Smug British couple using Indian Surrogate as 'receptacle' for their biological child

[Romilly70]

This article was in the DM (yes I do read it, although I know it's shit).

I was hoping this was a spoof article given their names.
I just cannot believe that people like this woman actually exist!

This article is definitely positioned to make the couple look smug. I doubt they are at all - they are probably desperate for a child and the media is taking advantage

I agree with the comments above about not judging. I think it is difficult to understand the desperation of not being able to have a child unless you have been there

I can't judge anyone for being desperate for a child, even a second one and maybe if I were in there position I would do the same.

However IMO they do have a moral responsibility to see the surrogate as more than a vessel.

It is the inequality between them and the surrogate which puts them in a position to buy this service from her and, while taking advantage of this, they should also acknowledge the risks she is taking. They should ensure that the fee they pay includes an element of insurance to compensate the surrogate should should she suffer any sort of complications, provision for her children should she die and for the child concerned should it have any disability and they choose not to accept it themselves.

Maybe those things are in place, maybe not but to see it as a simple business transaction in which their only responsibility is to hand over the cash would be selfish and irresponsible.

I think this couple deserve credit for being willing to go public and maybe they have been misrepresented but they do confess to going for the cheapest option. Perhaps they should have gone for the most responsible option.

This needs to be regulated in India but I think perhaps also in this country. We need to acknowledge that this service exists and meets needs in both countries and it should not be pushed underground. We need to protect these women and their families as best we can with our own legislation.

I do also struggle with the idea that the agencies can refuse to pay the money to the surrogate until they approve of how she is spending it.

Again re the cheapest option - it would not have made such good press for DM if they had something in about responsibility. I am absolutely sure this is about leading questions and what was not asked as opposed to the views of the couple.

It's amazing what kind of behavior is justified and forgiven when desperation to have a child is a given as the reason, as if because she want so to be a mother that makes it ok then.

Not sure if anyone above said it was ok or justified and forgiven. I certainly didn't

novack - exactly

She gives the impression similar as that certain type of man whom you see in documentaries about Thailand and British expat men of a certain age.

Exactly. I don't think the desperation to have a child by someone should be a factor in deciding if it's ok or not to use someone else as a receptacle. That's like saying that prostitution is ok because there are men out there truly desperately yearning for sex.

lol.....in the ole days the husband would have just got married again and had a child with the second wife (also done in the good ole fashioned way!).....think abraham, sarah and hagar. Sometimes we want what is not naturally possible, we can have it but is this the best outcome. just think about the baby, it would have had a special relationship with the surogate mother hearing her voice, tasting the foods, experiencing a completely different environment. this is all about the parents and what they want. there is no 'real' way to ensure the surogate eats well and feels well (she may be very lonley and depressed being seperated from her family) all these aspects undoubtedly will affect the unborn baby.

should NOT be

to me it is just a article about a couple that want a child.

i bet she's a mn'er

Blister pack thank you for your post - the prostitute analogy is exactly how I feel about this kind of surrogacy.

...and like prostitution it needs regulating rather than being allowed to continue as it is now.

It will happen because the technology and the money are available to make it happen.

Now we as a responsible society need to work out how best to protect the women who choose to/need to/feel forced to earn money in this way and their families.

If that means the cost increases and it is available to fewer couples so be it.

Well this feels strange to say, but I agree with Novack. Desperation for a child doesn't make this okay.

Re: disability - according to the contract I found online the genetic father signs to say they will accept a disabled child. However, in most countries the child only become - for example - British, on application from the genetic patents. So it would be very easy for the parents to walk away. Especially as so few surrogate mothers have a copy of the contract, and according to the research were unaware of various clauses.

I agree that just because you can, it doesn´t mean that you should.

Perhaps the surrogate does benefit in some way.

But I can´t see it as anything other than exploitation tbh.

Sorry, haven't read entire thread, so this may have been said before:

I remember reading that Nicole Kidman said that the surrogate mother she used was "just a vessel" so I guess it's the usual parlance for this type of transaction.

Quite a few US celebrities have used surrogates - maybe for reasons of preserving their figures, probably because they were too old. It is the same issue whether you are paying a poor Indian woman or a poor US woman: you want something that your money can buy, and hang the ethics.

It's disappointing that the tagline for Discussions of the Day is "Indian surrogate - baby-buying ethics?"

Surrogacy isn't buying a baby. The baby is the parents' baby from the start and the surrogate is looking after it temporarily.

Popcorn I agree entirely, the tagline disturbed me too. I guess we know where Mumsnet stands on this.

It's just semantics. They are buying the use of a womb though not the baby itself.

Yes, but I have heard the same judgey expression applied to IVF, sperm and egg donors and even the most simple fertility treatments (eg Clomid) and I thinks its unacceptable. Its not just semantics, its emotive and innacurate.

Also the word 'smug'. Cruel and nasty.

The class bashing on MN sometimes makes me go .

I have namechanged for this.
Dh and I are considering surrogacy. My back story would identify me very easily so I won't give details.
If we do go ahead it will be through the US.

When I spoke to the IVF consultant on the phone, his words were "You need to choose your surrogate very carefully because in effect, you are choosing a new member of your family" and I concurred totally with that. Having looked through US surrogacy forums, the women do keep in touch with the families afterwards, get sent photos and updates on how their "surrobabies" are doing, in the same way as say, a previous nanny or childminder might do
.
The agencies tend to have strict rules. The surrogate must be happy that she has completed her own family for example. I would hope that in India the agencies would be as rigid but have seen a lot of articles which would suggest that they're not. It would be far cheaper for us to go to India but this is one of many reasons why I wouldn't.

I would never consider it OK to refer to the surrogate mother as a "vessel". She is a human being and a very altruistic one at that! In the US, surrogates get paid around $30, 000 for a pregnancy. It sounds like a lot but is actually very reasonable considering someone is taking care of your child 24/7 for nine months.

But I seriously doubt if the couple in the article are as smug and nasty as they are being made out to be. I would never agree to be interviewed by the Daily Mail. I would think that anything this couple have said has been twisted around beyond recognition to make the story more saleable.

And as usual, the comments underneath! I knew when I read them that there was going to be at least one idiot saying "Why don't they just adopt?" as if adoption were an easy, carefree process!

Sadlyinfertile - i think you're kidding yourself a little bit.

Surrogacy is big business in America. And some sales person offering you a cheesy sound bite on the end of the phone doesn't make it all rosy and superior to how things work in India.

Why does the fact that more money changes hands make it more palatible?

What sort of women do you think become surrogates in America? Educated, middle-class professionals? Or poor, low-paid women with few prospects?

You think that a woman that previously lived on McDonalds is suddenly going to start eating organic hummus because she's pregnant with your kid?

"What sort of women do you think become surrogates in America? "

What sort of people do you think become burger flippers in America? Does that mean McDonalds employees are all being exploited? Should everyone stop eating there?

So what if a woman in the US wanted to pay for her son's college education through surrogacy? It is incredibly patronising of you to assume she can't be trusted to do what she wants with her body.