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

YY I'm not sure all women donating eggs in the UK are doing it altruistically, given the IVF discounts. Realistically there must be some women who've donated because they wouldn't be able to afford the IVF otherwise.

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.

Um... yes... that's exactly what I'm saying too.

Where we differ is that I don't feel the US should be outlawed by this logic. Thailand, India etc - yes.

And if you bring home a baby born through surrogacy in another country then CAFCASS and the courts are already highly involved - getting a parental order is (quite rightly) a complex process with lots of hoops to jump through to satisfy the courts that it's in the child's best interests.

I believe it's similar in Arkansas (as a result they attract alot of surrogacy business from other states)- in fact a man can be the sole legal parent there, rendering a child with no legal mother at all. A New York court actually referred to it as 'trafficking in children', and made the point that enforceable pre birth orders are at odds with child adoption laws where birth parents are entitled to a cooling off period once the child is born before any final legal rulings.

Where we differ is that I don't feel the US should be outlawed by this logic

Of course you don't, because you went to the US to partake in commercial surrogacy. It must be uncomfortable to consider some of the exploitation that occurs there.

In terms of prevention, I am not sure how realistic this is.

British citizens are able to travel abroad if wished. Surrogacy is possible in many countries, legally or otherwise, so it will remain available to Brits with funds. This means some people will return home with a baby.

The only meaningful way to prevent them from getting a baby out of it is to take the baby off them, when it comes down to it. But making the decision based on anything other than Children Act principles would be as much a suspension of the backbone of our welfare laws as making a decision based on enforcing a contract would be.

I certainly agree that there is some awful exploitative behaviour going on. But the creation of a class of children to whom the Children Act doesn't apply is not the answer and isn't realistic. And that's what we'd have to do.

I agree with that GrabEm. But then by the same token it is entirely possible for a pre birth contract in the US to be enforced against the wishes of the surrogate and against the best interests of the baby and the intended parents to return home with the baby to the UK. The UK is then basically facilitating a practice that would go against the Children's Act if it happened here. I understand that the UK authorities can only deal with what is in front of them however.

Exactly GrabEm. It throws up some difficult issues but this is part of our society today - childless couples no longer have hordes of orphans and illegitimate babies to adopt (thank God!) and so other solutions to infertility come into play.

Whether you like it or not, infertility has always been with us and always will be, we just want to find ways around it that don't get all Handmaid's Tale.

As I said upthread, I feel guilty at having enough money to have used commercial surrogacy when others don't all have that option; but I don't feel it was exploitative. My SIL tried to do it for us (for free of course) but none of those embryos worked - was that exploitative?

It's certainly possible for the UK to be facilitating a contract against the wishes of the surrogate. A UK court might well have found that keeping the child with the surrogate isn't in the best interests of the child if they'd been asked to rule at the contract enforcement stage though, so it's possible the decision would be the same, just for different reasons.

But yes of course, they can only deal with what's in front of them at any given stage. There are a lot of decisions made in family courts that wouldn't have been made had things been done differently earlier. I think the legal framework we have that will prevent a fully US style system in the UK will also stop us from curtailing British people getting involved with overseas surrogacy.

Whether or not your arrangement with your SIL was exploitative surely depends on your relationship with her and also her ability to understand the process. I'd imagine most family based surrogacy is freely volunteered and non exploitative but there are certainly cases where so called altruistic surrogacy exploits women, it depends on the individuals involved. Engaging a stranger to undertake pregnancy for financial gain is exploitative by it's nature.

But the creation of a class of children to whom the Children Act doesn't apply is not the answer and isn't realistic. And that's what we'd have to do

As you rightly say, that would also preclude commercial surrogacy in the U.K.

The more I've read about surrogacy the more concerned I've become, I started out thinking it might be ok. Everyone seems to become blind to that mother-child bond and also blind to how risky pregnancy can be. I nearly died having my son and there have been long term health implications. I see my son and know that was worth it and I made aa free choice but to have a baby for someone else and hand it over? You can't put a monetary value on that impact on my health and compensate me for it as part of a commercial transaction.

Whilst it wasn't a surrogate pregnancy the case of the pregnant woman in Ireland on life support decaying because she was regarded as an incubator first and a person second should make us all pause for thought.

The analogies with live organ donation are good but ignore that this is also creating another person. We don't allow parents to sell or gift their babies under other circumstances so why is it allowable in this circumstance ?

Siblings are often put under considerable family pressure for live organ donation, that's why there is counselling and the opportunity to say they are not compatible even though they might be. There is plenty of evidence of family members being put under pressure to be surrogates, it can be explicit pressure or implicit where they feel like they'd be seen as selfish if they didn't try. If they truly don't want to be surrogates their only recourse might be to ensure a pregnancy didn't take.

The exploitation of women in India bothers me, glad Thailand decided it wasn't right.

I feel very sorry for anyone who desperately wants children and can't but allowing something that exploits women and children Ian not the answer.

As you rightly say, that would also preclude commercial surrogacy in the U.K.

I hope so, I'm concerned that these discussions are even taking place tbh and that there is a possibility that the Children's Act might be undermined. There is certainly precedent of special interest groups undermining safeguarding legislation.

It wouldn't shock me that much to see surrogates be allowed to charge more than just the expenses limit, so an end to 'altruism' only, and that be called commercialisation. But as the courts still aren't going to force surrogates to give up babies simply because of contracts, it'd just mean the framework we have now plus a greater financial risk for potential parents. Maybe with a bigger pool of surrogates.

There is certainly precedent of special interest groups undermining safeguarding legislation.

Yes, but this is more than just safeguarding legislation. I can't see any way that the welfare principles could ever be overridden by a contract - as we often hear said the law overrides any contract you care to draw up; any surrogacy contract will be meaningless if it can be voided by the application of the welfare checklist.

There is plenty of evidence of family members being put under pressure to be surrogates, it can be explicit pressure or implicit where they feel like they'd be seen as selfish if they didn't try.

I vaguely remember a thread on here about it - the sister was pressuring her.

Whether you like it or not, infertility has always been with us and always will be, we just want to find ways around it that don't get all Handmaid's Tale

I'm not sure surrogacy does avoid that tbh

childless couples no longer have hordes of orphans and illegitimate babies to adopt

I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like about that phrase- it's a touch glib.

Lass I can't say for sure if the same things about that statement that bother you but the combination of commodification of children in care and seeing it as a bad thing that there were less children in care needing adoption bother me

Thank you GardeningAndKnitting - yes it is. That and the casual reference to "illegitimate babies"

In one of its pieces of legislation deserving of praise the Scottish Parliament abolished illegitimacy as a legal concept. No person whose status is governed by Scots law shall be illegitimate ...". is enshrined in Scots law.

It is a surprising term to find used on MN and even more so on FWR.

Yes the casual reference to illegitimate children too

childless couples no longer have hordes of orphans and illegitimate babies to adopt

In the past young, poor or vulnerable women were always more likely have their babies adopted. Just as I think paid for surrogacy will rely heavily on poor or vulnerable women.

I haven't seen illegitimate used to describe babies and children for so long. Perhaps the poster is not from the UK?

And of course often the women / girls wanted to keep the babies but they were forcibly removed.

Socitities all over the world have histories of forcibly removing newborns from women and girls that they deem sub-par in some way. Too young, too poor, wrong politics, wrong ethnic group etc and so on.

As we see with USA contracts where women want to keep the baby and it's forcibly removed.

And then you get threads like that one of FB with thousands of WOMEN saying quite right too, she was no more than an incubator, they used her body,the child has literally nothing to do with her etc.

Human beings can be fucking awful, and justify all sorts of appalling things to themselves. Good at "othering" groups and then treating them atrociously.

Men want the ability to use women's bodies in this way (and in other wyas). They run the world. They will find a way to get what they want. With the collusion of an awful lot of women, sadly.

The idea that Thailand/ India=bad, USA=good when it comes to surrogacy is an exercise in denial I think. It takes very little research to uncover some of the massive ethical concerns surrounding surrogacy within the US. If I was planning to pay a woman to use her womb I'd be damn sure to learn everything I could about these issues first.

Yes agree

I haven't seen illegitimate used to describe babies and children for so long. Perhaps the poster is not from the UK?

I think she is. She referred to a failed altruistic surrogacy with her sister in law then went to the US for a commercial surrogacy.