MN editorial on how wonderful surrogacy is

[anothernotherone]

This is on the MN homepage: www.mumsnet.com/pregnancy/surrogacy

Isn't this a massively controversial issue related to the exploitation of the female body as an incubator?

Are MN picking sides on a massively controversial issue, or has whoever's written and selected this rosey whitewash coverage of surrogacy not engaged their brain fully?

I would say that theoretically, from the position of the donor, altruistic surrogacy would be similar to altruistic donation. Clearly both can be exploited if they aren't regulated carefully, but maybe it could be done. From a regulation perspective I suspect regular organ donation is simpler to manage which might be a consideration.

There isn't the additional question of the rights of the child itself with an organ so that factor has to be discussed additionally. You could compare egg and sperm donation, and I think the issue is really the same there and it also should also not be allowed. You likely cannot stop people from making informal arrangements in any case but the law should support the rights of the child when it comes down to it.

I don't think the pregnancy can result in death argument is particularly strong or relevant. The vast majority of women in first world countries do not die as a result of pregnancy. The US has a higher mortality rate than the UK but that is down to poor pre- natal care for poor women. A surrogate is likely , one would assume, to be given proper health care.

The comparison with being a job falls down is that there is no other job where the "employee" can't get out of the job.

For example my senior employees have to give a lengthy period of notice. If they just walk out I can't catch them, tie them up and make them work out that notice.

In theory I could sue them for any actual financial loss caused by their breach of contract and/or interdict them for working for someone else until the notice period expires but they will and cannot be forced to work for me.

A surrogate can't get out of her 9 month contract other than by having an abortion.

That's an unusual element for sure. the military might compare - you can't just leave, you usually have to agree to serve out a certain period of time. You even put aside certain other rights that are considered normal for employees, for example with relation to medical treatments you may be required to take drugs or vaccinations you'd normally have a choice about, you are subject to different laws, there are restrictions on your political activity.

So, I would say people can make decisions at that level. What is different is that it's an agreement with the state, rather than with other private individuals, and for the good of society as a whole rather than a private benefit, and those might be significant differences.

I would say that theoretically, from the position of the donor, altruistic surrogacy would be similar to altruistic donation

As an altruistic kidney donor I have no idea who received my kidney, I was given no information. Not the case with altruistic surrogacy.

As an altruistic kidney donor I have no idea who received my kidney, I was given no information. Not the case with altruistic surrogacy.

But you can donate to a known recipient like a family member can't you? That's what I had in mind when comparing it to surrogacy.

But you can donate to a known recipient like a family member can't you? That's what I had in mind when comparing it to surrogacy.

Sorry it was drilled into me during the process altruistic kidney donation is to a stranger, whereas people who donate to friends/family are more commonly referred to as living donors.

SimplySteveRedux

Aah, apologies, I didn't know that.

As an aside, what you did was incredibly brave and generous. I doubt there are many people who would do that for a complete stranger.

If we were going to make laws about altruistic surrogacy for strangers maybe anonymity would be ideal.

I think the law here is a little different. Friends of mine had a stranger donate a kidney to their daughter, and while they did not know the person at the time, they were later able to meet him and he became quite close to them.

That's an unusual element for sure. the military might compare - you can't just leave, you usually have to agree to serve out a certain period of time

Yes that's true. It used to be possible to buy yourself out of the army but that's gone now. But even in these very exceptional circumstances presumably the sanctions for breaking the contracts are finance and / or criminal? They might be very unpleasant but presumably deserters are not forced to continue?

Outwith these exceptional circumstances the penalties for breaking a contract will be purely financial/ reputational.

If we were going to make laws about altruistic surrogacy for strangers maybe anonymity would be ideal.
Not for the child! Unless you're proposing they don't meet before the birth but co-parent after?

Yes, I think the child has a right to know who all their parents are.

I agree a surrogate is likely to be given proper health care, because the person or people commissioning the transaction will be paying for it.
Even so, there is still a risk of death. My mother came close to death with me ( eclampsia). A friend’s family member died in the UK after post partum psychosis. The medical care may well stop once the baby has been handed over.
Women do still die, or suffer life changing complications giving birth, even with very good medical care. One close friend has needed a hysterectomy after birth complications, another has had incontinence bad enough to need surgery, a third has been left with a severe prolapse that surgery has not resolved. I lost a lot of blood after a c section that took me a year to recover from. Something that can lead to other major health issues as it can damage the pituitary gland.
Of course people do risky things for fun. However we are careful to protect people in their workplaces, and where the work is inherently dangerous but vital (the Police , the Lifeboat teams etc), everything possible is done to ensure that working as a team minimises the risk to the individual .
It simply isn’t possible to remove risk with surrogacy, and that is just looking at it as a “job like any other”.
Looking at it from a more human perspective, it is an incredibly selfish thing to do, to rent out a woman’s fertility and body, to buy her baby.
Babies are people, not commodities.
Here and in the US, in any articles I’ve read, or tv programmes, I have only seen working class women acting as surrogates, that is very telling I think. Highly educated and comfortably off women do not do this. ( possible rare exceptions for siblings ).

Not really as she's registered blind.
OK, has anybody else noticed this huge red flag?
SimplySteveRedux, has she got a computer set up with specialist screen-reading software? If not, then she's basically relying on what people around her are telling her about the potentially serious medical cons of surrogacy. Unless she can freely do her own research - or at least seek advice from an unbiased, independent expert source - she cannot give informed consent to this procedure!

She predominately uses a tablet, but she does have a computer, yes. She often uses text-to-speech. DP offered to be a surrogate for DD with no pressure or coercion implied or otherwise. As I've posted I'm torn as to how this whole thing makes me feel between DDs infertility and DPs horrendous pregnancy with DD. That's before the impact on the child. This is a very useful thread for me, and I'm going to get DP, and DD, to read it.

I do think IN THEORY that altruistic surrogacy can work - where the birth mother is close or related to commissioning parents and they have a close ongoing relationship, 4th trimester can happen with a gradual hand over to the commissioning mother, and all parents remain in the child's life. However, I think it's clear most surrogacy which is so-called altruistic in this country involves 'expenses' already strays far from the model which centres the child and preserves their dignity. And the MN puff piece and the current consultation are clearly driven by those who want to monetise surrogacy and don't even consider the impact on the child - huge red flag.

And I think those forces seeking to exploit women and make money out of selling babies are so great and will exploit any laws allowing 'altruistic' surrogacy (as already occurs in this country) that it is better to ban outright, as many countries have already done.

Yes. I totally agree. It does need an outright ban. Are Mumsnet keeping this piece up ?

I was out with some gay friends and their daughter (born via surrogate) started crying. A little 5 year old next to us went "ah that baby wants her mummy" - awkward silence!

I don't agree with surrogacy but definitely seems to be on the rise amongst the pink pound, and noticeably staying within UK.

The people I know who have used surrogates claim it's all very altruistic but from what I know the women seem to have several kids already, married and not particularly well off. I can't tell if it's a money thing or almost addicted to being pregnant. From my own experience how anyone could go through pregnancy to give a baby away is beyond me.

JazzyGG that post sort of got me in the solar plexus.
Because yes, that baby probably does feel the absence of her mother, no matter how brilliant the care of the men who parent her.

Every baby animal has a need to be with the mother in whom they grew, knowing her heartbeat, her voice, the sway of her body.
We'd empathise if her mother had died. We'd feel grief for her.
We'd understand she would be suffering a loss that would impact her life.

Yet we seem to be manufacturing these babies and engineering their losses purposefully.

I find that most people also understand that if a child needs to be adopted, they will also miss their birth mum (and dad). Single male and gay adopters are acutely aware of this and the ones I know give their children space to grieve.

We'd empathise if her mother had died. We'd feel grief for her.
We'd understand she would be suffering a loss that would impact her life. Yet we seem to be manufacturing these babies and engineering their losses purposefully.

Perfectly put Barracker, your posts are always spot on and always centre women and children. It's so refreshing.

I do think the intentional nature of surrogacy engineering losses, is a very important point. In law murder and manslaughter are different for a reason. The intent is important.

If somebody prangs my car, I do get a bit upset but if they're apologetic, it's an accident I think 'oh well, these things happen'. If someone did it deliberately I would be much more upset and angry and would find it much harder to let go of the hurt. Intent matters.

Same here Barracker. Made me well up, reading Jazzy’s post. Babies do need their mothers. Fathers are great later on, but babies belong to women. How will that baby feel when she is an adult and has her own baby ? Heartbroken I imagine, however loving her fathers are.

Because yes, that baby probably does feel the absence of her mother, no matter how brilliant the care of the men who parent her.
You do realise that by saying that, you are basically saying that no gay men can actually adequately parent a child, regardless of whether the child is adopted, born via a surrogate or whatnot? (But somehow a couple of lesbian can because they have their mum, whether said child has a dad doesn’t natter does it?)

This, imo, is profoundly against gay people and unacceptable.

I assume that when laws came to allow gay couple to have their own dcs and adopt you were against it too then?

You do realise that by saying that, you are basically saying that no gay men can actually adequately parent a child, regardless of whether the child is adopted, born via a surrogate or whatnot?

That's not what was said at all. What was said is that babies need and want their mothers. That's biology. Are we supposed to pretend the best interests of children aren't what they objectively are, so as not to be unfair to gay men? In every other sphere of health care, social policy and legal proceedings it's recognised that babies belong with their mothers (assuming no safeguarding issues). Why are we suddenly supposed to pretend that doesn't matter when it comes to surrogacy, and that removing a baby from the mother who has just given birth is a positive thing? Why are you prioritising the rights of gay men over the well-being of children?

And of course there is a difference between a lesbian who has grown and given birth to her baby and a gay man who has rented a woman to do that. Why do lesbians always get dragged into arguments about men's rights? Lesbians are still women, and mothers.