Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman asking nhs to pay for US surrogacy

162 replies

hoorayforharoldlloyd · 16/12/2019 06:43

A woman whose cervical cancer was missed by the NHS is suing for over £500k to enable surrogacy of 4 children in the US as she wants the legally binding contract that isn't available here.

Initial ruling found against her, appeal court for, going to supreme court.

Very concerning for opening the way to commercial surrogacy in this country.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
ISaySteadyOn · 03/04/2020 08:23

Awful news. Horrifying.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 03/04/2020 01:10

Does anyone know if she paid her own legal fees? I was wondering why someone who could afford to bring this case wouldn't simply pay for her own surrogacy. I'm wondering if people with interests in trying to undermine protections for surrogates might have funded her.

Very good question.

macaroniandpizza · 03/04/2020 00:40

Cannot believe she has got the go ahead for what she wants. So much is wrong with this i dont know where to begin...

Kantastic · 03/04/2020 00:28

I didn't necessarily think - ha, didn't finish my thought there. I didn't have much hope that a judge would care about the impact on women's rights but I did think they would care about the impact on NHS coffers. Is the judge allowed to consider that? It seems so obvious that the NHS shouldn't have to fund this.

And would love to know the answer about her legal fees; something about this situation is making my skin crawl.

Kantastic · 03/04/2020 00:24

That's horrific. I read this thread before but i thought the woman's case sounded so ludicrous that she wouldn't stand a hope of winning. I didn't necessarily think

Does anyone know if she paid her own legal fees? I was wondering why someone who could afford to bring this case wouldn't simply pay for her own surrogacy. I'm wondering if people with interests in trying to undermine protections for surrogates might have funded her.

Goosefoot · 03/04/2020 00:07

I find this a little jaw dropping, it just doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm trying to think of something else comparable, but I can't really.

TitianaTitsling · 02/04/2020 22:11

Absolutely grim,. How can someone who wishes to be a mother be so bloody disregarding of another? If any of these children are female, would she be happy for them to be a surrogate?

SadlyMissTaken · 02/04/2020 22:06

It's appalling. How can it be right that the NHS is being forced to pay for something that is illegal under UK law?

FannyCann · 02/04/2020 21:00

I know OhHolyJesus
Having to be friends with the surrogate mother "doesn't appeal"!
And the judges thought : Fair enough. Who wants to be friends with some plebeian Breeder after all.

It's sickening.

OhHolyJesus · 02/04/2020 20:43

It's doesn't appeal?!

She's not shopping for perfectly ripe avocados.

Jesus wept.

I don't mean to be nasty but I'm rapidly losing any sympathy I had for this woman.

She could be campaigning for better cancer diagnosis and applying for foster care or to adopt. Any children she manages to have via surrogacy will be her ultimate revenge for what she has suffered and her 'prize/s'.

This leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. I continue to be astonished at the ruling.

FannyCann · 02/04/2020 19:59

Reposting the judgement.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0013-judgment.pdf

FannyCann · 02/04/2020 19:58

From the judgement posted up thread:

"In the circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that the claimant’s clear preference is for a commercial surrogacy arrangement in California. As Sir Robert Nelson said, “the system is well-established, the arrangement binding and the intended parents can obtain a pre-birth order from the Californian court confirming their legal status in relation to the surrogate child” (para 31). A further disadvantage of the UK system in the claimant’s eyes is that “it is the surrogate mother who chooses the intended parent rather than the other way around ... the idea of being at the mercy of someone else’s choosing, and attending informal parties to meet
Page 8
surrogate mothers frightens her” (para 32). In other words, the friendship model of altruistic surrogacy arrangements promoted by surrogacy organisations here does not appeal."

FannyCann · 02/04/2020 19:53

I haven't checked back through all the details @OhHolyJesus but I think she wants to do it in the USA because the contracts mean she can be sure of getting her baby, the surrogate mother has no right to change her mind. Somewhere the case referenced how she could not do surrogacy in the UK because of the fear that the surrogate mother would change her mind and seek to keep the baby.
Also I suppose high end maternity care in the US is perceived to be safer than going to one of the bargain basement destinations perhaps. Or maybe the USA is perceived to fulfil this part of the judgement: "the foreign country has a well-established system in which the interests of all involved, the surrogate, the commissioning parents and any resulting child, are properly safeguarded" ?

Procrastinator2 · 02/04/2020 10:31

Disappointed in Lady Hale.

DidoLamenting · 02/04/2020 10:12

“It is no longer contrary to public policy to award damages for the costs of a foreign commercial surrogacy......"

That is just nonsense.

AnneLovesGilbert · 02/04/2020 10:11

Terrible news.

Imnobody4 · 02/04/2020 10:06

This is an example of judges overreaching the law determined by parliament. There is no human right to have a child anymore than there is a human right to have sex. I'm shocked by the arrogance of this judgement.

OhHolyJesus · 02/04/2020 09:36

I'm very intrigued as to why she is going to the US specifically. There are other countries that allow commercial surrogacy.

Any thoughts?

Irial · 02/04/2020 09:35

on one of the links

The court heard earlier that having at least four children was the woman's 'central ambition' - her sister has 10 - but radical surgery made her infertile.

10 kids?

Lordfrontpaw · 02/04/2020 08:47

Having a baby is not a human right, nor does it save your life. She could adopt, as a lot of people do. Sorry if this sounds bitchy and un feeling but the NHS is there to look after us all and save lives, not procure women for having babies.

BeetrootRocks · 01/04/2020 16:28

The idea of the NHS being forced to pay to put a woman in another country at risk is grotesque.

BeetrootRocks · 01/04/2020 16:27

And if the woman hired as a surrogate is seriously injured or dies as a result?

Ali85 · 01/04/2020 16:01

The judgment is here if anyone wants to read it. Not too long for a SC judgment.

DidoLamenting · 01/04/2020 15:48

But delivering the dissenting judgment, Lord Carnwath said: “The fact that the laws of other jurisdictions and other systems may reflect different policy choices seems to me beside the point. It would in my view be contrary to [the] principle [of consistency between civil and criminal law] for the civil courts to award damages on the basis of conduct which, if undertaken in this country, would offend its criminal law.”

I agree entirely with Lord Carnwath.

FannyCann · 01/04/2020 15:09

Also pretty outraged by this from Lady Hale.

"Lady Hale, the former president of the supreme court who gave the majority decision, said: “The courts have bent over backwards to recognise the relationships created by surrogacy, including foreign commercial surrogacy. The government now supports surrogacy as a valid way of creating family relationships, although there are no plans to allow commercial surrogacy agencies to operate here."

“It is no longer contrary to public policy to award damages for the costs of a foreign commercial surrogacy......"

“Second, it must be reasonable for the claimant to seek the foreign commercial arrangements proposed rather than to make arrangements within the UK. This is unlikely to be reasonable unless the foreign country has a well-established system in which the interests of all involved, the surrogate, the commissioning parents and any resulting child, are properly safeguarded.”

When did we have that discussion in the UK that the government supports surrogacy?

Why did the courts take it upon themselves to "bend over backwards" to recognise the relationships created by surrogacy, including foreign commercial surrogacy. I'm disgusted. So it's fine to exploit poor women in Asia and the Ukraine?

And what evidence does she have that the interests of the surrogate and the resulting child are properly safeguarded? EVERYTHING I have seen about commercial surrogacy abroad, including in the USA tells me the opposite. These women are shamefully treated.

Does our British woman expect to have a contract with the American surrogate mothers she plans to use similar to these contracts ?

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/