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.

Not to mention operations when older to deal with prolapses and various incontinence products while you wait for the operation.

And this most fundamental of 'women's work' is seen as something we should just do, for men. At its what we're for, as gestators, womb bearers etc.

It should be banned.

Having a baby is not a human right.

Psychological issues if 20 years later she thinks wtf was I thinking.

'(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?)

Paid maternity leave. I currently have 2 employees on very generous paid maternity leave and 2 more who will go before the other 2 come back. Paid maternity leave is treated on FWR as if it's just something employers should accommodate, no big deal and they can always get temporary replacements , can't they.

The reality is my department is actually over- staffed by permanent employees to factor in current and future maternity absences because we have so many women in the early to mid 30s range.

Sorry paying maternity leave to allow someone to buy a surrogate baby would actually be a big deal, were it to happen.

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.

Yes, didn't think of this. In that case, I am also back to banning it.

It's completely unfair to expect a woman to go through a pregnancy for the first time to be a surrogate, when she has no idea how her body will react.

It is completely unfair for a woman to go through the risky process of pregancy and childbirth when she has children who are dependant upon her.

It would be abhorrent to think that a woman who had had a child, but no longer did, could be a surrogate as the trauma they have already been through would likely cause untold levels of distress.

Therefore there is no "safe"option for a pool of women for surrogacy.

So it needs to be banned.

Whichever PP said the more you look into it the worse it gets was right.

Sorry paying maternity leave to allow someone to buy a surrogate baby would actually be a big deal, were it to happen.

I agree. The 'intended parents' should be financially responsible for their own parental leave AND that of the birth mother.

It is completely unfair for a woman to go through the risky process of pregancy and childbirth when she has children who are dependant upon her.

Also, not to go all Helen Lovejoy, but think of the children who may be old enough to understand that their mother is pregnant. But that the baby she is carrying will not be their little brother or sister, but will be sent off to an unknown family, and they may never even meet him or her. What effect might that have on the children years down the line? Have any studies been done? Does anyone even care so long as the 'IPs' get their 'own' baby?

I'll say it again: the more you delve into surrogacy the more you see how deeply unethical, indeed amoral, it is. Just ban it.

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.
Absolutely this. (Don't agree with surrogacy at all)

Yy iced i mentioned that earlier

How do existing kids feel about vanishing baby

@fannycann "Minimum wage. Hmm. But that probably roughly equates to the sort of sum a surrogate can expect to be paid in the USA."

Roughly, yeah. Surrogates in the US are often paid below the minimum wage.

I think it's important. Are we to consider surrogacy as work? Otherwise, it is buying a baby which is abhorrent. But if we're to think of it as a person providing a service for nine months, then they should be paid at at least the minimum wage for every hour they carry the foetus.

Also, they should be paid per hour for every pregnancy that fails, all the pre pregnancy tests, all the post natal check ups, everything. Since it's work related. Any complications should be treated as workplace injuries.

I thought any job where you risked your life normally carried a danger rate premium to whatever you are paid.

Yes but of course health and psychological risks of pg childbirth are ones women are supposed to just accept as breeding is what we are 'for'.

This will have a toxic tie-across with society and healthcare attitudes around women and reproductive matters.

I'm still firmly convinced all surrogacy should be banned, despite my suggestion that it should be put on a commercial footing. But as others have said, almost everyone else is getting something out of this except the surrogate.

Although I suppose there are the collateral contributors like employers, the NHS, the surrogates existing children who are all required to pitch in in one way or another.

I hadn't even thought how one would explain to existing children that one had given a baby away.

Lass. I've been looking at chapter 17 of the consultation paper, which covers maternity rights/benefits.
It's a potential minefield for employers. And where a "normal " pregnancy would mean just one couple entitled to various benefits now it will be two couples! There is discussion of time off before the birth for purposes of induced lactation, employer provision of suitable facilities at work to express milk, and time off to accompany the surrogate to antenatal appointments. Quite a potential burden on employers and the state in my view.

"SURROGACY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW
17.3 As a general matter of policy, we think that employment law should offer the same rights to those involved in a surrogate pregnancy as those involved in any other pregnancy. We consider, as a matter of employment law, that: the surrogate should be treated in the same way as a woman carrying her own child and the intended parents should be treated in the same way as any other person with a new child."

Crikey it’s like a nest of vipers on this thread.

It’s never going to be banned here in the U.K., hundreds of babies a year are born through surrogacy and rarely Do things go wrong(also when they do the media love to rehash old stories so it seems commonplace but actually when you look into it the story that they’re talking about is from 12 yrs ago etc)

Firstly Ips are not predominately gay men, of course there are Gay men iPs but the majority in the groups I’m in are childless heterosexual couples.

Secondly a hell of a lot of IPs are not “rich couples buying a baby” many IPS save for years, remortgage their house, use inheritance, take a second job, take a loan etc etc to afford surrogacy expenses.

THirdly, you cannot compare the cost of your own pregnancy to a surrogate pregnancy, there are travel expenses, vitamins, sanitary wear, clothing, childcare expenses, chiro/physio expenses if needed, costs of any help needed to make life easier for the surrogate (gardener/cleaner/takeaway if too ill to cook etc etc) and many more. WITH your own pregnancy you just get on with it, surrogacy expenses are there to make the surrogates life easier whilst pregnant.

I’d be surprised if statistics show surrogate mothers have full maternity leave, often they are homemakers or self employed or they take a few weeks around the due date on maternity leave, a lot of surrogates say they’d feel a fraud taking the 6/9months, so they don’t.

FWIW, my children we’re 4, 10 and 13 when I Carried my surrogate baby, they understood why I was doing it, they still see him and don’t appear to have damaged by the event. My four yr old was very proud in fact and would delight in telling people I was carrying a baby for someone else.

Other points.shock horror as this doesn’t fit your narrative....there are lots of incredible surrogates out there who express milk for the surrogate babies they’ve carried, often for months afterwards, often with IPs making long drives every few weeks back to the surrogates home to collect the milk. Surrogates are often nominated as aunties or lifelong friends and many go on to carry siblings for Ips.

I also find it abhorrent that some of you feel a women carrying a surrogate baby should not have nhs care, if the IP we’re able to carry the baby, she would most likely be having nhs Care so whyshould it matter whose body the baby is in?! Ips already have to pay privately for ivf if doing gestational surrogacy so why should they have To pay for antenatal care/delivery. If that we’re the case it would mean surrogacy here would become like America, with it being only within reach of the very rich.

Firstly Ips are not predominately gay men, of course there are Gay men iPs but the majority in the groups I’m in are childless heterosexual couples

What point are you making here?

Are you trying to suggest that those of us who object to surrogacy are only doing so because homosexual men benefit?

Please be 100 % clear I oppose surrogacy no matter what sex, sexual orientation or gender identity the buyers are.

I also find it abhorrent that some of you feel a women carrying a surrogate baby should not have nhs care, if the IP we’re able to carry the baby, she would most likely be having nhs Care

This was mentioned because you claimed there were no costs. There are costs. If the IP (whatever that means) was carrying the baby it would not be a surrogacy.

I hadn't read the consultation, but the idea that surrogate parents should be treated the same way as natal parents is beyond absurd.

This is satisfying a want, not a need.

My problem with paying a surrogate isn't about fairness. I agree that it's unfair that everyone profits but her. My problems are with the coercion that money would bring. Right now I suspect there's a fair amount of emotional coercion that goes on (though I'm sure makingmiracles will insist otherwise). But I imagine there's a fair bit of "we've been best friends since forever, won't you give us the precious gift of a child etc etc". It's another example of weaponsing female socialisation against us, and it's why I really really don't want actual fucking adverts for surrogacy being allowed. Like we aren't bombarded with enough exploitative advertising as it is. But once you add financial coercion into the mix, that's when you start attracting the truly vulnerable. And I have no faith that the compulsory counselling would weed those people out.

I only know one person who has tried to act as a surrogate. She was a 19 year unemployed old single mum in America, with a plethora of mental health problems including borderline personality disorder. She was stone broke but still desperate to have a second child, had a "contraceptive failure" followed by a miscarriage, and then threw herself into the surrogacy idea. She passed all the checks and was approved to act as a surrogate. The couple eventually dropped her but only because her drinking was so out of hand. Now obviously that's quite an extreme scenario, but I think we've all seen recently what "this is a caring service with robust safeguards and informed consent" can really mean when it comes to the well-being of women and children.

That you understood what you were doing, don’t appear damaged by the event etc is not really relevant. When you consider new laws you have to think about what may go wrong and how to protect against it. So how to prevent exploitation of women, coercion, to protect women if medical complications arise, to protect babies, to think through the worst case scenarios, as well as ‘big picture’ questions such as morality.

It’s never going to be banned here in the U.K.

Why not? Loads of other countries have banned it, why will it never happen here? It's hardly a settled issue in terms of morality!

We live in a country where a significant number of people can look at a photo of a 41 year old man beating a teenage girl at weight lifting, and say "yup, just a couple of women in a fair competition". At this point I'm never saying never about anything ever again.

FWIW, my children we’re 4, 10 and 13 when I Carried my surrogate baby, they understood why I was doing it, they still see him and don’t appear to have damaged by the event.

Your own subjective opinion about your own children hardly constitutes scientific evidence though, does it? Especially as potential issues like this might not become apparent for many years down the line.

I also find it abhorrent that some of you feel a women carrying a surrogate baby should not have nhs care, if the IP we’re able to carry the baby, she would most likely be having nhs Care so whyshould it matter whose body the baby is in?!

Well, you claimed that a 'surrogate' birth cost the heath service nothing, when in fact even with a straightforward pregnancy and birth it's going to cost thousands.

Ips already have to pay privately for ivf if doing gestational surrogacy so why should they have To pay for antenatal care/delivery.

Because they are not the ones having the baby. Someone else is. This is not a normal situation.

If that we’re the case it would mean surrogacy here would become like America, with it being only within reach of the very rich.

I would much prefer it to be banned entirely.

It’s never going to be banned here in the U.K.

As another poster has said, why not? Other countries have banned it. No reason why that couldn't happen here too.

Thanks so much for starting this thread OP.

And to the woman who felt it was the right thing to give away your own child, my sympathies to you and your family.

Makingmiracles, what if you had died? Or had been left with life altering consequences as a result of the pregnancy/birth? Are you and your children protected in these circumstances?

I agree any surrogate needs to have already had at least one child. But also due to the risk to life (I'm one of many women who came close to dying as a result of pregnancy complications) they shouldn't have children under 10. I didn't have another much wanted child when I realised I wouldn't just be choosing to risk my life, I'd be choosing to risk leaving a child motherless. That changed everything the needs of my young child took priority over my wants.

I think all of the situations that this consultation draws attention to make it undeniable that surrogacy is totally inhumane and needs to be abolished in all forms. Why should anyone have to face the risk of giving up their life just because they’ve been paid / emotionally coerced into doing something that is ultimately damaging to babies. It just makes no sense. All the hypothetical scenarios being rubber stamped by the lawyers who have put together this document just prove its a terrible terrible process with no positives whatsoever.

Why should anyone have to face the risk of giving up their life just because they’ve been paid / emotionally coerced into doing something that is ultimately damaging to babies.

Nicely summed up.