Building families through surrogacy: A new Law - Consultation

[FannyCann]

Building families through surrogacy: A new Law - Consultation

Last Tuesday I attended one of several public consultation events around the country to hear discussion of the proposals and recommendations to the government regarding new laws to regulate surrogacy. Now I am opposed to surrogacy in all forms and wish Britain would follow other European countries such as Switzerland, France, Germany and Sweden in banning it. However our government and the department of heath take a different view:

“Our project does not seek to examine whether or not surrogacy should be allowed. Instead, we take as our starting point that surrogacy is an accepted form of building a family, as recognised by the Department of Health and Social Care in the guidance it publishes on surrogacy arrangements”

So in the spirit of examining how the laws should be reformed I thought it would be helpful to have a new thread devoted to this discussion - there have been quite a few threads where the rights and wrongs of surrogacy have been discussed and I have voiced my opposition. Now I think we should look at the fine detail of the proposals and support and advise anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion by responding to the consultation.

Links:

Summary of the consultation paper, a shorter overview of the proposals.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-summary.pdff_

The full consultation paper, all 502 pages, not for the faint hearted! Disclaimer - I haven’t worked my way through it all yet either!

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-consultation-paper.pdff_

Link to respond to the consultation - at the event one of the organisers stressed that all answers are welcomed and don’t feel you have to answer all the questions. Just answer some if you want to.

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/surrogacyy_

Or you can email comments to:

“However, we are happy to accept comments in other formats. If you would like to a response form in word format, do email us to request one. Please send your response:
By email to [email protected]k_
OR
By post to Surrogacy Team, Law Commission, 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, SW1H 9AG.
If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, whenever possible, you could also send them by email.
If you have any questions, you can contact the team at: [email protected] “

Back to Tuesday. I have name changed as anyone who was there will know who I am. I left work at lunchtime planning to catch a train that would get me to Cardiff with plenty of time to cross the square from the train station to attend the event starting at 4pm. But it was a very hot day. Successive announcements warned that the train would be delayed by 12, 18, 36, 48 minutes...I contemplated abandoning the trip and going swimming. We got on the train (dd had decided it would be interesting to come with me), and soon we were told the train would be terminating for maintenance and we had to change. So...three trains later I staggered into the meeting room, extremely hot and sweaty, having somehow acquired a generous smear of black grease from one
of the trains all down the front of my dress, and the only seats available were at the front🥵!

The presentation had just finished and questions were starting. Of course I was very disappointed to have missed the presentation however the slides on the screen were of the twenty four pages of the summary paper linked above which I had printed off and read so although I missed the wider explanation I have an idea what the previous hour had covered.

From the questions raised referenced by some of the screenshots:

There was discussion of the proposed new pathway, which will include legal advice for the surrogate and the intended parents, and “implications” counselling for the surrogate, her family and intended parents.

A hopeful intended parent disagreed with compulsory legal advice on the grounds that she was a solicitor and didn’t need it. A recent surrogate mother disagreed with compulsory counselling as she knew what she had done and didn’t need it.

Both of these points were politely dismissed by the person presenting the proposals. And I absolutely agree with him. If anything these views demonstrated to me how these provisions absolutely need to be compulsory and I was surprised that two apparently intelligent and thoughtful people would not see that these proposals are to provide protection for other people who may be less well informed.

There was discussion around the payments and costs. I queried compensation for death of the surrogate. It was suggested that intended parents would be expected to pay for life insurance for the surrogate.

I also raised the matter of egg donors, as they appeared not to have been mentioned. We were informed that payment for egg donors is capped at £750 in the UK.

Thinking about it since the event, shouldn’t egg donors have some sort or health/sickness/life insurance too?
Ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome is a well known complication and can be life threatening in 1-2 % of cases.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ovarian-hyperstimulation-syndrome-ohss/symptoms-causes/src-203546977_

Also I have been looking at some American donor egg bank sites online. Payments are significantly higher over there, especially for young women with sought after genetic traits (high IQ, athletic prowess, beauty etc). Payments may be as much as $10,000.
I have no idea if it is legal but if I was looking to make money from my eggs a holiday in the USA and a substantial payment looks a lot more attractive that £750!

Discussion moved onto the question of payments to the surrogate. The surrogates in the room were very clear, the commercial model of the USA, where surrogates may be paid around $40,000 is not welcome in the UK. The presenter was in agreement. One surrogate mentioned the type of punitive contracts used in the USA and absolutely rejected the possibility of signing such a contract.
So surrogacy should remain altruistic with just payments for expenses covered, this was generally agreed.

However I have been thinking about this more over the past few days and it seems to be a bit of a conundrum. Look at the proposed pathway and think about the number of services and professionals involved along the way, all of whom will have a commercial interest in surrogacy:

Lawyers
Counsellors
Private fertility clinics
Egg donors - at least for £750
Insurance companies
Surrogacy agencies
Possibly advertisers if this is made legal

All of these people have skin in the game and will be profiting from each surrogate pregnancy. The intended parents get their baby. And the surrogate? Some redundant maternity clothes, a few more stretch marks and a warm fuzzy feeling at having given the most generous gift of life.

That just doesn’t sit right with me. Maybe I am just too selfish, too close minded, too unimaginative to understand why someone would want to go through nine months of pregnancy and birth for someone else. But I hate to feel ripped off and taken advantage of. And I can’t wrap my mind around the principle of a whole industry (the presenter mentioned they expected a growth in numbers) predicated on a steady supply of generous individuals who are the only people in the chain who make no profit.

The only comparable situation I can think of is altruistic kidney donation, which is uncommon but some people do it. I’m not sure exactly how one would go about it but I would think in the uk approaching the national transplant organisation would put you in touch with your nearest transplant centre, they would do medical and psychological assessments and if all was well make arrangements. It would all be in house, within the nhs, absolutely no profit anywhere, of that I am sure.

Incidentally the questions raised about making counselling and legal advice compulsory seemed to be rooted in trying to keep costs to a minimum for the intended parents. Which seemed to miss the point of these recommendations somewhat.

I have no answer for this - commercial, with substantial payment to the surrogate v altruistic with payment of expenses only to the surrogate but lots of side players profiting along the way. It is definitely something I will mention in my reply to the consultation.

So to wrap up, there were one or two people present who I suspected could be mumsnetters - one woman mentioned the rights of the child, the “quiet voice” of the baby which was the silent voice in the room. Another woman drilled down some statistics that had been mentioned in the presentation that I missed so I couldn’t comment except to say she was tenacious and had a sound mathematical mind which put the presenter at a distinct disadvantage. Well done her.

I may or may not have caused outrage with one or two grenades I lobbed - least said the better 😉

Which reminds me, I am not happy with a proposed minimum age for surrogates of 18. Yes, as someone said, it is the age of adult majority, and the presenter said it was unlikely in reality that an 18 year old would be accepted, but still....

There are more public events to come, and the screenshot I have shown doesn’t include the Scottish ones - Edinburgh on 9 September, Aberdeen 10 September, another London event is planned, date to be confirmed. You can search for events on Eventbrite, look for “Building families through surrogacy” and they come up.

Also the closing date for the consultation says previously said 27 September but seems to have been extended to 11 October on some of the information, probably best to email directly if you have queries about this.

So I hope this thread can be a useful result rice for anyone be interested in commenting on the proposals and looking at how the new law may pan out. I know many of us get heated about the rights and wrongs of surrogacy but I think it would be helpful to keep those discussions on other threads and keep this one centred on the proposals for new laws in the UK.

And that health insurance is subsidised by the American taxpayers.

I hadn't realised that, I had assumed that the health costs In the USA were born by the intended parents.

Chapter 16, (pages 19 and 20 of the short summary of the consultation paper linked above) focuses on proposals regarding international surrogacy arrangements, including "where intended parents based in other countries come to the uk to enter into surrogacy arrangements"....."intended parents may come to the UK to enter into a surrogacy arrangement here, with the intention of taking the child to their home country to become legal parents there."

I could see the UK being a popular international surrogacy destination because of the NHS. I feel incredibly strongly that the NHS should not be funding this. Don't forget, even if private health care was the intended route, the NHS is always the one to pick up the pieces when an emergency arises.

I feel incredibly concerned about this and determined that UK taxpayers and the NHS should not be subsidising an international baby trade.

I have been waiting for the new government so that I can start banging out some letters to the Secretary of State for Health, and others in government. It is so frustrating that BREXIT has occupied government for so long, and completely overshadows other important issues that need attention.

If we're going to have to have surrogacy, absolutely no way should it be internationalised. The surrogate mother and the 'intended parents' should all be British citizens and resident in Britain.

I think people shouldn't be able to be surrogates unless they've already carried a baby to term. Because you have no idea how horrible it is until you do.

I agree with this. Although I do also think how it is somehow worse to risk the life of a mother who has young children depending on her. Which brings me back to my view that surrogacy should be banned.

Well, the kidney comparison is interesting because some people need and will die without a kidney transplant but the state would never allow money to change hands for this to happen.

Yet, it is bending over backwards to effectively enforce a right to a child that is biologically yours. Bizarre.

I also believe that if we are to allow it, the surrogate should be hugely compensated for her work. Altruism is always used to devalue women’s work and this is no exception. The surrogate should be in total control of the process, whereas she is currently the most disempowered party, being paid a pittance and risking a lifetime of health issues.

Finally, have they considered the impact of making surrogacy easier and more normal on the many children needing to find an adoptive family? I think it will reduce the pool of prospective adopters who will want to ‘buy their own’ rather than take on a child who may come from a less than perfect background. Bad for society all round.

Also, I used to be undecided about this issue but I now think banning is probably the way to go. No disrespect to anyone who has a child by surrogate and I also don’t think that all surrogates are helpless victims who cannot think for themselves. I am sure most of them do it entirely willingly. I just don’t think this is something that the state should be permitting and endorsing. If we don’t allow organs for cash, I can’t see how we can allow something that isn’t even necessary for survival.

Agree with Lass, im opposed to surragacy but if its legal then the surragate should get the folliwing as a minimum;

Paid - all appointments, travel and for the entire duration of the pregnancy 24/7

Insurance including, MH and dental cover for entire duration from first intervention, (hormone treatment, conceptipn whatever it is that comes first) until 5 years after birth.

Have carried at least one healthy child to term - I had no idea how awful pregnancy would be and the danger my life would be in until i went through it.

Counselling should be compulsory before during and after for the surragate, not least because of the risk of miscarriage etc and the trauma this can cause.

Minimum age should be 21 if not 25

No one with any vulnerabilities or past trauma should be allowed to be a surragate - there should be a comprehensive screening procesd.

ALL costs should be covered by the perspective parents. Tax payers, surragate's employers etc should not be expected to subsidise surragacy in anyway.

Plus FULL future medical expenses for anything relating to the pregnancy. Vaginal mesh scandal, anyone? Many of the effects of pregnancy don’t show until later in life.

Hmmm

Also how about making it seriously expensive. If we're in the topic.

The woman has to be paid a seriously large amount of money. Like 200k or something. Seems fair considering what's being asked (physical and psychological risks up to and including ptsd, death).

How about that.

I've just finished watching this - Eggsploitation. It's truly shocking.

@FannyCann I’m not sure if you are referring to future plans but for now, intended parents have to be resident citizens of the U.K, you cannot use a surrogate in the U.K. if you live abroad, even Ireland poses massive problems as the surrogate has to stay on the birth certificate, there are surrogates that have done surrogacy for Ireland residents but they are in the slim minority.

Also, other than the antenatal/postnatal care and obviously birth, the nhs does not fund surrogacy in any way. Many people have tried and failed to get ivf funding to use with a surrogate but all have been refused.

I get where you're all coming from re: the surrogate is the only one not making money, but I can't ever support commercial surrogacy. The second you introduce money desperate women will turn to it as an option. It'll be the rich buying babies from the poor. A very high fee will just make it the very rich buying babies from the poor.

I 100% agree it should be banned outright.

Since it isn't, I think also that a surrogate should be at least 25 and have had at least one child. Surrogacy tourism should be banned. Surrogacy advertising should remain banned. Surrogates should only be able to have at most 2 children as part of a surrogacy arrangement.

I read the short version of the consultation docs but haven't started answering it yet. It's quite dense and the heat wave has zapped my brain a fair bit. But my main concern is the commercial bit and the advertising bit. The new pathway, from what I could tell, does seem like an improvement on the current system, with legal advise/ counselling/ a vetting process for the IPs etc. I guess I feel like that's the bit which only really effects the "stake holders" so I don't know how much input it's worth me having there. But a country which advertises women as rentable wombs effects all women. We are all stakeholders in that conversation.

*@makingmiracles
*
In my post at 20:21 I quote directly from the summary of the consultation paper I linked originally, pages 19 & 20 about how new laws could cover international surrogacy arrangements. I am glad to hear that international arrangements are not allowed currently. I will suggest in my response to the consultation that this should remain the case. I do not believe the UK should provide surrogacy for international clients.

As you say, antenatal/postnatal care and the birth itself are covered by the NHS. I suggest that could save some international clients a substantial amount of money and is another reason for opposing international surrogacy.

Impoverished women, renting their uterus, taking all the risk, and the baby being taken away.

Terrible for her, but, at least she understands the situation. The baby won't.

Ban it

Viva, i think all of us are in agreement that it should be banned but the consultation is working from the point of 'this is going to happen'.

I agree with pp that any money changing hands is going to make it more likely to be rich prospective parents are buying a baby from the poor but I also can't reconcile the thought that the mother is not getting anything whilst everyone else is profiting.

Also, other than the antenatal/postnatal care and obviously birth, the nhs does not fund surrogacy in any way.

So other than many thousands of pounds worth of medical care directly related to the birth, the nhs does not fund surrogacy in any way.

Why should the taxpayer subsidise a penny of this? Obviously the mother deserves the best care, but if the 'intended parents' want a baby so so badly, let them pay for it.

ByGrabTharsHammar

You are right - in so far as the UK is going to allow surrogacy then the law does need updating and many of the proposals in the consultation are good.

At the time I was pleased to hear that the commercial model was not popular. The problem is, the so called altruistic model will be commercial for everyone but the surrogate and that really upsets my sense of fair play!

I don't pretend to have an answer.

Maybe it will remain "gifts" and "expenses". (I don't recall pregnancy costing me anything, most of my maternity clothes were passed around in a local group and when I stopped work I was on paid maternity leave - what did I miss?)

I agree with this. Although I do also think how it is somehow worse to risk the life of a mother who has young children depending on her. Which brings me back to my view that surrogacy should be banned.

Surrogacy is one of those things which, the more you examine it, the more pitfalls are revealed. I didn't used to be against surrogacy, other than those awful 'baby farms' in places like India or Cambodia, but the more I read about it, the more I see that the ethical dilemmas it throws up are so very many. The only sensible option is to ban it entirely. Particularly since, as discussed above, it is only faciliting a 'want', not a need.

Maybe it will remain "gifts" and "expenses". (I don't recall pregnancy costing me anything, most of my maternity clothes were passed around in a local group and when I stopped work I was on paid maternity leave - what did I miss?)

Well, if you'd been self-employed pregnancy would certainly have cost you, as you'd have had no paid maternity leave. Also, you would have either had to drive or take transport to your ante-natal appointments etc, so that will have cost you too. Might seem a trivial amount for some, but it may not be to many women.

Agree IcedPurple

Also, what about maternity leave? Obviously the mother fully deserves it, but this too should be paid for by the 'intended parents'. Why should employers subsidise an employee having someone else's baby?

I agree icedpurple

The problem is MEN want it legal so cant see it being banned. The majority of IPs will be gay men.

I filled in part of the consultation aleady and most of my redponses were with regards to babies needs being ignored and that their need followed by the surragate needed prioritising. Surragacy just seems to be all about what tge IPs want and sod everyone else including the poor baby. Maternal bobding is so important for new babies, collustrum even if a baby is not then breast fed is a huge benefit to them... so many things a baby will loose out on by becoming a comodity.

I think that if its going to be legal the surragate should get something other than 9 months of at best discomfort at worst hell followed by a damaged body.

The dillema regarding whether a woman should have had a baby already to know what its like versus risking the life of a mother with other children to care for is why an outright ban should be made.

Its just awful that anyone thinks it is ok for a woman to be used in this way for the entitlement of others.

Surrogacy should be banned, but if it cannot be banned it should be mandatory for the people receiving the "End product" ie. the baby to pay the surrogate a substantial sum. Even when the intended parents are related to the surrogate, so that no one will be forced to carry a child for relatives.

'Also, other than the antenatal/postnatal care and obviously birth, the nhs does not fund surrogacy in any way'

The cost you talk about are not trivial.

'(I don't recall pregnancy costing me anything, most of my maternity clothes were passed around in a local group and when I stopped work I was on paid maternity leave - what did I miss?)'

Loss of earnings while on mat leave
Possible loss of advancement
Possible loss of job (many women still lost job due to pregnancy even though illegal)

There is a lot of unquantifible stuff around risk. Risk of injury, psychological damage, death. Impact on existing children of difficult pregnancy, mhps, vanishing baby even. Impact on relationship etc

Again it's not work like any other.

Our bodies are increasingly being used /seen as resources. They always have been but it was generally seen as exploitation. Now it's honest work in the capitalist system?