t want to go?"

Well this is certainly true, the baby will "know" the mother, having been wrapped in her heartbeat for 9 months and hearing her voice. It is all the baby knows. Certainly it's possible that the baby won't want to go > the baby can't talk though so we can't know.

This is a generally great point. On another thread I said that the view that genetics = everything is a very masculine view. for them that is all they do, provide some genetic material. So taking this masculine view, the egg donor is the other parent, and the woman who grows and births the baby is "not related" to it. I'm sure this is part of the reason for the incresing use of donor eggs, to try to really make the women who has the baby into nothing more than a vessel. I tihnk this masculine view is wrong though. The genetics come from one women, but the woman that grows the baby also has massive input.It shared her blood, knows her heartbeat. We lambast women for doing things that might harm the baby (and surrogates have a massive list of "don'ts") but what about the input of the good things they do? We know that stress has an impact on a feotus, what about happiness? To see the woman who has a baby as nothing more than a container is ethically iffy and morally iffy but also, from a biological perspective, probably incorrect. The reason it can be framed as such is that male perspective = human perspective.

I also agree with all the other threads on here about changes to law on way, commercial surrogacy globally, women being used for parts, two healthy men being seen as infertile because neither has a womb is ridiculous, right to family life being abused so men can get what they want at cost to women etc etc

Re Grandma sorry I didn't add the connection.

You can hear it on BBC iPlayer radio.
I added the link.
It's a sad listen.

As soon as one developing country clamps down another pops up, or people traffickers find ways around it going underground, taking women to a different country for the implantation or delivery.

In this scenario every participant begins healthy.
By the end, two formerly healthy women have been caused significant health risk, pain and possible permanent damage, even risk to life. And a child has been created and removed from its mother.

And where does the oath to do no harm fit into all this I wonder?

Grandma that's just horrific

I had no idea. From the programme linked upthread -
In a Cambodian hospital, a group of terrified new mothers nurse tiny babies under the watch of police guards. They're surrogates, desperately poor women promised $10,000 to bear children for parents in China. But they were arrested under new anti-trafficking rules, and now they face an agonising choice: either they agree to keep children they didn't want and can't easily afford to bring up, children who aren't genetically theirs - or they honour their surrogacy contracts, and face up to 20 years in jail. Tim Whewell reports on the suffering as country after country in Asia cracks down on commercial surrogacy - and asks whether the detained mothers are criminals - or victims.

Always women are the ones who are in the wrong.

Fertility is part of health, infertility is not the norm.
Healthcare can cure or compensate for disease or damage to the reproductive system.
One might argue that any non life-threatening condition need not be addressed. No need for corneal transplants or hip replacements, people can cope well enough without.
But healthcare works within its limitations to restore people to the best healthcare standard possible to improve their quality of life.
So a blocked fallopian tube can be unblocked to restore fertility just as a blocked ear canal can be unblocked to restore hearing. Neither are life-threatening but optimal function can be restored to improve quality of life.

In this scenario every participant begins healthy.
By the end, two formerly healthy women have been caused significant health risk, pain and possible permanent damage, even risk to life. And a child has been created and removed from its mother.

Who is the patient in this scenario?
What health condition is being treated?
Who is receiving treatment?
How are they benefitting?
What is the risk?
Who bears the cost?

Are the NHS going to protect the welfare of any women involved, ensure they are not being pressured or exploited, give them counselling or psychological assessments which aren't currently required for surrogacy? It's utterly bizarre that the NHS are funding 'treatment' for 2 men, neither of who will be the patient.

Indeed.

The thing is it isn't a human right because they need to use somebody else's body. If they can't find a surrogate they can't do anything. You can only have a 'human right' to try for a child if you are both using entirely your own body parts.

It’s complicated. The argument that you tint have a human right to a child could be used to argue against all fertility treatment 😓

Discussing this over lunch and my 7 year old daughter exclaimed: that’s not fair! Suppose the baby doesn’t want to go? 😯

I think someone above mentioned it was immoral to produce a baby specifically to take it away from its mother. I guess as adults we often get caught up thinking about the rights and feelings of other adults, rather than the baby itself 😪

So, as this is to ensure equality, I guess the situation would be the same for a hetero couple where it is known that the woman cannot go through a pregnancy, for a medical reason?
Find a donor and also a surrogate? Is that a usual thing in the UK?

Fleetwoodsnack, that is awful. The world has gone mad xx

Women broken down to their body parts to service the wants of consumerist men.

No thought for the babies and their biological heritage.

Let's just make women and children commodities to be bought and created at the will of men. This is hubris.

It's eugenics isn't it.

Don't want the egg of the poor unfortunate who is desperate enough in life to resort to selling their body as a gestation device. Chances are they don't have a phd and an ISA.

The whole thing reeks of servitude.

In Dustin's podcasts he recoils at the thought of the surrogate providing the egg. This is for two reasons:

In the USA you can choose the egg donor from a catalogue. Particular physical features maybe but especially high IQ is valued.
I assume clever college students get to partially fund their fees by selling their eggs.

The person who chooses surrogacy as a career is unlikely to be part of that demographic.

Also, whilst he waxes lyrical about his wonderful kind surrogate who is best friend ever he certainly doesn't want quite such a close relationship with them as the surrogate actually being the biological mother of his baby ie 50% parent. He certainly doesn't want them to have any parental involvement or responsibility after the baby has been handed over. He talks a lot about "safety" meaning surrogate has no legal rights if they decide they want to keep the baby.
So using a donor egg keeps that distance and makes it a purely service transaction.

The NHS is missing a trick here. They could roll out an egg donor drive, and make a fortune selling the resulting product. You'd get a cup of tea and a slice of cake each time. OMG I think I've accidentally referred to another thread...