Voices we don't hear from - a child of surrogacy

I knew about India and Thailand (until the Pipah case) but it is more widespread than that, especially when people from countries where commercial surrogacy is illegal such as Sweden and Canada go to countries like Ukraine and the US.

Nettie This case, that I posted on another thread, highlighted the extent to which the UK has provided surrogacy services to other EU countries, some of which have banned surrogacy. I'm not sure about all those countries cited, certainly it is allowed in Greece as that appears to be becoming a "destination" no doubt as a result of the prolonged economic downturn, meaning impoverished women will seek to earn money through renting out their wombs.

https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed984

"ii) A COTS worker (who is a different person from the worker who assisted the court in M's case – 'Ms Y') wrote in November 2004 stating that COTS has 'helped many couples from Europe, and currently have couples from France, Greece, Norway, Belgium and Germany going through surrogacy'."

Do we think celebrity parents have encouraged this trend - eg Cristiano Ronaldo, Kim Kardashian?

Of course they bloody have.

Are we suggesting that surrogacy is just for the wealthy? Or are we saying that the NHS should be in the business of risking a third parties health and life to enable people to have a child? Either position is morally reprehensible.

I think its always worth reflecting on how the celebrity advocates of surrogacy. They are all either beneficiaries of surrogacy or have friends who have benefited from having surrogant children.

You don't on the other hand have celebrities who use their own bodies to host a surrogate child and give them to a poor infertile family in a altristristic manner (paying for their medical costs in the process).

Why is that?

Why aren't celebrities putting themselves forward for the extra publicity and to show how generous and selfless they are. Why aren't they risking their bodies to help others who also have this supposed 'right' to have children?

Until we see as many celebrity volunteering to be surrogates as there are recieving surrogate children, I am completely unable to see surrogancy as anything but treating babies and less well off women as commodity for rich couples to have children without the inconvience of a career break or the messy body wrecking business of giving birth.

If its so altruristic and generous and all about the 'right to a family' why is the pattern so tilted towards rich receiving / poor giving?

Thanks for the extra information about Gammy and Pipah OhHolyJesus. I did not know anything about the father’s conviction .

Another thing I did not realise until I read this thread was the extent of variation in surrogacy arrangements internationally. I knew about India and Thailand (until the Pipah case) but it is more widespread than that, especially when people from countries where commercial surrogacy is illegal such as Sweden and Canada go to countries like Ukraine and the US. Incidentally, Ukraine also has a very liberal international adoption policy.

I understand why people who have not been able to get fertility treatment in their own country go to a third country but this makes it harder to regulate in ways that protect the surrogate and the child. On her video Kaylee said she had not realised it was illegal to pay for surrogacy in Canada. She also did not seem to realise that her own fertility might be compromised by the multiple implantations and ovarian stimulation.

Do we think celebrity parents have encouraged this trend - eg Cristiano Ronaldo, Kim Kardashian?

Anyway,I'm just going to mention her complaint re egg freezing : "Mind-bogglingly, the hospital I was treated at did not offer me the chance to freeze my own eggs before treatment – a conversation that should take place with any young woman receiving cancer care."

This is true. Sadly NICE fertility protocol application are a postcode lottery.
There is usually time during cancer diagnosis for younger people to have the opportunity to discuss the possibility of fertility preservation.options.

I am really not fucking interested in the "skin the game" bollocks. I have never struggled with infertility, indeed my first child was conceived totally by accident when I was a teenager.

I have never been infertile but I have been poor. Poor to the point of desperation. Poor to the point I was worried I would have to give my child up. Poor to the point that if I had had the internet I may have been desperate enough to rent my womb out to a rich couple who wanted it.

Are we suggesting that surrogacy is just for the wealthy? Or are we saying that the NHS should be in the business of risking a third parties health and life to enable people to have a child? Either position is morally reprehensible.

I'm sorry people are infertile. It must be awful, but I can't remember ever hearing somebody suffering kidney failure earnestly arguing that those without failing organs shouldn't have an opinion on paid organ donation.

Well said @OhHolyJesus

So many things wrong with that article Cattenberg I hardly know where to begin.
Anyway,I'm just going to mention her complaint re egg freezing : "Mind-bogglingly, the hospital I was treated at did not offer me the chance to freeze my own eggs before treatment – a conversation that should take place with any young woman receiving cancer care."

Of course I don't know the specifics of her case and I'm talking in more general terms than just her. But aren't most breast cancers in women of her age are hormone related? I find it extraordinary that anyone would want to delay their cancer treatment, and add a further insult to their body in the form of hormone treatments for egg collection. Or indeed for IVF at the end of her treatment.

This isn't a criticism, but I personally wouldn't dream of adding further risk to my health problems. I wonder if there is any research around this in terms of long term health?

As an aside, I have had personal dealings with a young woman who did choose egg preservation before undergoing treatment for breast cancer. She developed OHSS and needed treatment in ICU. In her own words "I nearly died", which might be a real reflection of the seriousness of her condition, or her own interpretation based on the fact of needing treatment in ICU.

Re. US surrogacy law.

While I sympathise with what Sophie Beresinger has been through, I strongly disagree with her campaign.

graziadaily.co.uk/life/real-life/uk-surrogacy-law/

Just popping up my hand to say I don’t have children, I couldn’t as I’m infertile, and surrogacy was never on the table because of exactly the considerations that michelle and ohholyjesus so eloquently outline. So it is entirely possible to have skin in the game without hypocrisy - my moral convictions aren’t that flexible.

I don’t believe in the “right” to be a parent, and even if I did, I would still want that to be weighed against the rights of children not to be commodities.

As this is a global issue, any cases of trauma felt by the children need to be voiced. Rather than continuing blindly as it serves our purpose, we might then have a chance to see what the size of this very real issue is that effects a large number of these children. While I doubt it would be as easy as being able to contact the biological donors or the surrogate, maybe that is the first step?

Sadly, you also have the recent issue of the woman with the aim of having the NHS pay for multiple surrogate children from the USA (not highlighting why she has asked the NHS, the point here is that she wants to get them via the US system). How many people bypass the UK system in favour of a less regulated country?

I lived in Australia during the Baby Gammy case unfolded. It is illegal there and the wealthy couple simply went abroad.

Its not just a harms issue - its a rights issue.

How about something about child marriage Goose, linked to religion, maybe something in Sharia law? I can't quite put my finger on it either but I know what you're saying.

I am thinking marriage might be the best example too, as in a lot of ways it's a legal formalisation of a natural relationship that's intended to obligations and such that belong to each person or family. Much like the legal element of being a parent is very much a description of a natural phenomena. If we made an inherent element of marriage mean giving up the natural rights of one party, that would obvious problem. Maybe the idea of implied consent to sex, but even that wasn't so legally one sided and the person had at least the opportunity to choose not to marry.

Oh

Anything can go wrong in any pregnancy, if everyone involved is a consenting adult entering the situation of their own free will I fail to see the argument to stop them. Plenty of women who have health problems choose to get pregnant despite being told they’re very high risk, I work with numerous women who have serious heart conditions who have pregnancy after pregnancy despite being told they have a high risk of death and complications. Should we ban them from getting pregnant because of the risks? I don’t think we should start policing women’s bodies for “their own good”. If a woman wants to offer her womb as an “incubator” for altruistic reasons then who am I to stop her?

I think proper counselling, screening and legal contracts before any surrogacy occurs would help to prevent or swiftly resolve situations where women change their mind and refuse to hand over the baby, especially when they are not the biological mother of that baby. I’ve heard of some cases go to court and become lengthy legal battles, which should be prevented imo as it will be extremely traumatic for all involved, especially the child. I’m not sure morally what the right answer is if they are biological mother though, however, that’s more adoption than surrogacy in my eyes.

That's a big handwave to those 'few isolated cases' of the created child being unhappy and harmed - I'm sure it's fairly important to them - when numbers aren't known and can't be known, nor the statistical proportion. How many are ok collateral damage?

Likewise there's a whole raft of dodgy aspects to surrogacy, not just the lack of consent and lack of consideration for the impact on the child as a person as opposed to a desired product.

Goose

Many children are purposely created naturally to be born into terrible circumstances and with terrible parents. Not all bad parents have children accidentally, many have child after child despite them being unable to parent well for whatever reasons. There are children who are purposely created by parents who have had their previous children removed from their care due to such poor parenting and/or environments, this forum is full of such people seeking advice. It seems odd to me to be so concerned about children who may be born into loving stable homes, with two great parents, where all the evidence suggest will not suffer or be harmed because of how they were created, because how they were created doesn’t fit into your idea of what is “good” or “right” for children (despite having no evidence to back this up), when there are thousands if not millions of children around the world who are created naturally in much worse circumstances whose whole lives will be blighted because of it and nothing is done to try to prevent this from happening, because it’s their parents’ “right” to procreate.

I can somewhat see your point in that creating a child knowing they will never know or have a relationship with their father/mother may lead to issues further down the line, however, I’m yet to see any evidence that this is a large scale problem amongst such children and harms them, in fact all the evidence suggests the contrary. A few isolated cases such as the ones posted on this thread isn’t enough justification imo to ban egg/sperm donation and surrogacy.

I am an adoptive parent and adoption was very much my first choice. This is true of more adopters than you may think. I have no sense of loss in terms of not having a biological child. I am, however, acutely aware of the loss of my DC may have to deal with.

There are people who purposefully choose to adopt because they know there are children who need parents. I doubt you'd find many children who would say they'd rather be adopted than have whatever situations that led to their adoption. Most would like their biological parents to be able to care for them properly. Adoption happens when something has gone wrong in a family.

But adoption agencies are increasingly aware of problems in international adoption where economic benefits of westerners coming in to adopt children means people are encouraged to give up their kids, or solutions that allow parents to care for their own kids properly aren't sought. International adoption itself has come under real scrutiny because the children are taken so far from their birth parents and extended family that any relationship with those people is unlikely.

These kinds of considerations are about increasing recognition of children's rights, but to a large degree they are in the opposite direction of the inherent nature of gamete donation and surrogacy. It's very strange to see more and more countries closed to international adoptions to protect children while surrogacy is seen more and more as a commercial business by many people.

Obviously any situation where someone is exploited or coerced into getting pregnant or “giving their baby away” is appalling regardless of the circumstances. I do not agree with poor vulnerable women being used as incubators for rich couples, or donating their eggs for cash etc. the power imbalance is too great. However, clearly not all surrogacy or egg/sperm donation occurs under these circumstances, in this country at least we appear have tight regulations to prevent exploitation.

Is this even possible is the question.

I doubt it is, when we live in a society where women face such power imbalances throughout the world.

Obviously any situation where someone is exploited or coerced into getting pregnant or “giving their baby away” is appalling regardless of the circumstances. I do not agree with poor vulnerable women being used as incubators for rich couples, or donating their eggs for cash etc. the power imbalance is too great. However, clearly not all surrogacy or egg/sperm donation occurs under these circumstances, in this country at least we appear have tight regulations to prevent exploitation. I am not a legal expert on surrogacy by any means, so can’t say whether I believe it’s “enough”. However, I can not find any logical reason to object to surrogacy for altruistic reasons. If someone offers to be a surrogate for a relative or friend purely to help them have a biological child why should we prevent that? Who are we protecting in that situation when there is no coercion or exploitation? If you say the child, then as in my previous posts, I’m yet to see any evidence to say the child will suffer or be harmed due to being born via surrogacy. Likewise I can’t find any reason to object to egg or sperm donation done for altruistic reasons either as there’s no evidence to say children who are born via this method suffer because of it.

Not all kids are purposefully created because the parents decide they really want children, many just happen.

But the questions around surrogacy and IFV really have nothing to do with children never being born into ideal situations. It's about creating a legal and institutional framework where they are purposefully stripped of what are normally considered deeply important parts of their lives, even their rights. And not in any way for their own benefit.

I'm trying to think of an analogy but it's difficult because generally they are about adults who have some level of autonomy. But something along the lines of, we know many jobs, or marriage partnerships, may be unideal in some way. One person may exploit the other, the people we work for or live with is imperfect. That's different than creating a set of laws that make the inequality an inherent part of the institution of being an employee or spouse, which we try and avoid. And the more so when it's not just a small part of your life you have some choice over, but instead is at the root of your existence.