To think that going abroad for surrogacy should be far more controlled

[ReallyTired]

This couple are planning to bring back FOUR babies from India.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24670212

No one in the right mind diliberately choose to have quads. I feel that the family have not thought through the logistics of bringing up four babies. I feel shocked at the utter contempt the wife has for her two surrogate.

There are laws to prevent unsuitable people adopting from abroad and I feel that there should be laws to prevent unsuitable people using surrogates to get hold of a baby/babies.

whereas I guess they cannot afford a conscience if they want a child. hence their comments.

But they could, they have the time. They could have implanted into one woman and then if she didnt conceive, go straight onto the second woman. To implant in 2 at the same time is plain stupid!

"If the rules/guidelines/whatever hadn't been adhered to, then the paperwork couldn't ever be completed and then those children could never enter the UK. And their parents might not be able to stay in whichever country the children were born in and so the children would end up in care overseas. That's unthinkable."

I am sure that India would not want the financial burden of foreign children. Prehaps the goverment would tighten up its laws to insist that clinics see evidence of a home study before initating treatment.

Why is it anymore terrible to have a healthy British child in an indian orphanage than an Indian child? If its unthinkable for a white child to be put in care in india then surely its unthinkable for a child of ANY COLOUR to be in an orphanage in India. At the moment there is nothing to stop disabled white babies being abandoned in an Indian orphanage.

Parents have at least nine months to sort out the paperwork. There is really no excuse. However I don't think its practical to apply a new law repropectively. I fear that one of the surrogates would be subjected to a complusory late term abortion if the parents were only allowed to take home two babies.

I saw that article. I really hoped, for the sake of those 4 children if nothing else, that the parents had been misquoted by whoever wrote it.

According to the UKBA link I posted up thread, UK law recognizes the surrogate mother as the birth mother, regardless of the genetic make up of the child.

Thus, I think Indian surrogacy is rather legally risky and not as straight forward as some of UK prospective parents may think.

I really don like the attitude of the parents, these are the womwaving have given you the most precious things in theworld, and your comparing then to te mundane I.e builder and Gardner. These women have enabled them to become parents, at least say thank you.

You're being really quite ridiculous ReallyTired. I'm guessing that you are able to sit up there on your high horse because you've never suffered from infertility. You have no idea of the sheer desperation that it can cause. Do you want some bureaucrat coming to your house after you have a positive pregnancy test and determining whether you are a suitable person to have children?

What if these children had been naturally occurring quads? Should the parents then pick just two to bring home to suit some law? The parents have done nothing that is against the law of either country. Logically, it may not have been the best choice at the time, but hindsight is 20/20. When you're standing in the fertility clinic and the doctor says you have x healthy embryos, and do you want one or two implanted, logic says just one, but then you start thinking that after all these years, surely you'll have better chance with two rather than one, and it's costing you so much money just for this cycle, and you've traveled so far, and surely twins wouldn't be soooo bad. Unless you've been there yourself, it's very hard to judge.

Yes and supposed unless you've faced organ failure, you have no right to judge poor people selling their organs.

No is denying that infertility is an horrific experience. What people are saying is that it does not give you the right to exploit or coerce another person and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that these surrogacy farms are both exploitative and coercive.

I imagine that the costs of indian surrogacy is not as low as you would think once you factor in airfares and hotel costs. If UK law recongises the birth mother as the surrogate regardless of genetic make up then indian surrogacy is essentially intenational adoption.

International adoption in the UK was tightened up after some totally unsuitable parents adopted children from abroad.

What would you think if Alan and Judith Kilshaw and Judith's new husband opted for Indian Surrogacy to provide them with children.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1351216/Judith-Kilshaw-Mad-sad-just-desperate-fame.html

A few years ago they bought twins over the internet. Surely indian surrogacy is not that much different. If Judith Kilshaw's husband used his own sperm to fertilise a donated ova would it be acceptable for him to bring the child back to the UK.

Yes, I do agree with you, but they have not broken any laws. And these are going to be four living breathing children we are talking about, who are much wanted by their biological parents. You can't now turn around and say that you don't think they're very nice people so they shouldn't be allowed to have them.

It is the countries that allow their citizens to be used in such a manner that you need to be tackling, not individual couples who are doing what they are legally permitted to do to get their much wanted child.

Midnite - the point of this thread is that this practice is ethically wrong, therefore the laws should be changed.

There are many examples of UK laws being changed to stop UK citizens partaking in unethical activity abroad, for example there are certain animal byproducts from endangered species that are legal to buy abroad, but you are forbidden to import them into the UK.

You cannot just "buy" a child abroad and bring them into the UK with going through officially recognised adoption procedures. Why? Because allowing people to buy children could very easily become hugely exploitative.

Why should surrogacy be treated any differently? Are we saying that surrogate parents should be treated better than adoptive parents, or would you be happy with people being allowed to buy children too?

MidniteScribbler

People suffer all kinds of hardship. I feel that infertility does not give a couple the right to abuse another human being. Infertility does not excuse appauling behaviour. I imagine that the fact that many parents never met the surrogate dehumanises her.

The desire for a rich woman in the west should not mean that a poor indian woman is incarcerated for 9 months unable to see her own children. I can't see any woman choosing such a lifestyle and suspect that some of these women are forced into surrogacy.

You want to control who can and can't have children. Oh, wait, no, you don't care about people who have no trouble conceiving and can have ten kids despite bringing them up in poverty, not sending them to school, or being born addicted to drugs.

They're not on your radar. Just those who can't conceive naturally. That's what disgusts me about your plan to inspect the homes of people who are infertile.

I imagine that the fact that many parents never met the surrogate dehumanises her

As an aside, there was an interesting piece on the World Service last night and, apparently, due to the stigma around surrogacy in India, the surrogates don't tend to go in for meeting the people whose children they carry.

"Clearly this couple weren't thinking straight, and I wonder why their friends didn't stage an intervention to be honest. I can only assume they went to India with the intention of having one or two embryos replaced, but once they were in India, they lost their grip on reality because they were so determined there would be a baby. No, it's not right, but relying on them to get to realise that by themselves isn't the answer. Legislation is. "

I feel that a home study should be done before any embroyos are implanted. The number of embroyos implanted should not be done on a whim. Potentially this couple could have come home with SIX newborn babies.

At what point do you think British law should intervene? If there had been nine embroyos would it be OK for the family to use 3 surrogates and potentially come come with 9 newborns. The use of surrogate mothers means that family could have an artifically high number of genetic children that would never occur naturally. Its rather like an emperor with a harem of concubines having in excess of a hundred children. (Without the concubines to take care of the kids.)

In a situation where there is no home study then I would prefer children to fostered in the UK rather than left in India. I feel that this is an area that needs regulation and a lot of careful thought.

Naturally occuring quads are extremely rare and I doult that anyone would choose to have 4 newborns. A family with quads would need full time around the clock help to give an optimum standard of parenting to so many babies. (A nursery nurse in a day nusery can only look after 3 babies)

I agree that the clinic are the most in the wrong. But the parents are too. No-one can be unaware of the risks a triplet pregnancy could pose to the gestational carrier and to the babies themselves. It is irresponsible. Just because someone is willing to pay doesn't mean it is a risk society should permit.

It is very simple.

Are these surrogate mothers being treated in an ethical manner, or is using surrogates in India a way of bypassing UK laws and ethics?

If it it found that these surrogate mothers not being treated ethically, then it is straightforward to state that from date X UK citizens are no longer permitted to use Indian surrogacy services for children they wish to bring into the UK.

I notice no one has responded to my query as to why it has been acceptable to stop potential adoptive parents from buying babies without going through official and ethical channels, but to put legislation in place for international surrogacy would be so wrong.

Infertility and the rights of people with infertility cannot be used to exploit or restrict the rights of others.

That people are able to conceive naturally in less than ideal circumstances is irrelevant. It doesn't make what is happening to these women in India any less exploitative or abhorrent.

In a large family children are all different ages. It is not the same as having four newborn children. The older children are no where near as demanding and needy as a newborn. Most children sleep through reliably from the age of two years old. Generally children have developed some level of common sense and concept of safety by three years old. Most large families only have two children under three at the most unless there are twins.

I suppose that its impossible for an infertile couple understand quite how relentless it is caring for a small baby. Lets face it most childless people have no clue how life turns upside down when you have children.

Looking after four newborns is not the same as looking after four children. Its not just the baby stage but the manic toddler stage when an 18 month old child has a complete death wish and is hell bent on climbing the furniture. Can you really imagine having to take four babies with you to the toilet? The thought of potty training four two year olds would feel me with dread. It would be a struggle to find time to interact and play with four babies when you have so many nappies to change and mouths to feed.

Suriving quads are very rare in nature and no one with any sense would diliberately choose to have four babies of the same age. I hope that a family with naturally occuring quads can access some help to pay for support with baby care.