Woman asking nhs to pay for US surrogacy

[hoorayforharoldlloyd]

A woman whose cervical cancer was missed by the NHS is suing for over £500k to enable surrogacy of 4 children in the US as she wants the legally binding contract that isn't available here.

Initial ruling found against her, appeal court for, going to supreme court.

Very concerning for opening the way to commercial surrogacy in this country.

She's taking the piss if she has already had compensation.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3456144-Woman-awarded-costs-of-paying-for-commercial-surrogacy-in-US-from-UK-taxpayers-due-to-NHS-mistakes

Previous thread on this case:

I hope she loses too. You can’t always have what you want and she has already been legally compensated for her loss as a result of them missing the cancer. Ridiculous.

The NHS left her infertile and she suing for damages, this is merely a way of trying to quantify them. Do you think that medical organisations should be allowed the be negligent with no repercussions?

A woman a couple of years ago did actually win her case and the NHS had to pay for surrogacy costs in the USA

It really depends how negligent the NHS was - did they wilfully ignore it time and time again in which case she definitely has a case?

I'd rather the NHS paid for this than single sex couples to have IVF on the NHS

Hope she loses. No one has the right to a child, much less 4, or to rent out other women's bodies to buy babies.

Christmas she has been compensated already. Nobody has got away with anything. Of course she should get compensation. That does not give her the right to demand that she should be permitted to purchase her ideal sized family from another country. Nobody, no matter how badly treated, has the right to demand that the state provides them with four children. As I said, you can’t always have what you want.

@ChristmasSpiritsOnThRocksPleas. She completely deserves compensation and has received this at half a million. She is now asking for an additional half million for surrogacy. I don't support that at all

The compassionate outcome is for her to lose the case and get some counselling to deal with her loss. The NHS keeps its £500k to, perhaps, use in better spotting cervical cancers in young women.

This is the same case as before, I think? The court ruled awarding costs for two children but the woman wants 4.

I'd rather the NHS paid for this than single sex couples to have IVF on the NHS

Why?

itwasalovelydream homophobia much?

Surrogacy shouldn't be funded on the NHS for anyone. I'm at the point I dont think ivf should be either.

The nhs missed my cancer, I'm just really fucking happy to be alive to be honest.

She's been compensated for the neglect. If she wants to spend the money in the US, I guess that's up to her.

I do not think the NHS should fund more than one, if that is what happens for everyone else needing fertility treatment ... whether or not she "wants" one or five or four, other people might also "want" that ... however people might feel about others having over 2 children and the effect on the environment etc.

It's a sad situation and I a lot of the wording is inflamatory, so it's difficult to keep calm when reading it.

This is entitlement and Human Rights overreach. Not saying that NHS should not be accountable for negligence, but this is a dangerous precedent, it only considers the individual's 'human rights' rather than rights of other women and the dangerous precedent it sets.
Think what that amount of money could do in the NHS.

Rent a womb is immoral.

So, whilst I have every sympathy for the situation this woman is in, you can't fix that wrong by making other women take on all the risks and consequences of 4 pregnancies for money.

@Poissonpoison. I don't think IVF should be funded by NHS either.
I don't consider it a human right or an entitlement.

Then you get into the 'Human Right' of gay couples having babies through surrogacy, otherwise it is homophobic discrimination. Surrogacy and IVF - just don't do there with the NHS.

She has been compensated for medical negligence and I can't imagine how she must be feeling.

However, she has had the compensation to try and sue a second time to rent wombs on terms that are illegal in the UK is horrifying for one child, let alone 4.

Give inch, take yard comes to mind.

Presumably her argument is that the compensation already paid was insufficient, and this is a way of quantifying it.

I don't really understand why she is using a large proportion of her compensation (presumably, lawyers aren't cheap) taking the NHS to court a second time instead of just paying for surrogacy with that money now.

I do think is will be a dangerous precedent if the court rules in favour of buying a service that is illegal in the UK and immoral

I totally support her claim for negligence but I can't support he surrogacy claim.

A totally shitty situation but it sets a dangerous precedent.