Law Commission consulting on paid surrogacy in the UK

[PimmsnLemonade]

Sorry, I've no share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/surrogate-mothers-could-be-allowed-to-charge-cash-gfktl290j

Yes lass it has happened - I’m fairly sure there was a case where twins were born and one had Down syndrome- only one twin was taken by the couple. I seem to remember they were Australians and the surrogate was Thai but I’d need to check before I was sure.

Regarding why don't we have put organ donation and blood donation, the blood scandal was supposedly caused by paid donors in the US who's products were used in the UK. A clear example of how paying for such things can backfire.

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/03/contaminated-blood-scandal-thousands-haemophiliacs-died-simon-hattenstone

Poorly worded the last bit of my post really, but what I was getting is that people desperate for money were donating as much as possible, and many of these donors happened to be people with health problems that were then passed on. So there were other things involved but the paying of donors has been heavily criticised for its part in the scandal. It just isn't right to pay for such things ethically IMO.

Everything Barracker & Lysistrata said.

Also WHEN WILL SOMEONE MENTION THE RIGHTS IF THE BABY?

Sorry for shouting but it makes me so angry.
The article Barracker posted was all about the mother's rights versus the commissioning parents for instance. Not one single mention of the child's rights. (Apart from the bit about one case where the economic advantages and disadvantages of the competing parents were considered).

Here's an article I have posted previously about surrogacy contracts in the US.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

Bowl Baby Gammy - born in Thailand to a Thai mother, paid for by an Australian couple. The Australians took Gammy's twin sister and left him behind because he had Down's Syndrome. iIRC, they'd wanted her to abort Gammy and she'd refused because of her Buddhist beliefs.

International outcry and a fund set up for her to be able to raise Gammy, administered by a charity. As a result of this case the Thai government cracked down on international surrogacy.

And the father turned out to have a record in Australia for child sex abuse.

With so many children being unnecessarily sterilised, there is going to be more pressure for things like surogacy, along with other problems (such as children being kidnapped in third world countries), for example.

WHEN WILL SOMEONE MENTION THE RIGHTS IF THE BABY?

I did a bit of a Google / Google Scholar to see if I could find anything about the psychological/neurological impact on the baby. Nothing. I would not be surprised though if children taken away from their mothers at birth later showed trauma-related symptoms.

And the father turned out to have a record in Australia for child sex abuse

Layer upon layer of horror.

Sadly I'm not at all surprised by this. I think many of us knew it was in the post.

Not the consultation, but this is a resource I stumbled across a while ago.

www.stopsurrogacynow.com/gay-rights-and-surrogacy-wrongs-say-no-to-wombs-for-rent/#sthash.wzoJK4xZ.dpbs

It was this little article that clarified my unease with the practice, which had been suppressed by my desire to 'support gay rights'. I hate how it's been framed that way, in retrospect I am disgusted that the banner of rights and fighting homophobia was used to make it palatable to me and I am ashamed of myself for being convinced by that argument. Nobody should have the right to buy a woman's body and her child, and it makes arse all difference whether that person is sexually attracted to her. It would make no difference if it were another woman. It makes no difference. Attraction shouldn't be part of the godsdamned argument. It just isn't relevant.

It’s worth looking up Jennifer Lahl’s work and “eggsploitation” for some top resources. There’s a great letter signed by Julie Bindel & Gary Powell (a gay activist) making the exact point about how this has been tagged onto LGBT rights.

Surrogacy is always wrong regardless of the sexuality of the commissioning parents. Ayda Field, Nicole Kidman, SJP, looking at you!

This is potentially quite sinister:

Jake Graf and Hannah Winterbourne
"The newlywed couple, who are both patrons of the transgender children's charity Mermaids, will live together in the married quarters near Captain Winterbourne's Army barracks." (Mail)

"The couple has expressed interest in having children, and will likely do so through surrogacy." (Wiki referencing The Times)

Or Tom Daley and his partner:

"They've also spoken out about their choice to have a surrogate carry their child - revealing that they were "shocked" by UK laws that prevent people from paying surrogates.

Appearing on the Attitude Heroes podcast, Tom, 23, said: "We've done research into loads of different ideas, through adoption or through surrogacy and all that kind of stuff.

"Well actually the laws in the UK don't actually permit commercial surrogacy."

Dustin, 43, added: "That was a bit of shock to me. That in a place like this, that seems so progressive and so far ahead still to the United States on things like employment, housing, security and marriage.

"But on surrogacy, it's not available in the same way."

So agree then. Women bear children. An inconvenient biological fact. So lets make it easier to have wombs for hire. Not least for those made infertile from Mermaids advocated transgender treatment.

"shocked" by UK laws that prevent people from paying surrogates

Massive entitlement. They expect to be able to rent a womb.

Every time you read something like this, replace with ‘kidney transplant.’

*"They've also spoken out about their choice to have a new kidney - revealing that they were "shocked" by UK laws that prevent people from paying for a new kidney’ . ‘That was a bit of shock to me. That in a place like this, that seems so progressive and so far ahead still than Iran on things like employment, housing, security and marriage.

"But on transplants it's not available in the same way."

Now drum up support for that? No?

I saw an interview once where someone said that the most bizarre thing with this whole debate was the insistence that unpaid surrogacy is always better than paid surrogacy. As if the absence of payment negates any pressure or exploitation. This made me think of the fact that women do the majority of caregiving and cooking and cleaning, all unpaid. Again, it's apparently done out of love so we don't need to worry about it.
I think if you're going to reform surrogacy laws, at least put a fucking high minimum price on it (I am thinking circa 50k or so) that goes directly to the woman, plus an obligation on the commissioning couple to be liable for her medical bills and loss of earnings if she suffers complications. Maybe then there would be some appreciation of what surrogates are actually doing. I don't buy the whole 'it's okay as long as there's no pay' attitude.

Carowiththegoodhair I think we might be referring to the same letter :)

I cannot recommend it enough.

I should say that I am not necessarily 100% against surrogacy, but I don't think there should be a human right to have a child. I think there needs to be much more research on the emotional and mental impact on surrogate mothers and also on children who are born as a result of surrogacy. It is only then that we can say whether it should be permitted in law.

And as I said above, I am unconvinced that there is a difference between paid and unpaid surrogacy. Either it is totally outlawed or there should be very substantial payment made to the surrogate mother to recognise the full impact of what she has done.

I think In this case lack of payment does reduce pressure. Right now in the UK surrogacy is never paid. It’s not something women are coerced into (as far as I know, and if that’s not true I’d like to know about it.) I’ve never seen a case of coercion.

As soon as you put money or a reward into the equation you introduce a set of pressures. You introduce a legal contract. And poorer women will be the ones who suffer.

Surrogates already get their expenses paid. I’m very, very against it becoming a commercial industry. You could make the same argument for organ donation - if you donate a kidney for example it’s a huge imposition on you. Paid donation would probably increase organ numbers - but at what price? There are valid reasons why almost all countries outlaw paid donation - because it’s just too open to abuse. Traffickers and middlemen spring up. Coercion, outright force. And financial pressure.

I wonder if Tom Daley and his partner were really shocked when they realised that paid surrogacy is not legal, or were they unhappy about the rights the mother has?

I sort of see that, but I think then it shouldn’t be allowed at all. I am uncomfortable with the idea that reproductive labour can’t have any value and must be altruistic. That’s what contributes to women’s low status. At least if the state says ‘this work is worth X amount’, it brings a degree of financial power for women who do the work. Money is status in our society and women’s work is so often unpaid and therefore unvalued.

Also I don’t think payment will introduce pressure, but it will make surrogacy a potentially attractive option to women who have not considered it before. That is of course a danger but I would rather that people pay through their noses over here than exploit some woman in a third world country because they can’t do it in the UK.

It’s so difficult. I think there needs to be research before we can say definitely no or definitely yes.

When a contract is involved, the advantages are always going to be with the wealthier party.

A rich commissioning couple threatening to sue might lead to the women having to do things she doesn't want to, because she can't afford to defend herself.

And you are of course right about the danger of surrogacy pimps etc. It’s a minefield. Maybe strict regulation through a clinic is the answer? So no private agreement- have to go through a clinic with a licence and they could vet the women they commission.

What worries me is abusive husbands selling their wife's bodies.
I don't see that licensed clinics would prevent that.
The problem isn't payment making it attractive to women, it's it making it attractive to those who are in a position to control women.

I am never going to forget the hugely disturbing reports I read about clinics in India.

@EverardDigby

WHEN WILL SOMEONE MENTION THE RIGHTS IF THE BABY?

I did a bit of a Google / Google Scholar to see if I could find anything about the psychological/neurological impact on the baby. Nothing. I would not be surprised though if children taken away from their mothers at birth later showed trauma-related symptoms.

Quite. I was removed from my mother at (or shortly after) birth (I was adopted in the 1970s). It's had a profound impact on me - which I only realised 30-something years later. There's a great book called The Primal Wound which deals with this type of loss, and which has been updated in recent years to include babies born via egg donation and surrogacy, which was recommended to me by some lovely Mumsnetters on the Adoption boards. Basically the premise is that It's against nature to remove a baby from its mother and that it does indeed cause great trauma. I realise this isn't a fashionable thing to say! But it's so, so true.

As for surrogacy from the point of view of women - I agree with everyone else. Wombs aren't for hire. Women shouldn't be for hire. It's really, really sad when someone is unable (through illness, infertility, same-sex partnership etc) to conceive a child but that's life. Literally.

If clinics can’t regulate it satisfactorily then I do think it should be banned full stop. I am against altruistic surrogacy because I don’t like the continuous association between women’s reproductive work and altruism. If you want to rent my services, fucking pay for them. I do see the arguments that this is so hard to regulate though, which is why maybe a no surrogacy at all rule is better.

I doubt this will happen though. I think the discourse is very much towards making it easier, opening it up to more people etc.