SURROGACY CONSULTATION ENDS ON FRIDAY 11 OCTOBER - PLEASE SUBMIT A RESPONSE [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

Hmm. According to the FOI they had one meeting with "members of the RCM" which could mean a couple of pro-surrogacy midwives as mentioned at 3.70 in the document. Also spoke at RCM conference - presumably not the one just gone.
They have not listed the RCM in their acknowledgements in the document which leads me to believe it was likely to be a more informal meeting with 2 or more midwives with experience of dealing with surrogacy.

Also I raised the absence of involvement with the RCM at the last public consultation event I attended. We were told that the RCM had preferred to wait until after the consultation to comment. Whatever that means. I can't understand why they wouldn't want to contribute to the consultation rather than wait and see. It suggests to me that they are following the DoH line that surrogacy is an accepted way of building families so the RCM would see themselves offering guidelines based on whatever the new laws bring rather than choosing to contribute to the proposals in the first place.

I'm disturbed that they met with Stonewall and not with the Royal College of Obstetrics but I think they will count the Royal College of Midwives as covering their bases on that score.

I had a look at Brilliant Beginnings and found them a bit...hmmmm...one sided. They also support Stonewall.

We knew this already, but not a single women or mothers group.

If anyone has time, do send a letter of complaint to Better Regulation as well as signing the joint letter, you could even crib from that, the more letters the better I think. The joint letter is great though so let's share that for signatures too.

Reading through the FOI thread (which is very interesting) they met with two surrogates formally and "spoke with other surrogates more informally" which could mean anything really and could be even only one surrogate.

They say they did not speak to mothers of new babies at all.

I mean obviously, even as a sample size of surrogates this fails dismally.

The consultation shows a profound lack of understanding of what it's like to give birth and the potential health consequences of doing so.

But it struck me also that if surrogates stand to benefit (financially or in other ways) or are being coerced then it's unlikely when consulted they'd provide a true picture about what it's like being pregnant, giving birth and postpartum? So failing to consult with a pretty bloody large control population of women who have given birth and do not have those pressures seems to completely invalidate their consultation. To me. (one of a long list of reasons why the consultation is flawed and useless).

Thanks HandsOff - the email seems to have sent ok so assuming all is fine. Having spent so much time neglecting my toddler to do it I want to be sure they actually have it!

I did mine last week and had acknowledgment this week.

Surrogacy seems to be another one of those things that when you get into the detailed evidence your opinion only goes one way (against). I think most people who are for surrogacy, other than those who profit in some way, really haven't thought about the implications for the child or surrogate.

Did anyone get an acknowledgement of submission as I haven't yet (sent an email)?

I want to keep this bumped.

Open letter from Nordic Model Now to raise objections to the consultation with the Law Commission. One quick signature so get signing. I hear they have over 600 signatures so far.

docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdp16TCOzpaHnPuMdxs2pvkaM6g7NPuP3mguJrvBY5ds57VuQ/viewform

Lexi has posted an update on the FOI sent to the Law Commission.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/publicconsultationnonproposed

Personally I'd love to know the objectives of the meetings they had with all those organisations, family law firms etc, if they won't give up the meeting minutes maybe we will get to know what the purpose was at least?

I'd also love to hear from just that One adult who was born from surrogacy.

Come on everyone, one day to go!!!

Bumping.

I replied last night and was grateful for the assistance from the linked organisations. It's not an easy consultation for the general public to engage with.

Really don't want to see the changes rubber stamped because those in favour can access the language while many of those against will be excluded.

I keep thinking about this (I only knew about it thanks to this thread BTW). Surrogacy is not something I or anyone close to me has been through, consequently I've never given it too much thought. Yet again this board has opened my eyes.

bumping this one

Indeed ProdigalKittens One gets the impression the Law Commissioners agree too, those bolshy bigoted midwives eh.
Of course if they get their way the baby will be handed straight over to the commissioning parents. Dustin Lance Black talked of how when he and Tom had their baby in California all the paperwork was wrapped up before the baby was born so everyone knew he and Tom were the parents, the staff knew, it was all so simple.

I'm also amazed at the entitlement - the surrogate mother was placed on a maternity ward post birth. Where else in the hospital should she go. A private room? Well I haven't been in a maternity ward for a while but my memory is of a small number of single rooms available on the wards and they are reserved for women with medical need - poorly mothers, mothers with a baby on NICU or a still birth. One hospital allowed them to be booked and paid for (around £50) a night unless they were needed for another woman with a medical need.
Should wanting to give your baby away trump those needs? Do they think that after paying £££ for the baby they should get a private room for free?

Honestly I think that list of complaints shows ignorance of the law and the workings of a maternity service. No more than you'd expect from a bunch of male lawyers I suppose.

I agree that it’s a terrible consultation. The first questions about judges and lay justices are obscure and off-putting.

If our government is concerned about Britons entering into poorly-regulated and exploitative surrogacy arrangements abroad, surely the answer is to tighten up the regulations allowing these babies to be brought/trafficked into the UK? Not lowering our standards to make UK surrogacy more commercial and exploitative?

Commercial surrogates are in such a vulnerable position. They tend to be much poorer than the intended parents and they often have lower levels of education. Also, the payment arrangement itself creates a power imbalance.

Then there is the fact that women are particularly vulnerable during IVF treatment, pregnancy, childbirth and the post-natal period. The idea that a woman recovering from childbirth (and experiencing a hormonal rollercoaster) should be in a fit state to challenge a parental order in court shows a real lack of understanding and compassion.

Done and submitted.

It wasn't as detailed and extensive as I wanted. But at least something has gone in.

I also lambasted them for the impenetrable design of the consultation. Definitely not inclusive. It was obvious they only wanted a handful of responses from legal firms and didn't want the public engaged at all.

Gosh, so shocking that you can't just turn up at a hospital with a contract and go "I'll be taking this baby now" without the staff asking some pointed questions.

It is appalling they haven't specifically sought out midwives etc as consultees or involved them in writing the consultation (maybe they didn't because midwives might be less likely to adopt a 'we're just assuming this is a good thing /inevitable and it's all about tinkering with the legal niceties' approach) but yes, the RCM should be all over this. But it's a very off-putting consultation, only the most tenacious could possibly do it on their own and I'd imagine midwives might feel there are more pressing demands on their time.

Also I was reading a bit today in the consultation about midwives/nhs management of surrogacy. Apparently surrogate mothers and intended parents had a list of complaints about obstructive hospital staff, doing things like not letting the baby be handed over to the intended parents on hospital property or letting the baby be discharged from hospital separately from the mother.

Midwives and other hospital staff all have mandatory training in safeguarding. The (surrogate) mother is THE LEGAL MOTHER. Any surrogacy contracts are not legally binding.
It seems to me that all the actions complained of are exactly what the staff should be doing for the protection of the (surrogate) mother who is their patient and focus of their care and for the protection of the baby. They can't just hand it over to some random couple rock up and saying "we're the intended parents, here's our contract". No doubt they could behave more sympathetically or might be openly hostile in their manner, but I'm sure at the end of the day they would have been being entirely professional.

Given these complaints it beggars belief that there was no meaningful collaboration with either the RCM or the RCOG during the consultation. I am also furious with the RCM who had their annual conference a couple of weeks ago. I am no longer a registered midwife and no longer a member of the RCM, but I've had a look around their website. There was a very brief mention of the consultation, saying something along the lines of "you can respond to it if you want to". No position statement that I could find.
And NO discussion about it at their conference (I checked the programme).
But these proposals have massive implications for midwives and the NHS maternity services.

I think the WPUK letter addressed some of these issues very well.

It's great to see so many people sending in responses. I'm also in awe of Nordic Model Now for their download as I am sure this has helped generate a lot more responses. I was helping my teen send a response this evening, and realised how designed it is to be off putting to anyone who hasn't got a vested interest to respond. Look at the long list of "stakeholders" that you can tick, with "other" at the bottom if you aren't a stakeholder. Talk about spelling out a message "Not wanted here. This isn't for you".

Just sent mine off. Did it across a couple of days in between chasing a toddler and cleaning up toddler messes. I found filling it in made me so angry. The absolute lack of understanding of what it's like to go through pregnancy and childbirth (e.g. the lack of understanding that a lot of women are simply not in a fit state physically to make lifelong decisions directly after birth), the utter contempt for the rights of all but the richest and for the children born of surrogacy. It was chilling. Whoever wrote that really, really hates women and views children as commodities.

Big thanks to the Nordic Model Now's team whose response I personalised. If it wasn't for them I doubt I could have completed it. I just don't have the time.

Also big thanks to Fanny in particular but all the posters on here who have made me think more deeply about this. I've gone from a fairly disinterested "surrogacy is what you do if you're rich and IVF doesn't work" to "surrogacy involves buying and selling children for the whims of rich adults, can never be ethical, and should be banned".

I thought the response pointing out that the kennel club recommend more safeguards around female dogs than this consultation does around female human surrogates really summed up the whole thing in a nutshell. Just chilling.

Just read the Nia Ending violence response thank you for adding that link to the thread. I thought it was a really excellent and hard-hitting response.

Just submitted mine using the Nordic Model answers, which seemed to match my views most closely

feels good to have submitted a response and stuck it to the disingenuous wankers who designed that consultation with the clear aim of excluding the public from taking part

Another well thought out and detailed response to the consultation here from an organisation called NIA, a group I wasn't previously familiar with.

www.niaendingviolence.org.uk/perch/resources/surrogacy-consultation-response-october-2019.pdf

I've just done mine, took about half an hour over it.

Fanny thanks but Catherine Bennett said it all here- I was just really shocked how right she is when I have read the actual consultation proposals..

amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/09/who-better-than-men-to-rule-on-delicate-subject-of-surrogacy-law-commission