And so it came to pass: Mail on Sunday - gay male couple offered fertility treatment including surrogacy

[Needmoresleep]

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6636419/Gay-male-couple-offered-IVF-treatment-NHS-time-Britain.html

Oh ffs, think of the women.

In this scenario every participant begins healthy.
By the end, two formerly healthy women have been caused significant health risk, pain and possible permanent damage, even risk to life. And a child has been created and removed from its mother.

And where does the oath to do no harm fit into all this I wonder?

You can hear it on BBC iPlayer radio.
I added the link.
It's a sad listen.

As soon as one developing country clamps down another pops up, or people traffickers find ways around it going underground, taking women to a different country for the implantation or delivery.

Re Grandma sorry I didn't add the connection.

"Discussing this over lunch and my 7 year old daughter exclaimed: that’s not fair! Suppose the baby doesn’t want to go?"

Well this is certainly true, the baby will "know" the mother, having been wrapped in her heartbeat for 9 months and hearing her voice. It is all the baby knows. Certainly it's possible that the baby won't want to go > the baby can't talk though so we can't know.

This is a generally great point. On another thread I said that the view that genetics = everything is a very masculine view. for them that is all they do, provide some genetic material. So taking this masculine view, the egg donor is the other parent, and the woman who grows and births the baby is "not related" to it. I'm sure this is part of the reason for the incresing use of donor eggs, to try to really make the women who has the baby into nothing more than a vessel. I tihnk this masculine view is wrong though. The genetics come from one women, but the woman that grows the baby also has massive input.It shared her blood, knows her heartbeat. We lambast women for doing things that might harm the baby (and surrogates have a massive list of "don'ts") but what about the input of the good things they do? We know that stress has an impact on a feotus, what about happiness? To see the woman who has a baby as nothing more than a container is ethically iffy and morally iffy but also, from a biological perspective, probably incorrect. The reason it can be framed as such is that male perspective = human perspective.

I also agree with all the other threads on here about changes to law on way, commercial surrogacy globally, women being used for parts, two healthy men being seen as infertile because neither has a womb is ridiculous, right to family life being abused so men can get what they want at cost to women etc etc

This enrages me. Nobody is entitled to have a baby. The NHS should not be using our money to fund this. I do disagree with surrogacy, outright. It’s not fair to intentionally create a child that will be taken from its mother- that is what a surrogate is. I am so annoyed this happens at all, to be paying for it is just horrible.

Regarding who is the legal parent. Similar thing currently in NZ, that they have to apply for adoption. A celebrity, Toni Street, had her third ‘desperately wanted’ baby through a surrogate- a personal friend with a family of her own. Toni couldn’t have another due to health problems. She put it all on IG and got loads of sympathy etc and then posted about the injustice of having to adopt ‘her own child’. She tagged the PM, who replied that the adoption laws def need updating and they’d get on to it. Ffs. Why is everyone so entitled?! Adopt a child! Jesus flipping Christ.

I have had fertility treatment. I had it because I am not in a relationship with a man so could not conceive naturally. However, I did not have the treatment on the NHS because there is nothing wrong with my fertility and it's not the NHS's remit to solve what are effectively social problems.

It is obscene that the NHS is involved in a scenario where it is purposefully causing significant health risk to two separate healthy women, entirely and solely for the benefit of two healthy men.

And that's even before you consider the moral implications of creating a child with the express purpose of removing it from its mother at birth.
Agreed 100%

Fertility is part of health, infertility is not the norm.
Yes but there are two issues here. One is the production of an infant who would never be conceived otherwise (the men aren't ill or had cancer, they're just men) and the second is the fact we pay for it.
The first can be used to argue against fertility treatment, yes. In cases where the mother is too old to conceive, that isn't a health issue. She could have had children earlier in life, just like the men could have had sex with a woman and made a baby. The tricky part is when you argue that the former couldn't possibly have had a baby at 22 because she was too poor and hadn't met the right partner, and the men couldn't have lost their gold star because that's conversion therapy.
In both cases the adults have zero right to a baby. None. We should only treat infertility caused by disease. Age isn't a disease and neither is homosexuality.
The second part is about who pays. If an older woman wants to be a mum, there's no moral argument against her trying. I believe she should pay privately as it isn't an illness. But I don't think the men should be able to do likewise as there are two other women involved and plenty of risk of financial or emotional coercion.

Some people can't have children. It can be horrible, but some people never find love either. Ever. What do we do about that?

Two men not being able to conceive a baby is not a fertility issue, nor is it a social problems.

It's a basic fact of life but they seem very unfasionable these days. At the same time as oppressing women is coming well back into fashion in a new and shiny 21st century format.

OrchidInTheSun good for you.

We should only treat infertility caused by disease.
Sorry I wasn't clear here, I mean the NHS should only treat infertility due to disease.

The NHS can’t even afford to provide life saving treatment at a decent standard. Fertility treatments should categorically not be available on the NHS.

I’ve been wondering for a while about the purpose of the survey carried out by Surrogacy UK that said the 65% of surrogates (who responded) wanted to give up their parental rights at birth.

Women broken down to their body parts to service the wants of consumerist men. No thought for the babies and their biological heritage. this.

And no recognition (or respect) for the bond between mother and child. A bond intimately developed over a 9 month period. All for sale with huge physical price for the women involved, and with no known positive effect for the child.

Ignorant a*holes.

I have a friend who is ineligible for ivf on the NHS because her husband has a child from a previous relationship.

She lost a Fallopian tube/ovary following ectopic pregnancy ten years ago.

Infertile, ineligible. This stinks.

Why is everyone so entitled?! Adopt a child! Jesus flipping Christ.

I was with you till "just adopt".

Looking at the state of the nhs and how we treat older adults (ie with cancer- it's vastly different to younger people) I'm firmly in the "no IVF at all camp". As has been said over and over having a child isn't a human right.

I understand it is loaded and difficult (trust me!) But we need to prioritise saving lives and maintaining quality of life for people.

Currently I'm being told drugs I have will be withdrawn as they're too expensive to only be "taking the edge off my pain". I was told this in an appointment where I was explaining pain made me feel suicidal.

No. Nope. Non. Nein.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are so many children waiting to be adopted. I honestly don’t see why suggesting adoption instead of surrogacy is not a good idea.

Thanks Oink

maintaining quality of life for people
The problem is, there will be someone who claims unless they have GRS they will kill themselves. Unless they have a child, they will kill themselves. Unless they have their ears pinned back. A boob job. Bariatric surgery.
Pain management is different.
Not having what you want in life isn't grounds to hold everyone else hostage by emotional blackmail.
We need to provide fewer NHS services and ensure those we do provide are top class. So you get what you need but someone else doesn't get what they want.
And then we need to examine how some people genuinely can't cope with not getting what they want, to the point where is really does affect their mental health.

The argument that you don't have a human right to a child could be used to argue against all fertility treatment

Well may be, but why not? I am old enough to remember the first "test tube baby". I thought it was wrong then and I still do. Possibly the only time my and The Catholic church's views coincided.

Since then we seem to have moved to ever more expensive and complicated ways to create babies which are a long way from unblocking a fallopian tube can to restore fertility and insemination by donor.

I am against all surrogacy regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the party wanting a baby.

Fleetwoodsnack, that's terrible.

I honestly don’t see why suggesting adoption instead of surrogacy is not a good idea
I'll summarise what I learned on previous threads.

• it's not fair on the adopted child to be the fulfilment of someone's wish rather than their own person
• it's hard for the adoptive parents as links with birth family are maintained nowadays (for the child's sake)
• most children in need of adoption have had some suffering (neglect or abuse) and need extra commitment (or are disabled and the same applies)
• people prefer their own genes, and it isn't fair for the child to be a compromise

What if the child is disabled and neither the surrogate nor the father/s want this 'faulty product', what then? What happens to the child?

This has happened IIRC. This seems to have been the legal outcome: www.google.nl/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-36012320

I wonder what "Long Lost Families" will look like in 20 or 30 years time. I can't see there being any less pain.

Sorry that’s not correct. The surrogate didn’t reject him, but she certainly couldn’t afford to raise a child.