I do not do the sort of job that allows me to interact with social media during the day so apologies for not responding the past couple of days.
I worded the thread title badly, as I had really wanted discussion about the legitimacy of the Law Commission plans and their dressing up of surrogacy in the UK as being purely altruistic.
I accept that there are a very few women who are happy to go through pregnancy and childbirth for no material reward for close relatives or friends, indeed the commissioners’ own research showed one woman performed the service for a modest £470. However, they are in the minority and most women will expect some financial reward. Their research shows that the median payment was £14,795 with 9.61% being paid more than £20,000 and there has been significant increase in payments in recent years with a growth of 9.9% in the £10,000 to £15000 range between 2015 and 2018.
Hence the central dishonesty at the heart of the Law Commission’s plans. They recognise that the commercial surrogacy model is not popular in the UK : “14.63 Even with safeguards in place to protect against the exploitation of women, it may be considered that allowing payment for the gestational service a surrogate provides would send out the wrong message about how surrogacy is seen within the UK.”
So in order to seem more palatable and to comply with recommendations of the United Nations they seek an “altruistic” model. However, as I mentioned previously this creates a dilemma as the commissions’ recommendations will lead to a much larger surrogacy industry with many players making a profit:
“14.54 ^It is notable that other people involved in surrogacy receive payment for their contribution. Lawyers and medical staff receive their professional fees, while private fertility clinics, for example, operate on a commercial basis. Indeed, it seems that the role of surrogate – a role uniquely played by women42 – is the only one that the law prohibits from being recognised by receipt of payment. It may therefore be argued that not permitting payments undervalues the role of the surrogate:
14.55 It may be suggested, therefore, that not permitting surrogates to receive payment is a form of exploitation: surrogates are uniquely deprived of the choice whether to be paid for the service that they provide.^”
Thus they seek to pay women, so as not to be seen to be exploitative, by dressing it up as expenses, whilst maintaining a fiction that it is an altruistic model.
I don’t see how such an inherently dishonest system can be passed into law.
A previous poster mentions the largest cost was her loss of earnings, but 20 weeks maternity leave at £15,000 equates to an annual salary of £39,000. Most jobs at that level would provide maternity pay. Are they claiming maternity pay as well as “expenses”? I feel that could be problematic with HMRC , not to mention employers who I feel might rightly object to being expected to fund maternity pay for someone who was also claiming loss of pay to have a baby for someone else. Women fought for maternity benefits, there is still much discrimination with employers finding ways to dismiss women when they become pregnant. This does nothing for wider women’s rights.
Question 42
“19.51 We provisionally propose that the current ban on advertising in respect of surrogacy should be removed, with the effect that there will be no restrictions on advertising anything that can lawfully be done in relation to surrogacy arrangements.”
How is a system that includes unrestricted advertising anything but commercial? Advertisers certainly don’t do it for love. So the fact is that these plans seek to expand an open market in surrogacy.
I am also very concerned about other aspects of the consultation. Why, I wonder, did they consult with representatives from the Ukraine and not with our own RCM and RCOG? There is no consideration at all on the impact on the NHS.
In 502 pages and 118 questions there is barely a mention of egg donors. Where do they think all the eggs will come from?
In the USA young women, particularly college students,( high IQ, attractive and sporty women are very sought after) are targeted, harassed and coerced into selling their eggs.
No one tells them of the risks and they are ruthlessly exploited with many suffering serious harm as a result. I recommend viewing a YouTube video “Eggsploitation” to further understand what risks our young women will be exposed to if this consultation is accepted.
I am afraid that the Me,me,me and my rights, my right to have a baby at all costs, my right to produce a baby to “give” to someone else argument just doesn’t stand up. To everyone suggesting a lack of empathy towards infertile couples I say that of course I have sympathy however my greater sympathy and concern is for women who are coerced, misled and exploited and abused by the people whose only concern is to turn a profit, women and children who are trafficked and exploited. Which is what a booming surrogacy industry ends up doing.
From the United Nations statement:
“With a growing industry driven by demand, surrogacy is an area of concern for the rights and protection of the child.
There is also unease that the practice of engaging surrogate mothers in States with emerging economies to bear children for more wealthy intending parents from other States entails power imbalances and thus risks for both the children and surrogate mothers.
The report presented by the Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children to the Human Rights Council noted the presence of abusive practices in both unregulated and regulated contexts and provided analysis and recommendations on implementing the prohibition of the sale of children as it relates to surrogacy.”
Many of the recommendations of the Law Commission Consultation are in direct contravention of the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur.
A benign government has the right to and should pass laws for the greater good.
For instance my mother was furious when seat belt laws were introduced and felt she had a right to make her own choice. She rarely wore a seatbelt throughout my childhood. Had she had a bad accident her family would have been harmed by loss of their mother. Some people could argue they don’t drive or go in cars so they don’t need these laws.
But the state imposed these laws for the greater good and many lives have been saved, injuries reduced and with it costs to the NHS. Princess Diana would probably have lived if she had worn a seatbelt that night. So laws that impose on everyone a loss of personal freedom of choice are perfectly sound when enacted for the protection of wider society.
I strongly recommend everyone to look at the consultation and respond. That said, it is long and complex, I have spent in excess of twenty five hours reading it through and researching where I needed more information to answer the 118 questions. I have also attended a public consultation event to further my understanding of the proposals.
The Nordic Model Now ten minute download will save you the effort.
Here is the link:
nordicmodelnow.org/2019/08/30/how-to-respond-to-the-uk-surrogacy-consultation-in-10-easy-minutes/