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

I think surrogacy should be allowed only where there is a proven longstanding relationship between the surrogate and the bio parents. Close friends and family are likely to be doing it for truly altruistic reasons. A stranger handing over a baby after birth is never truly altruistic imo.

I hope the Law Commission actually read the contracts surrogates in the US have to sign. There are clauses in them that are horrendous - if the parents want to abort because of disability, if they want to reduce a multiple pregnancy to a single one, the surrogate has no choice about it. If she objects she has to repay all the costs of the IVF and has full responsibility for the baby (waives right to child support as well).

TBF, the law would have to change by a lot more than just allowing paid surrogacy for any of that to be possible here. I'm not saying none of this could ever ever happen, but it would take more than just this one change.

Exactly. It would just be impossible.

I think surrogacy should be allowed only where there is a proven longstanding relationship between the surrogate and the bio parents

I agree that if surrogacy is going to happen at all it should only be within these parameters. I would also say that there should be mandatory assessment and counselling prior to conception too. The court judgement I shared above involved both parties meeting on Facebook and the surrogate had learning difficulties and financial struggles- she signed an agreement that allowed her an extra grand in expenses if she needed a hysterectomy. Just appalling.

Indeed.
If I were to be a surrogate it would be only for one of my siblings. I would have a significant role in the child's life and they would know the woman who birthed them. They would know that they were made from love, love of their aunt for their parents and for them. I wouldn't even do it for a close friend, because of the risk that the friendship would fade over time.
Surrogacy as I would imagine doing it could be really positive for everyone. It would bring me great joy for a sibling to become a parent if they couldn't do it naturally.

I had to stop reading that TwistedStitch because it was too upsetting. I suggest it's essential reading for people who are pro-surrogacy though because it pretty much lays out every single issue with it.

Thanks for that link TwistedStitch. I just read the judgement in full. Thank goodness for the judge and the guardian in that case. But how different from the judgement in the case I linked. It seems judges can view similar cases entirely differently and justice is not even handed always.

Reading how those men exploited her and disregarded her was sickening.

Everyone who is pro surrogacy should read that case to see how easily a vulnerable young woman can be exploited by selfish people who see her as some sort of farm animal.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ivory-trade-banned-uk-michael-gove-elephants-endangered-illegal-trade-poaching-tusks-a8285511.html

Announcing the policy, Mr Gove said: “Ivory should never be seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol, so we will introduce one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales to protect elephants for future generations.

the sale of ALL ivory is to be banned, even old items, because it is recognised that such an extreme stance is necessary to stop ivory being a commodity and stopping ivory being a commodity is the only way to protect elephants.

i thought the parallel between this and the sale of women's bodies - be it through surrogacy or prostitution - was interesting. the very small number of people for whom banning the sale of women's bodies constitutes denying them an actual genuine (not coerced or poverty driven) choice are like the tiny antique ivory ornament you inherited from your grandpa. you don't need to feel especially bad about having said ornament and there's probably no sense in destroying it, you can like it for what it means to you.

but it is absolutely right that you cannot sell it, even though you might want the cash. even though your bit of ivory comes from a different time, without such a terrible heritage. even though it is only very small. you selling it for cash would be contributing to an environment whereby ivory has a market value, and becomes a commodity, and then elephants are killed to satisfy the demand for that commodity.

I've been thinking about this thread and my belief is this:

1. Paid surrogacy should remain illegal in the UK

2. People bringing a child born of paid surrogacy abroad into the UK should face an enormous fine and social services should be alerted.

There was a thread ages ago, possibly in AIBU or Chat, about surrogacy. It came to be mentioned that apparently the majority of surrogates in the UK want pre-birth agreements like the US have to be legally enforceable, and one reason for that was that they don't want Social Services asking them if they want the child if the prospective parents don't, so they're not put in the position of refusing. The idea that SS would refrain from asking such a close relative if they want to take care of the child in the event that parents can't/won't is so inherently implausible in the context of UK child welfare laws that any surrogate thinking a legal agreement could protect her from it clearly has no understanding of the legal landscape. Which is worrying in itself really.

Long time MNer and FWR thread-reader, compelled to delurk.

My DD was born through paid surrogacy in the US. We tried altruistic surrogacy here in the UK, first with a SIL and then with a surrogate we were matched with through one of the big UK organisations. Sadly it didn't work and we turned to the big guns in the US.

I absolutely agree surrogacy can be exploitative and it should be banned where the relationship is clearly unequal - so India and Thailand etc are out.

But in the US it's less exploitative because:

• yes surrogates are paid but so is everybody else involved in fertility treatment and I've never heard anyone say IVF doctors and nurses should only do it from the goodness of their hearts 'because you can't make money from the sacred process of making babies' etc. Why the woman who actually does all the work should be expected to be an altruistic angel has never made sense.
• contracts are mutually agreed, i.e. surrogates have equal say in whether or not they are happy to terminate for Down's syndrome for example. It's not all one-way! Most surrogates refuse to carry more than twins, for instance, because of the increased health risks. Some commissioning parents make all sorts of demands, it's true - but surrogates aren't pressured into accepting them; they take their pick from lots of couples.
• all surrogates have to have health insurance so they have to have the sort of stable middle class lives that give health insurance - so it paradoxically rules out impoverished women who would do it just to put bread on the table. This is actually my main concern for allowing paid surrogacy in the UK as the NHS looks after everyone - not that I'd want to change that! Just saying that America's (batshit) medical system does impose a bar against desperate people turning to surrogacy.

-The surrogacy agencies are very well run and professional. Yes you pay... but you get good support for everyone, including full counselling and screening before you start anything. People doing DIY surrogacy through Facebook etc is a recipe for disaster and I believe we need tighter regulation in the UK to stop it.

At the end of the day my DD will NEVER feel that there's anything to be ashamed of about how she came into the world. She is adored and she loves her 'tummy mummy' in the US who we have a close relationship with. She understands my tummy was broken and so xx in the US lent us her tummy.

I understand some of your views against surrogacy (although I hope if we met IRL you wouldn't be quite so scathing of me and my family, whatever you think in private. That was a bit of a shock tbh). The main thing I struggle with is that most people don't have the huge amounts of money that it cost to do it in America - yes, that's truly unfair I agree and I feel guilty about my privilege there. But I don't feel we exploited anyone and I don't feel we have commoditised women's bodies.

For commercial surrogacy to work in the UK there would need to be a huge amount of regulation imposed - but it's already badly under-regulated so that's needed anyway.

• all surrogates have to have health insurance so they have to have the sort of stable middle class lives that give health insurance - so it paradoxically rules out impoverished women who would do it just to put bread on the table

I was under the impression, certainly from reading a fair bit around the issue, is that there is a major concern that a disproportionate number of US commercial surrogates are military wives, doing it precisely because they need to find a way of putting bread on the table in a lifestyle where it is difficult for them to sustain regular employment another way due to moving around alot, being lone parents for a huge chunk of the time etc. The fact that they have health insurance makes them an attractive prospect for IPs and agencies but certainly doesn't mean they are financially comfortable. Surrogacy agencies specifically targeting military bases and publications for advertisement is surely worrying.

I also don't think you can compare the role of IVF nurses with surrogates. Healthcare staff aren't risking long term health complications, disability and death.

Twisted I haven't heard that personally, but it could well be true. Our surrogate is very active in the surro community and it seemed most of them worked for the the big health care companies - they employ millions of people. None of them needed the money for day-to-day expenses but it was used for holidays, new cars, kids college funds etc.

It's depressing to think that military families can't get by on what they're paid. I do feel guilty about our level of privilege and I don't have an easy answer for this. All I can say is that IME it wasn't as exploitative as you would think.

I'm surprised that somebody involved in US surrogacy to such an extent has never heard of the concerns about exploiting military wives tbh. The information is there for anybody investigating the ethics of commercial surrogacy. This article gives more details (for other posters who are interested).

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/04/19109/

The idea that SS would refrain from asking such a close relative if they want to take care of the child in the event that parents can't/won't is so inherently implausible in the context of UK child welfare laws that any surrogate thinking a legal agreement could protect her from it clearly has no understanding of the legal landscape. Which is worrying in itself really

Exactly. Our legal system will never make commercial surrogacy possible.

strawberryfilter that sounds like a lot of rationalising to me. Perhaps your individual specific surrogate wasn't being exploited but frankly I don't care. A system that enables and encourages exploitation of economically disadvantaged women's bodies will always be morally repugnant.

I don't go so far as to say we could never have somewhat commercial surrogacy, but it'll never look like what they do in eg the US. The framework we've got could potentially allow prospective parents to make an arrangement with a surrogate and pay a lot more for it now, but they wouldn't get a legally enforceable arrangement out of it.

It might work when things are good between all parties, but the instant there's disagreement, if the family courts are involved then they are just not going to give a shit about enforcing the terms of a contract. And nor should they. It'll be the Children Act principles.

Well the bottom line is that a review of UK surrogacy law is needed. As Sir Whatshisface said in announcing the review, surrogacy has increased tenfold and people are increasingly going overseas where the UK can't regulate what goes on. Surely it's better to keep them here where it can be regulated as we see fit?

With hundreds of thousands of infertile couples (and where less than 5,000 children are adopted each year so stop saying that's a solution) surrogacy is always going to be an option for a few here in the UK.

As a feminist I would like to see a situation where the only women doing surrogacy are those who want to. Those who loved being pregnant and having babies but who have completed their own families, and are not doing it out of financial necessity but who genuinely want to help other families have a baby. I'd be happy with that.

Are people going overseas because there is a lack of women willing to volunteer to be surrogates? So paid for surrogacy is intended to increase supply?

Or are people going overseas because it's easy to guarantee that they get to keep the baby? Therefore they need to reduced a women's right to change her mind?

I think people go overseas because they want more control and can treat it as a business transaction. Even the term 'commissioning parents' is very telling as is comparing the surrogate with staff.

people are increasingly going overseas where the UK can't regulate what goes on. Surely it's better to keep them here where it can be regulated as we see fit?

That argument could be applied to adoption without checks and balances couldn't it? Whereas instead of going 🤷🏼‍♀️ 'people go abroad to buy possibly trafficked babies anyway, let's make it easier for them to do that' the government said 'hang on, international adoption is open to exploitation and abuse, let's make all all international adoptions subject to checks as close to domestic adoption as we can manage'

IDC if people are going abroad for surrogacy, that does NOT mean it should be legal to do it commercially here.

Some countries have made it illegal for foreign nationals to have surrogacy arrangements there. There ought to be a way of preventing UK citizens taking advantage of exploitative systems that are against our laws simply because they can afford it.

The contracts overseas are often legally enforceable, whereas they aren't here. I can't remember which channel did a documentary on surrogacy in India, but it was mainly poor women being pushed into it by their husbands. After Thailand banned international surrogacy then India took a lot of the custom - it's much cheaper than going to the US.

When DH and I were going through IVF, egg sharing was mentioned - so if I'd agree to give half the eggs collected I could get a substantial amount of money off treatment. This sat very uneasily with me, as again it's the poorer and more disadvantaged women who will accept this offer. To me donating eggs altruistically is very different than doing it for money.

Just in response to the claim that surrogacy agencies in the US are well run and professional- the agency in the following link withheld a woman's baby and considered putting it up for adoption to 'recoup their losses'. Sounds extreme but surely just a natural consequence of the commercialisation of pregnancy and treating human beings as commodities.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/surrogate-mother-pregnant-twins-own-baby-jessica-allen-omega-family-global-san-diego-a8034901.html%3famp

The reason why people go to California is because they can be legally named as the parents on the birth certificate before the child is even born. Thus the mother is completely erased.

This is also why gestational surrogacy has become so popular. It’s all about disrupting the link between the woman and the child she is carrying. The baby might have known her intimately and crave her from the moment they are born, but they are not ‘hers’.