Famous men and surrogacy

Same as what happens in any situation where parents face that decision as to whether they are capable of bringing up a disabled child.

But mypuddin what about if things change and those things agreed beforehand don’t work any more? Should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy for example? Should she be forced to have Caesarean section if she doesn’t want one?

If I was a surrogate I wouldn't sign that contract. That's the thing with a contract, both parties have to agree to the terms. It's not a dictatorship, it's a mutual agreement. You're making a lot of assumptions about the people involved.

Or the opposite: the adopting parents say in their “contract” they will care for a baby even if it has a severe disability. But when it comes down to it, they won’t take the baby home. Should they be forced to? By whom?

On that argument no one asks to be born. I'm sure there are millions of people born to shit parents in shit circumstances that didn't ask to be born into those circumstances.

Re the comma scenario, I would expect that to be covered in the contract. I'll repeat again, not one size fits all. One groups contract might agree that the decision will be the adoptive parents, another contract might be that the decision is with the birth mothers next of kin. To be agreed prior to the pregnancy.

People who donate kidneys - living relating donors - have to go through extensive testing to make sure they fully consent to what they’re getting into. Who will provide the extensive screening and consent procedures to make sure a birth mother fully understands the risk she is taking?

Let’s go back to my post and start with the first part. Beforehand there’s a “contract” to decide who has a say in possible termination. Is that what you think could happen? Say it’s written in the contract that there is to be no termination whatsoever but the birth mother changes her mind. Then what?

People donate kidneys all the time, they sign to say that the know death is a risk.

Organ donation does not involve the creation of a 3rd party who is entirely innocent and did not ask to be born.

I don't agree with you at all.

What don't you agree with? Do you think that a British court would recognise a contract which stipulated, for example, that if the surrogate falls into an irreversible coma, she should not be taken off life support until the commissioning couple receive the product they signed up for, ie the baby?

People donate kidneys all the time, they sign to say that the know death is a risk.

I don't agree with you at all.

Like any other contract you can't list every possible outcome, what you use broad terms that cover wide possibilities.

"Wide possiblities" which cover permanent disability or even death?

No UK court would even look at such a 'contract'. Nor should they.

For example, if I employ a roofer and they fall off the roof and become paralysed, the law and insurance would decide who would be liable.

If a nanny injured their back by picking up a toddler regularly should the parents be responsible? All can be covered with proper contracts and insurance prior to the event.

Exactly. No such contract could ever been drawn up because of everything that can vary and go wrong with a pregnancy. Ergo, you can’t have a contract that’s enforceable, which means that someone has to give up their rights in the agreement. At some stage a birth mother will suffer. At some stage an adopting couple will suffer. At some stage, a baby will suffer. It’s inevitable. If you accept surrogacy, you’re accepting that, at some stage, there will be an aggrieved party and there is no logical way to reconcile the situation without immense harm one way or another. It’s bonkers to think every single surrogacy arrangement will be a perfect blend of female empowerment and a blissfully happy couple getting the baby they’ve always wanted.

Like any other contract you can't list every possible outcome, what you use broad terms that cover wide possibilities.

As I said, it can't be a one size fits all so it's would need to be agreed and discussed prior to signing, and in those discussions/negotiations in some points one party will have the advantage and on other points the other party will have the advantage. As a surrogate you would I should think be aware of long term health risks , same as any pregnant woman. Maybe there's a gap in the market there for insurance companies?

So you think it’s possible to draw up a contract for every available possibility?

Surely no such 'contract' would be recognised in the UK.... at least not yet.

And it’s naive to think that, if laws were relaxed in places like the UK around finances, it wouldn’t be poor women looking for a way out who would be at risk of exploitation. As someone said previously, if surrogacy is such an amazing gift, why aren’t rich, healthy women with access to amazing obstetric care, providing babies for poor women who can’t afford IVF?

My view is, worldwide, surrogacy takes advantage of vulnerable women. There may be occasions when a woman is fully consenting to all the risks and willing to undertake surrogacy. But I want to protect those vulnerable women who would see this as their only option and would take risks they might not otherwise take.

The “empowered woman” surrogacy argument is neglectful if the fact that most surrogacy to date has been poor women in developing countries used as baby making machines for rich westerners because life holds nothing else for them in terms of prospects.

So you think it’s possible to draw up a contract for every available possibility? By doing that, one of the three parties - the mother, the adopting couple or the baby - gives up some rights. Do you think they should give up rights equally by a third? Or does someone get priority? If it’s not financial, how do you have a contract that protects a birth mother from lifelong disability and the financial loss that could result from a catastrophic incident?

Just FYI - You say ‘pro-surrogacy’ I think it’s more ‘pro-choice’.
I wouldn’t personally be a surrogate, but I’m pro not taking other women’s choices away.

Surrogacy contracts do exist but are not enforceable by law. Whilst the fetus is in the woman’s womb, it is her choice entirely what she does with her own body and the fetus.

Pregnancy is a risk, we all know this and any surrogate entering it will be aware of that. Let’s not assume she’s a dumb child who doesn’t know that she may have a PPH or similar.

I would assume a midwife speaks to the pregnant woman alone at the initial appointment, as they do with traditional booking in appointments to grasp if there is abuse or similar. Who do Midwife’s report this too? I’d assume it would be the same people? The police?

In your scenarios, you appear to be acting as if the woman herself would be clueless and incapable of thinking of these things herself prior to entering into the agreement - is this your overall view of women in general or just when they decide to be a surrogate?

@NotBadConsidering I'd say that before the conception took place a contract covering all of these aspects be drawn up and agreed protocols be stated for eventualities. I don't think it can be a one size fits all document as different couples/surrogates may want control of different aspects, but as with any complex contract, it should be discussed and written up before the event takes place.

All this talk of ‘what’s to stop a rich couple sending her extra money off the record’ type stuff is just bizarre.

Not half as bizarre as the notion that women sign up to agencies, volunteer to undergo morning sickness, swollen ankles and all the various other side-effects of pregnancy, not to mention the almost inevitable pain of childbirth, simply in order to gift the 'joy of parenthood' to total and complete strangers.

Like I said, how often do people undergo personal sacrifice purely out of kindness towards strangers? Very rarely.

mypuddin and Taxtaxtax

I posted this a few pages ago and it’s gone unanswered. Could you try, given your pro-surrogacy stance?

I posted this on a thread a while back. I’d be grateful to those who are pro-surrogacy if they could tell me how they would address the conflict of rights in these scenarios. These are based on common things I see:

At 12 week prenatal testing it’s discovered the fetus has a severe abnormality. The surrogate wants to abort, should she be allowed to? What if the adoptive parents are religious and don’t want her to? What if the adoptive parents want to abort but the surrogate is religious and doesn’t want to? What if the pregnancy will threaten her life but the adoptive parents don’t want to abort? What if the adoptive parents decide that if she continues with a pregnancy resulting in a child with a severe abnormality they won’t have anything to do with it?

What if the pregnant woman has a major complication like a pulmonary embolism? What if she can’t return to full functioning afterwards? What if she can never work again as a result? What if she can’t look after her own family?

What if there is a conflict between parties about timing and mode of delivery? Who gets to decide? What if there’s a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury to the baby as a result of this decision? Is it anyone’s fault? Should a woman be forced to undertake a Caesarean section?

What if after a severe hypoxic ischaemic injury the adoptive parents decide they don’t want to look after a child with severe spastic quadraplegic cerebral palsy? Who does the baby belong to?

What if the pregnant woman developed gestational diabetes and didn’t look after herself? Ditto high blood pressure?

What if there’s an intrauterine fetal death? What if it’s discovered the pregnant woman smoked and drank? What if she ate something considered high risk? What if she undertook an activity deemed high risk? Should blame be apportioned? Could someone sue someone in this scenario?

What if, in the postnatal period, the birth mother develops severe postnatal depression or psychosis? Who looks after her? For how long? What if it stays with her for years?

What if the pregnant woman is group B strep positive? What if she doesn’t want antibiotics? What if she does but the adoptive parents don’t because they want everything natural? What if she’s given antibiotics and has an allergic reaction? What if she has a recurrence of previously unknown genital herpes? What if the baby has herpes encephalitis postnatally as a result? Is that her fault?

What if she develops antibodies to the fetus’s red blood cells or platelets? What if that results in invasive in utero procedures? What if she needs immunoglobulin as a result and has a reaction?

What if she has a severe postpartum haemorrhage? What if she needs a blood transfusion or two?

Basically, if harm results to the pregnant woman as a result of the pregnancy whose responsibility is that? Can the finances ever truly reconcile all eventualities? Can/should a pregnant woman be forced to undertake medical treatment if it’s in the best interests of a third party? What if what is in her best interests is not what is in the best interests of that third party?

Who pays for hospital parking? Who pays for petrol to get to appointments? Who attends appointments? What if there is another medical issue arises requiring confidentiality? Should a doctor disclose this information in front of adoptive parents present in an appointment? If adoptive parents are at appointments what pressure is there? Would the pregnant woman be able to openly disclose concerns? What if a doctor or midwife suspected there was coercion? Who would they report that to? What’s the burden of proof for coercion? How would the legal system address this quickly with an advancing pregnancy?

Any suggestions of how these potential conflicts in common clinical scenarios could be dealt with would be interesting to hear.

All this talk of ‘what’s to stop a rich couple sending her extra money off the record’ type stuff is just bizarre.

What’s to stop a driver, driving drunk and running over a child? Conscience? Respect for the law?

We don’t say no one is allowed a licence because you might drink drive.

Let people make their own decisions. Why do people find it so hard to trust women and trust that they can make the right decision for them, and don’t need other people making decisions for them?

Her body, her choice, not your business.

If she’s enslaved/forced/blackmailed that’s a different story, already against the law and would/should be dealt with.

Do any of you who are against it, know someone who’s been a surrogate?

Bloody hell! Have I stepped into a daily mail comments page?!! Can't believe how many are so anti surrogacy. A loving couple, one of whom is the biological parent , have a baby with the help of a woman, who, for whatever reason (in uk can't be financial incentive) chose to help. How is that wrong?

Many women are crap mums, giving birth doesn't automatically mean the baby will have a bond with the birth mother. In this case it will have that bond with its fathers.

Of those who are anti-surrogacy some will be pro-life and some will be pro choice. I doubt every single poster here is a vehement pro-choice advocate, or the contrary. As always there's a presumption that we're an amorphous blob of one opinion, it's just not the case.

There may be a separate discussion about whether you can coherently be pro choice and anti surrogacy... but this discussion has naff all to do with that. It's purely looking at the morality and consequences of surrogacy in and by itself.