To think the NHS should not bear the brunt of this?

[TheLoneRager]

I was exploring Tiktok and came upon this advertisement for surrogate mothers to come to the U.K. the agency concerned has strict basic requirements to be considered as a surrogate mother in the USA to ensure that only women in good health and with a good obstetric history are used. With health care in the USA being insanely expensive this makes good commercial sense.
So there are limits on age, weight/BMI, the number of previous pregnancies which must have been uncomplicated, no more than two previous LSCS. In fact all good common sense restrictions for any woman considering offering to be a surrogate mother.

However this advertisement states that if you do not meet the requirements of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine then it may still be possible to enter their “Hybrid Gestational Carrier Programme” and travel to the U.K. ,Canada or Greece to be a surrogate mother.

They will accept 6 or more previous vaginal deliveries or 3 or more LSCS, as well as older age groups and raised BMI.

I have no idea how this would work legally, but I feel quite sure that in practice it would mean the NHS being saddled with dealing with a high risk pregnancy. Maybe if the NHS discovered the truth the medical expenses would be charged (probably still a bargain compared to the USA) but maybe they seek to find a way to ensure medical care is free on the NHS.

And more importantly this is encouraging women to put themselves at risk by contracting to undertake a high risk pregnancy, and in a foreign country away from the support of their family and friends.

Whatever side of the fence you sit with respect to surrogacy in itself, I feel this encapsulates everything that is wrong with it and should be discouraged. I also feel outraged at the thought of the NHS being exploited in this way. AIBU?

vm.tiktok.com/ZMdPtTNPh/

More from the advert

Basic requirements from a couple of USA agencies.

The whole thing sounds revolting and wrong. Basically buying a woman's body. "Gestational carrier"
And no, the NHS should not be funding this.

Unless they are U.K. nationals or resident here, it won’t be covered on the NHS will it? My partner is Australian and with our current pregnancy we were told so many times about the hoops we had to jump through for her care to be covered on the NHS without her being liable to pay for it in full (which it is, as she is a resident here with an NI number). She has lived here for 7 years and is married to me, a U.K. citizen.

The nhs won't be saddled with the cost because if you are not a uk resident you have to pay for treatment.
DH is on a spouse visa and broke his arm. Within 5 days we had a letter from the hospital asking for numerous documents to prove his entitlement to treatment.
The nhs are clamping down on health tourism.

The nhs are clamping down on health tourism.

From the point of view of this type of health tourism that is reassuring - I'm not going to debate the wider issue which obviously causes a lot of problems for some people but is a whole other topic.

I wonder what sort of fees the NHS would charge in this type of case? I genuinely don't know how this would work legally or with respect to medical costs. From a buyer point of view surely it makes sense to choose a woman who will have a low risk pregnancy both for the health of the baby and to reduce costs. And if you are so awash with money that all those costs won't hurt, then why not spend the money making sure to find a healthy woman to be your surrogate mother?

I have no idea how this would work legally, but I feel quite sure that in practice it would mean the NHS being saddled with dealing with a high risk pregnancy.

I'm not sure this is legal, it may be what their agency advertises but an SM here can't get paid.

she is being paid thousands for the surrogacy plus all her expenses covered, the couple are not from UK and are not working or paying tax here either.

This is illegal. A surrogate mother cannot be paid under U.K. law. All those involved are breaking the law. Your friend can only have her expenses paid for, she needs to be a U.K. citizen I believe, not just a resident and the commissioning parents cannot apply for a parental order without being U.K. citizens and residents. They will need to adopt the baby, there will be problems for the baby to leave the U.K. no? How did they do this the first time?

Sorry I know you may not know these details but your story has made me so angry. It is outrageous that the NHS be used in this way, it was on its knees before the pandemic!

(The issue of parental orders and residency was brought up before elsewhere on this board, I will try to find it, a judge knew a U.K. surrogacy agency was advising international commissioning parents in ways that break U.K. law, nothing was done, this might be why things like this keep happening.)

I suppose the issue of surrogacy fees is quite simple if illegal. Presumably in the U.K. expenses are covered (legally) and additional payments are made in whichever jurisdiction the woman lives in. All highly dodgy of course but I can see it being done without difficulty.

The issues of nhs care and then signing off legal parenthood are much more complex.

I think this may be the case you are referring to @OhHolyJesus

I am amazed it didn't trigger a full scale investigation and prosecution.
I don't think we can rely on our courts to enforce the laws around this, and furthermore some of the judges seem to be somewhat naive, assuming it was all done with best intentions rather than, (in my cynical view) with a carefully planned scheme to circumvent the law.

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

I think that was it OP, I don't understand why this wasn't in the mainstream media it's so scandalous!

So let me get this straight, it's not illegal and foreigners are already coming to the U.K. for international surrogacy and this is completely fine for the NHS to carry all the costs? How is this not surrogacy tourism?

Basically COTS was giving wrong advice and encouraging international couples from EU countries where surrogacy is banned to use a U.K. SM and the NHS, and then helping them circumvent the law to obtain a parental order and go beck home with the baby.

People trafficking in other words.

Also the court intervention in the first case ran up fees of £35k and the judge decided there was no point in trying to extract the money from a couple in Turkey, or the SM or Cots so that was another cost to the British taxpayer.

So costs associated with these international surrogacy schemes go far beyond the NHS costs.

"19. The COTS support worker, Mr Z, explained to the court that, prior to the present case, COTS had considered that parents in the position of Mr and Mrs G would qualify for a parental order and could simply take a baby born through surrogacy back to Turkey without any difficulty. He explained that it had happened, to his knowledge, in some twenty cases, involving different countries in the past. If this account is right, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it would seem that no court in a COTS case has previously been alerted, or has alerted itself, to the domicile requirements of s 30.

22. Since concluding this case involving M and Mr and Mrs G, this court has become involved in hearing another international surrogacy case that was also facilitated by COTS. The correspondence in that case between COTS and the commissioning parents, who are Austrian nationals domiciled in Austria, provides more information as to the role of COTS, in particular: i) The COTS membership form has specific rates for commissioning couples who are 'living abroad'. 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'. iii) Ms Y does purport to give legal advice (in December 2004) and correctly states that the couple 'cannot apply for a Parental Order as this is only for couples domiciled in the UK'. Ms Y goes on to advise that the couple will have to apply for adoption in Austria. iv) In May 2005 Ms Y advised that it is not unusual for surrogates to have to sign documents giving permission for the couple to take the child abroad. COTS offers to advise upon this step when the time comes. v) In September 2006 (after the baby had been born for the Austrian couple) Mr Z took over as the COTS support worker on that case and, contrary to the advice given earlier by Ms Y, advised the couple that 'as long as you can satisfy the Parental Order Reporter that you are living in the UK when you make your application for a Parental Order, you do not need to do anything else'. He also repeats Ms Y's advice that the couple can take the baby to Austria at any time they wish, provided that they have a passport and a letter from the surrogate mother giving permission.
23. It would be easy, but to a degree unjustified, to single COTS out as being responsible for bringing about this surrogacy in circumstances that it knew, or should have known, could not possibly result in a parental order and thereby creating the situation that has required substantial court intervention and the expenditure of some £35,000 of public money. I readily accept that COTS is a well intentioned voluntary organisation whose aim is to assist couples through surrogacy. It will have been encouraged in its erroneous view of the legal requirements in foreign cases by the fact that parental orders had been successfully achieved in a number of similar cases, without any query being raised by the court. That being said, COTS must at least shoulder part of the responsibility for the very unsatisfactory outcome (in legal terms) that they assisted in creating."

I have no idea how much it is happening @OhHolyJesus but I do think it's scandalous and almost certainly involves some bending of the rules to out it politely.