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.

How much does a commercial surrogacy in the USA cost? If it is somewhere close to a million for 4 pregnancies then someone along the line is making a hell of a lot of money and I bet it is not the surrogate.

This is not what the NHS is for. This is not what other women’s bodies are for.

And no-one has a right to having a child.

Indeed Ginger the lawyers I'm sure are being paid a pretty penny - the Law Commission were in touch with a Law firm in Canada when they designed the public consultation.

www.hopespringsfertility.com

It's run by Cindy Wasser, a criminal defence lawyer who had two women have her daughters for her and another woman have her eggs.

I think she should be compensated for negligence. I don’t think the NHS should be forced to pay for the surrogacy in the U.S. but she can spend any comp she gets however she likes.

@juneybean totally. We have fertility issues and would love just 1!

4 children?! When was anyone “entitled” to 1 child never mind 4. What happened to her was unfortunate but she had already had compensation. Why should she get double?! Never mind to spend on an unregulated and often immoral process

Can everyone remind me why the NHS is broke?! Oh yeah, other peoples excessive demands and selfishness

She's specifically asking for compensation to fund US surrogacy over and above the costs of UK surrogacy? That seems to be putting a cost on the removal of rights from the hypothetical surrogate, and then saying the NHS should be liable for paying to remove those rights.

She has been terribly wronged but she shouldn't be able to demand that this wrong is remedied by removing rights from someone else to give more to her.

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.

It's the NHS who are appealing not the claimant.

Don't agree with this at all.

Will these be biological children (as in, did she have eggs frozen before her hysterectomy), does anyone know? Or are they donor eggs (or the surrogate woman's eggs) too?

Not that either scenario would make this OK, it's still horrible to insist on doing this in the US so that the surrogates don't have any rights.

500k is already a very hefty amount of compensation which must already address the pain and suffering around the fact that she is unable to have children herself.

I've posted this before, but NHS funding is intended to cover investigation and treatment of disease or injury.

Surrogacy isn't medical treatment.

And with regards to the gay couples scenarios, the NHS only funds IVF for people with proven infertility. Best to ignore prejudice on this one.

I've posted this before, but NHS funding is intended to cover investigation and treatment of disease or injury.

True but that's not the point here - this is about compensation for negligence. Same way that if the NHS negligently rendered me unable to walk they'd need to pay damages that would cover making my house accessible. It's a damages question not an NHS funding one.

She is not technically asking for the NHS to pay for commercial surrogacy (ignoring views on surrogacy and IVF). It is a very fine distinction - she is asking for compensation for the negligence over her missed cancer.

She won in the first Court and was granted an amount of compensation. She challenged the award as not being enough and that she should get more compensation and won. That is now being challenged again and presumably the NHS wants to lower the award to what it was originally.

It is all about how much compensation she should get for the missed diagnosis. She just wants more money to be able to compensate her and cover the cost of surrogacy. If her higher award is upheld then she will still be compensated for the missed diagnosis and it is just that she is choosing to use some of that money to fund commercial surrogacy.

OMG OhHolyJesus

My blood is running cold looking at that link you posted. "En route to Europe"
Why the hell is Cindy Wasser having meetings in Paris when surrogacy is banned in France?
There is a concerted push to commodify women's reproductive capabilities and the resultant babies. It is big business, with links world wide. They keep pushing the boundaries even in countries where it is banned.
I'm so depressed.

Is the 'Men having babies' conference about Transmen having babies by any chance?

It is all about how much compensation she should get for the missed diagnosis. She just wants more money to be able to compensate her and cover the cost of surrogacy. If her higher award is upheld then she will still be compensated for the missed diagnosis and it is just that she is choosing to use some of that money to fund commercial surrogacy.

I'm not sure this is quite right. The amount of pain and suffering this misdiagnosis caused her will have a fixed value.

Surely the cost of 4 surrogates comes under some sort of "future losses" or "future treatment costs" element of a claim? Which needs to be reasonable.

God Fanny Leia Swanberg has an interesting past...baby-selling? Human trafficking more like...and unbeknownst to her, really? She was convicted.

"Swanberg was formally charged and nearly two before she was convicted. She and her company, Canadian Fertility Consulting (CFC), paid $60,000 in fines. Her offences boiled down to paying money to egg donors for their eggs, paying money to surrogates for contract pregnancies and taking finder's fees from an American lawyer who, unbeknownst to Swanberg, was running an elaborate baby-selling ring. All of these are prohibited under Canada's 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act, the law governing the world of reproductive technology in this country."

www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/business-is-booming-for-fertility-matchmaker-leia-swanberg/article28930242/

Also am I right I'm thinking that Brilliant Beginnings was on the list for the Law Commission too? They have links to Stonewall and Mermaids think...

I remember Natalie Gamble talking about the 'cost' of surrogacy in the UK on Women's Hour. It's illegal here to pay costs to a surrogate, but you can pay expenses - the figures run to 15-20k apparently (for the surrogate?) but it didn't cost me that much to have a child, I guess it's those lawyers again...how much does the surrogate get though...?

"The supreme court is hearing the case on Monday and Tuesday. It is is expected to reserve judgment until the new year."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/16/nhs-us-surrogacy-costs-cancer-misdiagnosis

Top sleuthing OhHolyJesus
There's so much to unpick in that article, , it's shocking.

@Al1ceinWinterWonderland this has nothing to do with what the NHS finds. It’s about quantifying how much the NHS has hurt her. So this will include awards for things like pain and suffering, any medical costs arising (the NHS doesn’t fund private rooms etc either but it’s fine to claim for private treatment in tort), physical harm etc. The question is whether surrogacy costs are reasonable cost associated with ‘rectifying’ the harm done to her. It’s a bit nebulous really but then again the NHS has made it impossible for her to have children herself, they should pay out and the costs of having someone else carry the baby seem like an easy method of quantification.

The question is whether surrogacy costs are reasonable cost associated with ‘rectifying’ the harm done to her. It’s a bit nebulous really but then again the NHS has made it impossible for her to have children herself, they should pay out and the costs of having someone else carry the baby seem like an easy method of quantification

So I assume this must be with her (the claimant's) eggs? Or she wouldn't have a case.

Thanks Fanny I'm not sure what to do with this news really, essentially an ex-criminal who is in the business of selling babies is going around France advising on surrogacy alongside an ex-defence lawyer who is, in turn, advising on a public consultation in the Uk on the same topic.

France has banned surrogacy, even altruistic surrogacy and the Uk appears to be looking to loosen laws around surrogacy.

How do we escalate this?

Brilliant Beginnings was undoubtedly heavily involved with the Law Commission, as "stakeholders" OhHolyJesus . Natalie Gamble is currently charging about £13k for services which I don't understand as I thought charging for "matching" services was currently against the law.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/21/surrogacy-in-the-uk

Payments to surrogates is just shy of £15k by the law commissioners own research, with an increasing number topping £20k.

Court will rule she's after compensation for the same issue and thus isn't eligible.

What was the compensation for if it didn't take her resulting infertility and the implications into consideration?

Sorry but she's nothing more than greedy.

Court will rule she's after compensation for the same issue and thus isn't eligible

Court of appeal didn’t rule thus.

I suppose "male" pregnancy could be a growing market and they want to tap into it to maximise their profits. A wealthy trans man who has knackered their own reproductive system, had their eggs harvested or is too dysphoric to carry their own child is a great moneyspinner.