to use a donor egg and an Indian surrogate to have a child (long)?

[2aminthemorning]

I'm in my thirties and in a wheelchair since a pregnancy damaged my pelvis. We have a daughter of 18 months old. DH has a good job and we have a pleasant quality of life. I care for DD with the help of a lovely girl from the village.

DH adores babies/children and is born to be a dad. We had always hoped to have a good size of a family. Before I became disabled, we'd been seriously considering leaving the UK to work in an orphanage in India alongside some friends who are already there, with the intention of starting a smaller sister orphanage in a neighbouring region. We'd assumed that we'd probably end up adopting as a result of that.

Now we're in a position where it would be a huge risk to have another child. Even egg retrieval is not advised. We've been told that we would probably not be passed as adoptive parents either, because of my disability. That was a blow.

Regarding surrogacy...I wouldn't be comfortable about not paying for it - it would be the least we could do. And if we were to enter into such a surrogacy arrangement, we'd rather do so with a surrogate who is going to find the money very helpful in her life (i.e. start a small business, pay for education etc.). We came across a clinic in India that is known as a gold standard for medical ethics and talked to the director about the welfare of the women in her care. She was very positive about the practical impact of surrogacy on the lives of the women she'd worked with.

Regarding the donor egg, I see the pitfalls (emotional work for the child to process as he/she grows up, lack of information about egg donor, potential strain in the family dynamic). I'm sure there are more. Not to diminish them, but surely those negatives wouldn't outweigh the significance of being alive in a loving family.

Is this whole idea unreasonable?

By the way, 'you should just be grateful to be alive' is what people used to say to adoptees 50 years ago. Nowadays it's generally recognised that it's a damn insensitive thing to say, and please be assured donor-conceived people find it equally upsetting.

HDee- you make a fair comment. I can see from the view of the surrogate that there many be a requirement for compensation of a sort. Costs associated with the pregnancy- clothes, travel, time of work etc, but as someone who has/is considering surragacy, I see what I am considering as me gifting something wonderful to someone not as fortunate as me. I don't want paying for that, I want to do that because I want to.

I'm just intrigued as to why as the woman wanting a surrogate, she feels a requirement to pay someone is necessary a positive/necessity in locating a good/suitable surrogate

You're paying her to provide you with a baby. Buying.

She is charging you for providing a baby. Selling.

If you are not prepared to go through 'the piles, the sleepiness nights, the days vomiting into the toilet, the abstinence from alcohol/tobacco, the wear and tear on her body etc.' then you shouldn't do it. Obviously.

Making it into a business, so that poverty stricken women are forced into going through 'the piles, the sleepiness nights, the days vomiting into the toilet, the abstinence from alcohol/tobacco, the wear and tear on her body etc.' because they need the money is grim.

The compensation for 'the piles, the sleepiness nights, the days vomiting into the toilet, the abstinence from alcohol/tobacco, the wear and tear on her body etc.' is knowing that you have given someone the greatest gift that anyone can give (and have been financially compensated for any expenses).

I am donor-conceived, that is to say, I was conceived using a sperm donor. As it was 30+ years ago the donor was anonymous. I hate not knowing who my biological father is. I love my 'social' dad but I'd wouldn't be me without the input of this other man so I'm irrevocably linked to him. 'Love is enough', 'the real father is the one who changes the nappies', 'you should just be grateful to be alive', I've heard all the platitudes and they're not true - as far as I'm concerned I have three parents, though I don't know what kind of relationship with the donor I'd want if I was able to trace him (I'm trying to trace him; I'd definitely want to exchange photos and information). Please, please do not go abroad and use an anonymous donor. Anonymity was lifted in this country in 2005 for a very good reason i.e. it was finally recognised that donor-conceived people, like adopted people, should be able to trace their biological parents.

Please first of all listen to this poster. This is someone who knows what the potential child may have to go through in adulthood. This is the prospective consequence of what you're thinking about doing. This post move me so much.

I think YABVU to go to India to pay someone to be a surrogate, someone who may be in dire poverty and who sees this as her only way out of poverty. It's very sad when someone from an affluent society can use another human being in this way. I think it's very unethical.

Regarding the particular clinic you are looking at - well of course they're going to blow their own trumpet. They're hardly likely to say otherwise as they want your business. That's what it is actually - a business.

Zooanimals, do you work for free? Providing your time and expertise for costs only?

And why do you assume that only poverty stricken women do surrogacy? Remember, payment already exists, only under the guise of expenses.

ZooAnimals ,should soldiers who lose limbs while fighting for our country not be compensated? Because, you know, they chose to do it, and being proud of what they have done should be enough?

Are you seriously comparing being a bus driver or a dentist or a teacher to being a surrogate? It's not a job.

I don't do my job for free. I give blood for free. I'd give bone marrow for free. If someone close to me needed a kidney I give it for free. I'd donate my organs for free (obviously I'd be dead, but I'm not expecting my next of kin to get a cheque). This is comparable to surrogacy, not working on the check-out in Tesco!

mrsterrys: The guidelines for clinics are optional. That is why we'd thought of a clinic that's choosing to abide by them and act as a sort of flagship enterprise. You're wrong in assuming all clinics will not pay heed to them.

alexanders: Thank you for sharing this. I'll share it with my husband and will take it on board. The egg donors at this clinic are not anonymous.

missrir: Do you think that surrogates in the UK should not be paid 'expenses'? How is it possible to establish there is no financial incentive? If there is no financial incentive, the altruistic element of surrogacy would loom very large. How would the emotional consequences of this be regulated?

pinkdelight: the fact that it couldn't happen here tells you the ethical standards are below what we should expect - It's a different approach in India, and certainly has faults that need addressing, but I don't assume that everything done in the UK is better and of a higher moral calibre. For example, in India, there is an ethical requirement (admittedly not mandatory) that a woman should not bear more than a certain number of children in a surrogacy arrangement. There is no such requirement here, although there should be. Regarding fostering and adoption - we did foster before I became disabled. There is a lot of stigma against parents in wheelchairs, even now.

tinydancing: Yes, that's why the system needs regulation.

ifyoucanmove and hdee: I didn't mean to imply that all surrogate mothers in Britain are lonely or vulnerable. I'm really sorry for doing that. I was trying to highlight the need for policies to protect emotionally vulnerable people in Britain and make the point that every approach to surrogacy needs regulation to be ethical.

hdee: I think a court comes down on anything over 15 000. Are you saying that surrogacy has a commercial element here in the UK?

trainee: If someone handed their house to you tomorrow, would you accept it without any qualms?!

HDee as I understand it compensation to soldiers is paid because they've lost their job as a result of the injury and will now have additional needs. They're not buying their limbs. It's not a case of 'John needs a new leg, let's pay Steve £20,000 for his leg'?!

2am, I believe that not every surrogate necessarily does it exclusively for the 'feel-good' factor, yes. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. If everyone gets what they want at the end of it, I can't see the problem.

On what do you base your belief that courts 'come down' on anything over £15k? Not my experience.

2am - please look at the website of Natalie Gamble (a UK based lawyer specialising in fertility related issues.) Using a surrogate from overseas is fraught with legal difficulties.

You may also do well to look at Fertility Friends - a website that has a surrogacy section including UK based women using Indian clinics.

And compensation to surrogates is to cover the potential for loss of quality of life. Lets remember why the OP is disabled, yes? The surrogate could potentially lose her uterus, or even her life. And she doesn't deserve paying for taking that risk? Even if she gets the pleasure of creating a family afterwards?

No. Just like soldiers and police officers and nurses don't get paid for 'taking the risk'. If it happens, then compensation may be in order, but not for 'taking the risk'. If she doesn't want to take the risk, she doesn't need to do it. Are you under the impression that surrogacy is mandatory?

Yes, ZooAnimals I thought it was the law that every woman had to become a surrogate. Isn't that why there are so many available?

This has maybe been mentioned but there are alot of ethical issues especially for the women used for surrogacy in India have you considered the states as at least the women there will receive the money and won't be "kept"

alexanders: I wasn't saying that I planned to tell my child they're lucky to be alive. I meant, in thinking about any difficulties the child might encounter, I was wondering if those hardships would make it in the child's best interests not to be conceived. I was trying to decide if they would want to exist or not and couldn't imagine that they wouldn't. If that is a terrible way to think, please tell me as I didn't mean to be offensive.

'Yes, ZooAnimals I thought it was the law that every woman had to become a surrogate'

Ahh, see there is your mistake.

It's optional, so if women don't want to do it they don't have to! Brilliant.

So we don't need to bribe women who don't want to do it with money. Those who are happy to take the risk/go through it do so in the knowledge they're doing a wonderful thing. Those who don',t have no incentive to put themselves through something they don't want to do for money.

My advice to you would be to join a UK agency, use a straight surrogate who will use her own eggs. Choose carefully who you go ahead with (you should be able to weed out any 'needy' ones early on, most are entirely normal!) and maintain a relationship. Be honest with the child as he or she grows about about who your 'friend' is and what role that person played in bringing hem into the world.

If the child grows up knowing it will never be a shock and they will know their origins and how much you wanted him/her.

I disagree with HDee - I do not think it's advisable to use a surrogate who is using her own eggs.

Why not Nancy. Cuts out the middle-man. And drastically reduces cost.

What is the mortality rate of surrogates in India. I have a nasty feeling it is a bit higher than the 1 in 10,000 in the UK.

I was 29 when I got pregnant with dd. Very very fit and healthy. Perfect pregnancy. Perfect blood pressure, perfect weight gain, midwife commented several times on how easy the pregnancy seemed to be. The day before I went into labour I walked 2 - 3 miles easily as usual.

Sounding perfect surrogacy material?

Dd got stuck. Eventually I needed an emergency c-section. I had a major PPH. Started losing consciousness. Could vaguely hear shouting and sirens. My next memory is about 5 hours later. I was very lucky. All this happened where there were excellent doctors who saved my life and my fertility. (I'm now 33 and pregnant again.)

There is no way of guessing who will have problems in pregnancy or childbirth. Would you be able to live with yourself if the surrogate died?

I have no idea if that is a realistic risk but I would need to be very confident on the odds before I risked it.

Hdee - because in cases where the surrogate has refused to surrender the child it has always been hers genetically. Removing a genetic link also reduces the chance of the surrogate changing her mind.

I am afraid I can't get past the slight unease that you are buying a baby. You have one child so are already blessed. Why not focus your attention on the one you have an look into adopting overseas, fostering or just being good to other children, perhaps by volunteering or giving money / help? It all seems a bit cold hearted and rational and doesn't sit very well. You are asking for opinions and yet seem to already have made up your mind and have all the answers.

The percentage of UK surrogates who have changed their minds is tiny and hardly worth mentioning.