Surrogacy makes me very uncomfortable

[HermioneKipper]

I was listening to Giovanna Fletcher’s podcast with H from Steps and hearing them talk about him using a surrogate for his twins made me feel very uncomfortable.

It’s essentially renting a woman’s body to buy a baby.

I understand the woman must’ve consented but she was paid and it doesn’t take into account the risk she was putting her body through. Pregnancy and childbirth is a huge strain on a woman’s body and she risks serious injury giving birth that she’ll have for life.

Even more so as she had twins which is even more dangerous.

And the babies taken away from their birth mother immediately. Who knows what harm it does to them.

It feels akin to the black market of buying and selling organs.

I know I have children so perhaps don’t have the right to comment but it doesn’t sit right with me.

@tiggerwhocamefortea

I find surrogacy less uncomfortable than using donor eggs and sperm. Particularly where the surrogate is carrying the full biological child of the intended parents - ie not using her own eggs

Using donors is probably one of the most selfish decisions you can make - it is putting your want to be a "parent" above everything else and most importantly that of the resulting child. But people who have used donors aren't ever going to admit that because they are the ones who have benefited from it. The people I know conceived via donors who are just reaching adulthood have serious mental health issues surrounding who they are and the decision forced upon them - especially in the case of single parenthood or same sex parenthood

I have children via ivf - So I do understand how devastating infertility is but just because we can do something doesn't mean we should

Someone once told me that as a woman as we are born with all the eggs we will ever have then that means we start life inside our grandmothers. There is a familial link that spans generations . DNA to me is everything

Take adoption - if you are adopted you can have the most wonderful adopted parents in the world and the most amazing upbringing but the majority still end up looking for their biological parents - If DNA wasn't important then why would they??

I suspect your sample size is biased. There are many, many people conceived from donor sperm/eggs who grow up healthy and happy.

My friend’s son (now 18) was conceived using donor sperm. They’ve always been open with him and he’s nonplussed about it.

Ultimately it turned out to be something he is incredibly thankful for, his father has a genetic condition that is terminal and leads to a lot of suffering before the end. If they’d used his sperm there’s a high chance his son would go through life having to live with the knowledge that what’s happened to his dad might happen to him, having to decide whether or not to find out if he has the mutation and so forth. As it stands he’s escaped it and they’re all unbelievably thankful for that.

Most well adjusted, happy kid I’ve known.

To anyone considering sperm or egg donation, by all means listen to people’s ethical concerns. But don’t be put off by the idea that it always ends in tragedy with maladjusted unhappy kids. It really, really doesn’t.

It's not an easy topic to resolve. Either they’re “children” or they are donated tissue. They cannot be both.

I agree, and this is where abortion starts coming into it when that is really the opposite of what surrogacy is (though it can be necessary when commissioning parents cancel their order).

I see what you're getting at but is it maybe better to consider donated/harvested gametes as cells that are potentially a child? After all they are the only kinds of 'tissue' that can become children. Saying they are just cells like any other does reduce their purpose and isn't really recognising what act is taking place.

Donated organs maintains life.
Donated gametes creates life.

nonplussed

adjective
1 1. 
so surprised and confused that one is unsure how to react.

A friend of mine was conceived with donor sperm and she’s found it very difficult as the donor wanted no contact with her. She recently had a child of her own and she said it was awful in midwife appointments not being able to provide her fathers medical history

I wonder about men who donate sperm when young, if they then go on to develop a significant medical issue which could be genetic, do they have to inform the sperm bank?

I am not responsible for the actions of others.

Well this is what it comes down to really, I think you are responsible, if you hand over your eggs or sperm you still have a responsibility to that child because it would not be born without your decision to give away your genetic material.

I think the sperm donors who won’t connect with the children they’ve fathered are selfish in the extreme, they wanted the “feel good” of donating to the parents but they don’t care about the actual human being that is created.

You can't brush them all with wanting the feel good factor. I bet load of them see is as a way to make a quick buck with no real thought process.
£35 for a quick wank that will pay for a few beers. £35 might not seem a lot, but it's a lot when your skint.

The child has a right to the name of the donor but you cannot force someone to have contact if they don't want it. Exactly the same as an adopted child. The bio parents may or may not want to know.

@Carriemac

nonplussed

adjective
1 1. 
so surprised and confused that one is unsure how to react.

2. INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN not disconcerted; unperturbed.

One final thing
www.hfea.gov.uk/donation/donors/donating-your-sperm/

Just for information about the process of sperm donation in uk.

I certainly think all of these things, egg/sperm/Embryo donation surrogacy are much better ruled in the UK than overseas.

I'm pretty horrified at the Indian surrogacy clinics that has to be exploiting these woman and the odds of a child being able to track them down is bound to be very low.

I think there is space for scientific studies on adults who were born from non-conventional conception, doner / surrogacy. And also studies into does the family set up make any difference, single parent, heterosexual couple, homosexual couple, if any of that makes a difference to the mental wellbeing of these people.

Some of which might not actually be known for years. I imagine for some a whole range of emotions may emerge when they are having their own children.

I'm pretty horrified at the Indian surrogacy clinics that has to be exploiting these woman and the odds of a child being able to track them down is bound to be very low.

India closed its doors to international surrogacy a while ago and has since restricted it further (since 2019) so it can only be within families for heterosexual couples who can prove infertility.

Some of which might not actually be known for years. I imagine for some a whole range of emotions may emerge when they are having their own children.

The study that is routinely signposted is Susan Golumbok, Prof Family Research and Director of the Centre for Family Research and Cambridge University. Though her studies are small in cohort size her research is widely respected as she looks at long term impacts on children and follows them throughout their lives but as these children are still children (the ones who can legally find their genetic parents aged 18) and are yet to start their own families I reserve judgement until we see the full long term impact, and quite honestly the impact, if any, on their children too.

"There is an assumption that children conceived through reproductive donation will feel negatively about their origins in adolescence. However, little is known about the views of adolescents who have been conceived through different types of reproductive donation. Study design, size, duration: Forty-four adolescents, all of whom had been told about their conception in childhood, participated in a semi-structured interview as part of the sixth phase of a longitudinal, multi-method, multi-informant study of assisted reproduction families in the UK."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324823675Theeperspectivesoffadolescentsconceiveddusingsurrogacyyeggorrspermdonation

I think there's two issues here: how surrogacy affects the infant and how it affects the surrogate mother.

Commercial surrogacy is, fundamentally, work. I can't think of any other field of work where the worker is expected to gestate another life form, be it human or otherwise. The risks involved are extraordinary. No-one would be expected to host a parastite for medical trial purposes if there was a chance the parasite would grow to six pound or more and may need to be surgically removed from the abdomen.

In terms of the risk to health, the situation is bonkers. I would feel a lot more comfortable if all commercial surrogacy arrangements had to be accompanied by insurance for disability or loss of life on the part of the surrogate mother. Having said that, I'm aware that the premiums could be so significant that it would prevent many commissioning people from pursuing the path, but maybe that is what is needed to focus the debate on the sheer risks pregnancy can involve.

As for the infants created, well, I suspect we will see just how it pans out in twenty years or more. I'm concerned particularly about the nature of the relationship between commissioning parents and infants born through commercial surrogacy, and how such relationships may develop throughout the lifecourse of the child.

@ArtichokeAardvark

I'll put my head above the parapet. A friend of mine went down the surrogacy route to have her son. She's a cancer survivor but the chemo left her infertile and doctors advised that she shouldn't try carrying her own child even though she had her eggs frozen before starting treatment. She and her DH were desperate for a child and first looked at adopting, but you can't adopt in the UK if you've had cancer.

In the end, they found a surrogate in the US who'd done it once before already. The surrogate also has 3 kids of her own, and became a surrogate because she couldn't afford the extortionate fees to send her eldest to a private school. She enjoys being pregnant and finds pregnancy easy, and it's highly regulated in the US so safe.

You can't adopt if you've had cancer!? Why on Earth not?

@Unfashionable

This issue seems to be to be similar to same-sex marriage. If you don’t approve of same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

If you don’t approve of surrogacy, don’t be a surrogate yourself or employ a surrogate to carry a baby on your behalf. Problem solved.

In either case, respect the fact that other adults are entitled to the freedom to make their own decisions about what they choose to do with their own bodies or their own money. That’s what happens in a free society.

It's not really the same as there's no argument for exploitation in same sex marriage

@DontStepOnTheMomeRathz

My sister had fertility issues. I’d have been a surrogate for her in a heartbeat. But my husband and my mum were so against it. Husband was concerned about the health risks, the potential impact on our young children etc. My mum just thought it was all too close and too weird.

She’s pregnant now, finally, through IVF. But I feel like I could have saved her from that.

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about surrogacy as I can see both coins of the argument, but I am leaning towards the argument that it is exploitive etc .. having said that, my sister is currently having fertility issues and I'd be a surrogate for her in a heartbeat if she asked

You can't adopt if you've had cancer!? Why on Earth not?

Because children who are up for adoption have already lost one set of parents. It would be beyond tragic for them to loose a second set. There is always a risk of cancer returning.

The aim is to ensure the children have the highest chances of both their adopted parents being with them through to adulthood.
Exactly the same reason why adoption parents need to go through medicals, have a healthy BMI etc.

Exactly the same reason why adoption parents need to go through medicals, have a healthy BMI etc.

I think this is a good idea and one that could be applied to surrogacy. I think background checks are done through agencies but it could be 'light touch' and not full DBS checks. I think assessment for adoption should be replicated in surrogacy arrangements and the genetic link needed for a parental order seems to be the reason why safeguarding doesn't apply.

I certainly think all of these things, egg/sperm/Embryo donation surrogacy are much better ruled in the UK than overseas.

I agree, but I do worry that the U.K. would become 'surrogacy central' if the reform proposals pass and making it more commercial is a hop, skip and a jump towards the US set-up.

I really don't think surrogacy should be made easier in the UK it'd fine as it is.

Curious question if a woman uses a sperm donor, does the womans heterosexual partner go down as the father?

@Lockdownbear yes they do. The donor has no parental responsibility at all.

yes they do. The donor has no parental responsibility at all

Is there any way a donor could change their mind, and decide to be involved in any progeny’s life?

Could they track them down, dna test and claim pr?

Or is it completely anonymous and no way of finding out what happened to their donation?

I'm not saying you would but I'd bet they'll be people who will never know they were conceived with donor sperm. But I guess that's not a million miles away from the estimated 10% who find out via DNA websites.

If you use official channels and official clinics then yes @Nomoreusernames1244 the donor can change their mind. We were warned of this.

@Lockdownbear no I would never not tell him about donor. Part of the reason the law changed to no keep donors anonymous was the DNA websites.

@Nomoreusernames1244 if using a clinic then the donor has no PR it’s not totally anonymous in that the couple receiving the sperm are given a pen portrait of the donor as you have to choose the one you want.

At 16 the child can know the name of the donor and at 18 they can know the name last know address etc

Also @Nomoreusernames1244 when you go through a clinic there is a lot of paperwork to sign and a clear process to follow.

The study that is routinely signposted is Susan Golumbok, Prof Family Research and Director of the Centre for Family Research and Cambridge University. Though her studies are small in cohort size her research is widely respected

"Limitations, reasons for caution: Of 56 adolescents invited to take part in the study, 47 consented to take part, giving a response rate of 84%. It was not possible to obtain information from adolescents who do not know about their conception."

I'm not really sure why Golumbok is so widely respected. I suppose there's a lack of similar research plus she gives the answers people want. Fact is she does a tiny study of a couple of handfuls of self selecting middle class British children with parents wealthy enough to pay for surrogacy. That doesn't prove much to me.

I often think of the surrogate born children who were rescued, as babies, from Nepal after the earthquake, their impoverished mothers left to take their chances. Imagine growing up to find your parents had done that.

Let's see some research on children who have been bought via the exploitation of impoverished women in deprived countries. If they've been told of their origins of course.

Link to one of the news stories covering the evacuation of Israeli surrogate babies.

time.com/3838319/israel-nepal-surrogates/