Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

SURROGACY CONSULTATION ENDS ON FRIDAY 11 OCTOBER - PLEASE SUBMIT A RESPONSE [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

181 replies

howonearthdidwegethere · 01/10/2019 21:33

The Law Commission's consultation on surrogacy ends on 11 October. Please consider submitting a response. Needn't be long:

www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/surrogacy/

If you're not sure how to respond (the main document is 502 pages long!), there are already two great submissions you can draw on:

This one from nia, the VAWG charity run by Karen Ingala Smith:

www.niaendingviolence.org.uk/perch/resources/surrogacy-consultation-response-october-2019.pdf

This one from Nordic Model Now:

nordicmodelnow.org/2019/08/15/the-law-commissions-surrogacy-consultation-how-to-bamboozle-through-a-dangerous-new-law/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Ineedacupofteadesperately · 10/10/2019 15:12

Surrogacy seems to be another one of those things that when you get into the detailed evidence your opinion only goes one way (against). I think most people who are for surrogacy, other than those who profit in some way, really haven't thought about the implications for the child or surrogate.

Did anyone get an acknowledgement of submission as I haven't yet (sent an email)?

HandsOffMyRights · 10/10/2019 15:15

I did mine last week and had acknowledgment this week.

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 10/10/2019 15:19

Thanks HandsOff - the email seems to have sent ok so assuming all is fine. Having spent so much time neglecting my toddler to do it I want to be sure they actually have it!

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 10/10/2019 15:33

Reading through the FOI thread (which is very interesting) they met with two surrogates formally and "spoke with other surrogates more informally" which could mean anything really and could be even only one surrogate.

They say they did not speak to mothers of new babies at all.

I mean obviously, even as a sample size of surrogates this fails dismally.

The consultation shows a profound lack of understanding of what it's like to give birth and the potential health consequences of doing so.

But it struck me also that if surrogates stand to benefit (financially or in other ways) or are being coerced then it's unlikely when consulted they'd provide a true picture about what it's like being pregnant, giving birth and postpartum? So failing to consult with a pretty bloody large control population of women who have given birth and do not have those pressures seems to completely invalidate their consultation. To me. (one of a long list of reasons why the consultation is flawed and useless).

OhHolyJesus · 10/10/2019 17:31

I'm disturbed that they met with Stonewall and not with the Royal College of Obstetrics but I think they will count the Royal College of Midwives as covering their bases on that score.

I had a look at Brilliant Beginnings and found them a bit...hmmmm...one sided. They also support Stonewall.

We knew this already, but not a single women or mothers group.

If anyone has time, do send a letter of complaint to Better Regulation as well as signing the joint letter, you could even crib from that, the more letters the better I think. The joint letter is great though so let's share that for signatures too.

FannyCann · 10/10/2019 18:31

Hmm. According to the FOI they had one meeting with "members of the RCM" which could mean a couple of pro-surrogacy midwives as mentioned at 3.70 in the document. Also spoke at RCM conference - presumably not the one just gone.
They have not listed the RCM in their acknowledgements in the document which leads me to believe it was likely to be a more informal meeting with 2 or more midwives with experience of dealing with surrogacy.

Also I raised the absence of involvement with the RCM at the last public consultation event I attended. We were told that the RCM had preferred to wait until after the consultation to comment. Whatever that means. I can't understand why they wouldn't want to contribute to the consultation rather than wait and see. It suggests to me that they are following the DoH line that surrogacy is an accepted way of building families so the RCM would see themselves offering guidelines based on whatever the new laws bring rather than choosing to contribute to the proposals in the first place.

SURROGACY CONSULTATION ENDS ON FRIDAY 11 OCTOBER - PLEASE SUBMIT A RESPONSE [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]
SURROGACY CONSULTATION ENDS ON FRIDAY 11 OCTOBER - PLEASE SUBMIT A RESPONSE [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]
OhHolyJesus · 10/10/2019 18:37

That's interesting Fanny I also wondered why it would be midwives and not obstetrics. Midwives obviously help pregnant women but wouldn't a surrogate pregnancy be more risky (as noted upthread) and therefore be consultant led? I have little to no understanding of how this works.

And as you say, why wait to comment? Perhaps they have their hands tied and have been silenced? I guess any dissenters would have to officially toe the line even if their personal opinion meant they disagreed with surrogacy.

Ali1cedowntherabbithole · 10/10/2019 19:01

Midwives would of course remain professional and treat pregnant surrogates regardless of their opinions of surrogacy itself.

Consultant led care doesn’t exclude midwives. High risk women are monitored more closely so that intervention can happen when required.

Day-to-day it is midwives who support surrogates and listen to their fears. To exclude such key professionals from the conversation smacks of arrogance. Male entitlement in action.

FannyCann · 10/10/2019 19:45

Of course Ali1cedowntherabbithole

I think the WPUK letter covers the midwifery concerns rather well:

"Even without the risk of health complications for the surrogate mother or the baby, the experience of being pregnant and giving birth is often challenging and frightening. A relationship of trust between the pregnant woman and the midwife is crucial. In relation to Paragraph 17.76 of the consultation document, it should be noted that midwives are trained to identify not only health issues but also mental health issues, and social issues such as poor quality housing, poverty and lack of nutrition, domestic violence, and trafficking throughout the care pathway.
As much as intended parents may wish to be involved in antenatal appointments, scans, and the actual birth (indeed, in some cases the surrogate may want this too), the midwife’s relationship and primary concern must be with her patient, the surrogate mother. This is an important opportunity for midwives to identify risk factors or safeguarding issues, including the possibility of coercion or undue pressure being placed on the surrogate mother by the intended parents.
WHO guidelines, which have been adopted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, state that “all care settings must protect and promote women’s privacy and dignity, respecting their human rights.[10]”
It is not uncommon for women to change their mind about who they wish to have present at the birth once they are in labour. The wishes of the intended parents should carry no more weight than the wishes of a partner or the surrogate’s parents who may have planned to be present but who the surrogate may decide she does not want to be present once she is in labour.
There are many circumstances in which it would be undesirable for the intended parents to be present when the surrogate mother is attending healthcare appointments. For instance, in cases where complications may mean there is a risk to the mother’s health or life if she continues with the pregnancy. For instance, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where the mother may find it difficult to make choices which prioritise her own health and wellbeing if the intended parents are in the room with her, even if they do not actively put pressure on her to prioritise the welfare of the fetus. Or in a scenario where a scan reveals a fetal anomaly, the pregnant woman may feel unduly pressured to conform to the intended parents’ wishes regarding continuing or terminating the pregnancy if they are present in the room when the scan takes place.
At all times it should be remembered that the patient in this context is the surrogate mother and it is her relationship with healthcare professionals and her human rights, dignity, and bodily autonomy which are at stake. The wishes and desires of the intended parents are no more than wishes and desires. They must not take precedence over the wishes and desires of the pregnant woman or the professional requirements of the healthcare professionals charged with caring for her."

Especially the last paragraph. When I look at some of the complaints the consultation quotes from commissioning/intended parents regarding their experience I see entitled people who mistakenly think that having paid for this baby they are the most important part of the show. I am truly amazed at complaints like these:

"2) issues with the naming of the child in hospital records (the child is automatically given the surname of the surrogate on all hospital records, to the exclusion of the intended parents);
(3) issues with hospital discharges;"

and that the law commissioners appear to sympathise and imply the hospital/staff are being deliberately obstructive. It's almost as if they don't realise that IN LAW the surrogate Mother is the LEGAL PARENT of the baby/ies. So of course it would be given her name and of course I would expect a hospital to insist the baby stays with the mother until discharge and that the two are discharged together. How can any other arrangement be legal and meet safeguarding requirements? There might be a contract but it is not legally binding.

FannyCann · 10/10/2019 19:50

Which all goes to show there are massive implications for midwifery practice if new proposals are adopted and I am shocked that the RCM has taken a back seat in the whole thing and that the law commissioners did not see any need to involve them more.

I really think a minimum requirement would be a hospital lawyer, specialising in surrogacy law, to be on call at all times to check any contracts before a range of events are allowed to happen, in particular discharge of the baby with whoever arrives brandishing their contract announcing they are the legal parents. As an ex midwife, irrespective of my opinions of the rights and wrongs of surrogacy, I can see a bloody nightmare looming and thank God I am well out of it!

littlecabbage · 10/10/2019 19:51

Right, kids in bed. Have had a really busy week, so now sitting down to finish my responses. Have signed the open letter. Can we see anywhere how many signatures it has?

FannyCann · 10/10/2019 20:11

I had an email yesterday saying 600 plus signatures *littlecabbage

Oldstyle · 10/10/2019 20:38

Have just finished doing this using the Nordic Model template. I got more and more angry as I staggered through it. It is so thoughtless / culpably ignorant about the realities of pregnancy, birth and motherhood. And the stillbirth provisions are appalling. No consideration of the risks of coercion/trafficking, or vulnerable/impoverished women being pressurised into risking their physical and mental health.

Sounds as if it was written by men for men (rant rant) - and I gather the panel making the decision are also male people of the male sex.

Please do send off a response. Even if it's just an email with key points. This really shouldn't be allowed through in to law.

littlecabbage · 10/10/2019 20:47

Phew, finished.

I had an email yesterday saying 600 plus signatures

Thanks FannyCann

Barracker · 10/10/2019 20:55

Done it. Phew.

stella47 · 10/10/2019 21:44

How can they pretend it's a consultation when they've decided beforehand what views they're going to accept?

They even say it outright:

“We note the concerns of those stakeholders who felt that the current law was not in need of reform, or that reform was needed to either restrict, or completely ban surrogacy. We do not think that this position is tenable or achievable, and is not what most stakeholders, or Government, have said that they would want.”

How is that acceptable in a consultation??

Oldstyle · 10/10/2019 21:52

“We note the concerns of those stakeholders who felt that the current law was not in need of reform, or that reform was needed to either restrict, or completely ban surrogacy. We do not think that this position is tenable or achievable, and is not what most stakeholders, or Government, have said that they would want.”

Didn't know that Stella. I'm even crosser and rantier now! How can they possibly know what people want BEFORE the consultation has happened. Outrageous.

TheBullshitGoesOn · 10/10/2019 22:10

I wasn't aware of that statement stella. That is an appalling position for them to take in advance.

Having said that, it was obvious from the way the consultation was framed that they had already decided they wanted these changes - and were only looking for small tweaks round the edges.

Hopefully (although I'm not actually that hopeful) if there are a significant number of responses challenging the whole notion they may rethink their stance.

Cattenberg · 11/10/2019 00:19

I ran out of time due to problems with my laptop and ended up submitting the Nordic Model Now template, even though I would like to have said a lot more (and I'm actually open to the idea of allowing altruistic surrogacy in some circumstances).

The consultation is a travesty, really. The new pathway will benefit solicitors, agencies, private fertility clinics and intended parents, including those who want to bypass the adoption process.

The losers will be children, vulnerable or impoverished women and the NHS.

FannyCann · 11/10/2019 02:52

So perfectly summed up @Cattenberg

Why not just bung that in a separate email response?

"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] "

redchocolatebutton · 11/10/2019 06:17

bump for the morning crowd.

HandsOffMyRights · 11/10/2019 07:24

Bump

littlecabbage · 11/10/2019 08:20

Bump

BernardBlacksWineIceLolly · 11/10/2019 08:44

The starting point of that consultation just demonstrates how for many people, a world where women’s bodies aren’t commodities is simply inconceivable

OhHolyJesus · 11/10/2019 09:42

The consultation is still live - last day today!

Please ask everyone you can to send a response, even just the standard Nordic Model word doc in an email to the Law Commission notes at the top.

nordicmodelnow.org/2019/08/30/how-to-respond-to-the-uk-surrogacy-consultation-in-10-easy-minutes/

Thanks to all who have already done it, nearly there. Strength in numbers!