Ollie & Gareth Locke & Surrogacy

[Policyschmolicy]

I picked this up in the daily mail, and am frankly appalled. On the one hand I think they seem like nice enough people and want to have a baby, etc … I’ve been a little bit irked about the casual attitude towards surrogates/women in this, but I’m very perturbed by his latest ‘promise’:

• He said: 'As we move forward I will promise I will do everything in my power to try and bring attention to help in changing the British laws to make it easier for people desperately trying to have a family!

'The rules which haven't been reassessed in over 30 years are wildly unfair, currently firmly against gay equality and beyond archaic.

'Why would any government grant equal marriage, but make it so heartbreakingly difficult and frighteningly expensive to have a family, I will do everything in my power to open up the conversation of a modernisation in legislation change!*

What planet are they on?! Of course it’s not equal given that only one group of human beings, i.e. women can actually gestate babies. I mean, what on Earth does he think he can do about that?!

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10350235/amp/Made-Chelseas-Ollie-Locke-shares-heartbreaking-baby-news-surrogate-miscarries-six-weeks.html

It was this thread that brought me to the subject of surrogacy, I had previously thought it was a wonderful thing women did for (mostly) other women, between sisters or cousins, and this is because in all I had read or heard about surrogacy came from daytime tv as a student and flimsy women's magazines read in doctors or dentists surgeries.

It was MN that hosted the topic and the posters who were critical of it that opened my eyes and my mind to the reality of it. It is now something that, along with Self ID and gender ideology that occupies a lot of headspace and debates with friends.

I can very much understand why some people think it's a lovely, friendly way to bring a child into this world. I thought the same thing.

I hope this is useful.

The Rumplestiltskin Law www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3606313-The-Rumplestiltskin-Law

@Omicrone

Can't believe this very important discussion has been completely derailed by one post by one poster? This thread is about surrogacy, specifically men who want to use women's bodies for their own ends, not IVF. The reason most people ignored that post is because they don't agree with it (hence the lack of 'yes, I agree IVF in general is bad' posts) and want to keep the discussion focused on the issue in hand.

Agreed. You said it better than I did. I really must learn to be more succinct!

Thanks for posting It he Rumplestiltskin thread @OhHolyJesus
It was that thread that really opened my eyes too. Must reread it and refresh my memory.

[quote Hugoslavia]@KimikosNightmare

Good god, what a terribly insensitive and awful comment![/quote]
This type of don't hurt people's feelings statement is kind of useless when trying to discuss the complicated ethical questions around the use of medical technologies.

People using surrogates also often feel deeply emotional because that is the only way they see that they can have their own kids. It's basically irrelevant to the ethical issue though.

Even if you disagree with the reasoning someone is giving, it's not "mean" of them to say what they are saying because it would imply certain technologies are not ok.

That's just not an appropriate way to have discussions about these issues.

Christ, I need new glasses.
Apologies for the numerous typos, written without contact lenses and old glecs.
That's what happens sitting about in your PJs...

@MNHQ I can see this is supposed to be in feminism, but by some glitch it's still appearing in infertility. Can you fix it please? I was not expecting to read vile opinions about IVF in the section of your site reserved for infertile women, many of who are desperately undergoing IVF.

I’m so sorry @Holskey, I have no idea why they moved it. And I’m also unsure how a discussion about the ethics of renting out uteruses and selling human beings derailed into the various merits of IVF. As far as I’m concerned they’re totally separate issues, albeit with the same underlying technology. Hopefully it will get moved soon.

Yes the IVF comments were shit

Just read thread and don't understand tangent.

Someone said what the difference between IVF for baby for couple, and surrogacy for baby for couple.

What a very silly question.

One situation is woman goes through v involved, often difficult, risk carrying egg harvest procedure.

Then when science bit done, carries the baby herself. (If use donor eggs / surrogate different ball game).

With surrogacy when two men.
One woman has gone through the difficult risk carrying etc egg harvest procedure.

Usually another woman carries the baby. As is surely commonly known, a tough gig, whole body involved, hormonal changes, restrictions on lifestyle, risk of MH issues- v common can be long lasting or vv severe, risk during birth of injury various severity up to life changing, and risk of death.

This is about surrogacy.

And the whole legal, commercial, possibly exploitative from Society ignores to outrageous... The sheer arrogance and flagrant misogyny of seeing all that as just... Find woman who agreed to be surrogate, contract, get baby. The end.

The changes to language to distance the woman from the whole deal. Check USA language.

The increasing complaints that a man and woman unable to conceive can get some assistance (in theory, RL patchy), while 2 men unable to conceive don't get NHS help to have baby when they obv can't conceive... Is homophobia!

Do they hear themselves?

To give 2 men assistance to have baby means-
1 woman egg donor
1 woman (gestational carrier) to grow it in her body and birth it for them.

Human rights breach for gay couples wanting babies is said a fair bit.

How will that human right be met and equality prevail? By... Providing women to gestate..?

Of course it's not the bloody same.

This goes for surrogacy full stop if that means no in family altruistic then so be it...

(Although banning money changing hands etc might work or a cap or something for genuine altruism... Then again. So many times heard male peeps say I'll just get a surrogate.. X in family can do it... Different topic probably).

This goes for all surrogacy whoever the 'commissioning party/ ies' are.

Single, couple, poly, male, female whatever mix I don't change views. Nope to surrogacy the end.

To frame this constantly as homophobia is just so feeble. It's not the buyers circs that are the problem. It's the women who are in plenty of countries being a resource to exploit for profit. The total invisibility of the risks is s really bad look when arguing for contracts here as well...

What laws does Ollie Locke want to change? In interviews he said that he and his husband mixed their sperm deliberately at the IVF clinic so they don’t know which of them had fertilised the egg for the embryos used in the surrogacy. That mixing is not legal to do in the UK.

Legally and medically for the mother and the baby, parents need to be clear about who a dad is. All sorts of things could crop up. So if available to be known, it should be shared among all the responsible adults involved. That’s not even considering the very serious issues of ‘not knowing’ beyond the immediate point of birth.

Lots of different issues could be caused by ‘not knowing’ for the child as they grow up, for the surrogate, for each father in the parenting couple, for each of their own wider families, for all of their child’s government or medical papers and for their medical care and all the decisions to be made about the child, including with the baby’s mother.

@OhHolyJesus

Well I agree with him - I don't see how this is different to an infertile couple and yes it's a different issue but ultimately both can't have babies naturally. If you treat one you should help the other.

I don't wish to take this out of context of your full comment but wanted to ask whether, if you see same-sex couples as being infertile and therefore in need of 'help', would you agree that the same applies to single people, who are also 'infertile' in the same sense that they can't have a baby naturally on their own?

Personally I don't see someone who is physically and medically able to conceive as infertile. Just because someone is same-sex attracted doesn't make them infertile, they simply don't fit the definition for one. Two men could try to get pregnant for 12 months and still find they couldn't get pregnant. Same as two women. This will not be a surprise to anyone!

No one is to blame, the NHS aren't responsible, their same-see attraction doesn't need 'fixing'. Their sexual partner just happens to be the same sex as themselves and therefore unable biologically to provide the opposite sex gametes (and maybe also the womb) that is necessary to conceive, grow and give birth.

The Lockes are no more 'infertile' than my single female friend who doesn't have a male sexual partner to get her pregnant. The NHS, society, other women don't owe her a baby either. Same applies to infertile opposite sex couples, though I have no issue with IVF (though I have some concerns over donor gametes, mainly re prolific sperm donors, anon donors and their children, international imports and a lack of a global register ...and having read many stories and testimonies of donor conceived children I think it's fair to say there are some bioethical concerns at play that should be discussed without people jumping to the conclusion that must mean I'm against IVF or it must mean I look down upon people who require donated gametes in order to have a genetically related child).

I agree with this completely. I'm also against the lack of a register and prolific sperm donation. I don't believe it should be allowed. I have nothing against IVF but I do not agree with surrogacy and never will. You're buying a baby.

In interviews he said that he and his husband mixed their sperm deliberately at the IVF clinic so they don’t know which of them had fertilised the egg for the embryos used in the surrogacy.

This is very fashionable among gay couples who treat it all as a jolly jape like pick and mix and completely ignores the rights of the child to know who their father is. If it's not sperm mixing then it's a demand for twins with two embryos implanted, one from each so they get one each. Completely ignoring the increased risks to the woman carrying a twin pregnancy as well as the risks to the babies. The gay couple on the BBC program The Baby has Landed did this.

Screenshot from the programme.

@mumsnethq why is this thread in infertility? It’s bad enough these women are posting in general on mumsnet with their callous and spiteful comments about infertile women without putting it in the infertility section.

Interesting thread - it has given me a lot to think about. I am broadly on the same page as @OhHolyJesus , unless I have misunderstood. There is definitely a 'slippery slope' argument to be made here, both in terms of what we find ethically acceptable and consequently in terms of what we think the NHS should fund.

Infertility is a medical issue and couples should have access to IVF, paid for by the health service - this is broadly accepted in the UK. Infertility is not life threatening (having a child is a 'want', not a 'need') but the same is true for many other things the NHS covers, and we don't object to our taxes funding those things. Obviously IVF must be NHS funded, otherwise you're left with a situation where wealthier couples are able to have a child while less wealthy couples cannot.

We've accepted IVF paid for by the NHS is ok. What about donor gametes? Is it ok to use a donor egg? Is it ok to use donor sperm? Both are pretty well accepted in the UK and again this is funded by the NHS (from what I can see on the website). The fertilised egg will be implanted into the uterus of the intended parent, so she carries all the risk. There is some risk to the woman who donated the eggs. This is all broadly considered to be OK. Who should this be available to? Only women can give birth, so this is (or should be) available to heterosexual and lesbian couples and single women. (It's not totally clear to me that the NHS does fund IVF for single women.)

What about donor gametes and donor eggs, implanted into the uterus of a third party? Is this ok/not ok? Obviously the majority of posters on this thread will say, well, not ok. You're putting a woman at risk and commissioning a baby. But the woman has weighed up the risks and reward and has decided the risks are worth it, much like the women who decide to donate their eggs. Why is egg donation ok, but surrogacy not? Is it because of the greater risk for physical harm to the mother with surrogacy? Who gets to draw that line?

I would say that UK society tends towards the idea that surrogacy is morally acceptable. Once we decide that it is acceptable, the question becomes who should benefit from it? The answer has to be everyone; heterosexual couples where the woman cannot carry a pregnancy, heterosexual couples where the woman can carry a pregnancy but doesn't wish to, single men and women and gay and lesbian couples, etc., etc. - it would be discriminatory to restrict surrogacy to e.g. only gay couples.

If we've accepted that surrogacy is ok and we've accepted that therefore it must be available to everyone, the question is who should pay for it? If it's not offered on the NHS, then it is restricted to the wealthy - this is not fair. The NHS must fund surrogacy.

This post is not meant to attack anyone who has had IVF treatment - it is easy to sit back and say 'well, you should just accept your lot in life' until you find yourself in the position of being unable to have a child you desperately want. At the same time, once we start facilitating wants for one group, it is harder to deny them to another group.

NHS funding of IVF isn't straightforward and I have concerns. In many health trusts, where IVF is funded by the NHS the service is outsourced to the local private clinic. This is the case in my health trust. The private clinics of course are profit motivated. Offering treatment to anyone who is entitled to it would seem to be fair. And yet making a judgement regarding whether this is medically advisable would also seem reasonable no?
I have personally had involvement with a case of a woman with an extensive surgical (non fertility related) and medical history. It was obvious that IVF was never going to be successful and was always going to be risky for her. Unsurprisingly she suffered OHSS and her surgical condition was significantly impacted. Suffice to say her consultant was not impressed although of course he was sympathetic to her situation. It meant the NHS funded treatment that made her seriously ill and then the NHS picked up the pieces.

My god @mumsnetHQ

Can you PLEASE move this thread out of fertility. It’s absolutely sickening to be going through infertility and IVF and have a thread on the infertility board with the self-appointed smug morality police pontificating and weighing up what kind of medical treatment we should be ‘allowed’ to get and acting like they are needed here with their views as we’re incapable of making our own decisions. Jesus christ.

Screenshot

@IsAoibhinnLinn

Screenshot

I'm not sure when you took that screenshot but it's not in infertility as far as I can see. I agree with you that it was a very poor decision to move it there but I think it got moved out again pretty sharply

Wow FannyCann… having twins on purpose simply so they can both be dads at the same time? I can’t believe people can be so reckless with women and babies. Is it to save money on the surrogacy? It’s shocking- and why are the doctors doing that?

www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/sip22/

From UK medical body guidelines:

‘Multiple pregnancy, caused by the practice of transferring more than one embryo into the uterus, is the commonest treatment-related adverse outcome of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Although largely preventable by adopting a policy of elective single embryo transfer, multiple pregnancy rates following IVF remain high.

The alarming rise in multiple pregnancies resulting from the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) has led to many publications highlighting the significant maternal, fetal and neonatal risks associated with these pregnancies. Maternal complications include increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, peripartum haemorrhage, operative delivery, postpartum depression, and heightened symptoms of anxiety and parenting stress. Multiple pregnancy is also associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of preterm birth, which is a leading cause of infant mortality and long-term mental and physical disabilities, including cerebral palsy, learning difficulties and chronic lung disease. Higher order multiple pregnancies resulting from cross-border reproductive care or ‘fertility tourism’ are also contributing to the challenges facing NHS maternity and neonatal services.’

Actually @Clymene it is STILL in infertility. I just took this screenshot as per the time at the top of it. I know you lot seem to think you’re the authority on everything but you are wrong and it is still in infertility.

@mumsnetHQ please remove from infertility.

@IsAoibhinnLinn I am not a nasty piece of work. I just don't believe that the NHS should be funding IVF. I am entitled to that view. I am not saying people shouldn't be allowed to have IVF or that there is any issue with IVF or donated eggs or donated sperm. I am saying that it is something that should be self funded and if it is not then medical intervention for pregnancy should be available to everyone in which case that includes gay couples. We are not short of children on this country and therefore it is not a necessity for the tax payer to fund more children . The NHS is in dire straight - not everything can be afforded anymore and people who should be getting treatment for life threatening illnesses are not - choices have to be made at some point and this is not a necessity that should be coming out of the NHS budget. If there was an infinite money tree it would be different - but there isn't and frankly I don't think public resources should be spent allowing people to have children at the cost of someone else's life saving operation or drugs.

@flippertyop infertility is a medical disease. You can’t decide you believe some diseases are worth treating and others aren’t. Plenty of things are treated on the NHS that are not life threatening. Do you also advocate removing NHS funding for breast reductions for example? Or just infertile women aren’t good enough to be treated.

And you also believe rich people should be able to have their infertility treated. Poor people shouldn’t be treated. As I said - nasty.