Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Woman asking nhs to pay for US surrogacy

162 replies

hoorayforharoldlloyd · 16/12/2019 06:43

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
IlsSortLaPlupartAuNuitMostly · 17/12/2019 20:31

One reason that was argued why UK surrogacy would be unacceptable is because the claimant would be emotionally unable to cope with the risk that the surrogate might change her mind.

Another is listed in the lawyer’s summary after the Court of Appeal judgement here.
www.irwinmitchell.com/newsandmedia/2018/december/young-woman-left-infertile-following-negligent-treatment-awarded-costs-of-us-surrogacy

IlsSortLaPlupartAuNuitMostly · 17/12/2019 20:33

This is the full Court of Appeal judgment, which those of you who are interested in the wider social argument around surrogacy might find interesting.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/xx-v-whittington-hospital-final-19.12.18.pdf

RealityNotEssentialism · 17/12/2019 21:07

Well if she can’t cope with the surrogate changing her mind, this is not the route for her. The surrogate is also a human being with feelings and emotions. I am sure surrogates change their minds in the US too. The difference is that they have zero rights and are treated like commodities from start to finish. So, no, I don’t think that consideration should make any difference to the court. Seriously. It’s terrible what happened to her but no, she cannot demand to have four children and no, she cannot demand that she should be able literally buy them without the person carrying them having any legal rights. The level of selfishness in this whole thing is really quite staggering. She has received more money than most of us will ever see in recognition of her disease being missed. She is taking this money from a service that is desperately underfunded and where people are dying because of it. I honestly wouldn’t have the gall. I am convinced of it.

FannyCann · 17/12/2019 21:28

I think people using surrogates worry that the surrogate mother will change her mind and want to keep the baby. It does happen, Cases pop up in the newspapers from time to time. But I have seen it asserted (no statistics I'm afraid) that it is more common for the commissioning parents to renege on the deal. Relationship break up or the baby not being perfect being the commonest reasons.

ChattyLion · 17/12/2019 21:34

Well if she can’t cope with the surrogate changing her mind, this is not the route for her. The surrogate is also a human being with feelings and emotions

Exactly. That’s what feels so sinister about the rights-removing argument. What about the surrogate’s rights to her own agency and choice and being able to change her mind, just like anyone else has the right to do?

LolaSmiles · 17/12/2019 21:51

One reason that was argued why UK surrogacy would be unacceptable is because the claimant would be emotionally unable to cope with the risk that the surrogate might change her mind.
Then she isn't in a position to have a baby by a surrogate I'm afraid.
You can't ethically rent a womb and buy a baby and seek to deny other women basic rights and agency because you have the money.

There's something quite chilling about woman with half a million quid seeking even more money to buy a baby from (most likely) a poorer woman who feels the way to get by is to grow a baby and take on associated medical risks for money.

OhHolyJesus · 29/01/2020 09:56

Something on Surrogacy now on BBC2

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51148421

Lowhum · 29/01/2020 12:22

This was on the VD show this morning. I didn’t catch all of it, but the account from the surrogate was very moving and upsetting. She said something along the lines of, ‘it should be illegal’.
Julie Bindel was taking on the sofa, but I missed that part.

OhHolyJesus · 29/01/2020 12:48

I was the opposite Low I missed Bindel's but, will be watching back.

Interesting piece.

IcedPurple · 29/01/2020 12:50

Julie Bindel was excellent I thought. Wiped the floor with the smarmy 'Brilliant Beginnings' person. I also like the fact that it was pointed out that 'not for profit' doesn't mean what people think it means and there's nothing to stop people making quite hefty personal profits in such organisations.

FannyCann · 01/04/2020 14:55

.

FannyCann · 01/04/2020 15:00

She's won her case. I am profoundly disgusted and appalled by this. The NHS to be forced to pay for something that is illegal in this country.

Also of course, although it wouldn't have been relevant to the ruling, but as we all know the NHS is currently being stretched to breaking point and we have this to pay for. Plus it is hugely concerning that this will be a test case for the future, whatever the outcome of the law Commission proposals for new laws relating to surrogacy in the UK.

www.theguardian.com/law/2020/apr/01/uk-woman-wins-claim-for-nhs-to-pay-us-surrogacy-costs

FannyCann · 01/04/2020 15:09

Also pretty outraged by this from Lady Hale.

"Lady Hale, the former president of the supreme court who gave the majority decision, said: “The courts have bent over backwards to recognise the relationships created by surrogacy, including foreign commercial surrogacy. The government now supports surrogacy as a valid way of creating family relationships, although there are no plans to allow commercial surrogacy agencies to operate here."

“It is no longer contrary to public policy to award damages for the costs of a foreign commercial surrogacy......"

“Second, it must be reasonable for the claimant to seek the foreign commercial arrangements proposed rather than to make arrangements within the UK. This is unlikely to be reasonable unless the foreign country has a well-established system in which the interests of all involved, the surrogate, the commissioning parents and any resulting child, are properly safeguarded.”

When did we have that discussion in the UK that the government supports surrogacy?

Why did the courts take it upon themselves to "bend over backwards" to recognise the relationships created by surrogacy, including foreign commercial surrogacy. I'm disgusted. So it's fine to exploit poor women in Asia and the Ukraine?

And what evidence does she have that the interests of the surrogate and the resulting child are properly safeguarded? EVERYTHING I have seen about commercial surrogacy abroad, including in the USA tells me the opposite. These women are shamefully treated.

Does our British woman expect to have a contract with the American surrogate mothers she plans to use similar to these contracts ?

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

DidoLamenting · 01/04/2020 15:48

But delivering the dissenting judgment, Lord Carnwath said: “The fact that the laws of other jurisdictions and other systems may reflect different policy choices seems to me beside the point. It would in my view be contrary to [the] principle [of consistency between civil and criminal law] for the civil courts to award damages on the basis of conduct which, if undertaken in this country, would offend its criminal law.”

I agree entirely with Lord Carnwath.

Ali85 · 01/04/2020 16:01

The judgment is here if anyone wants to read it. Not too long for a SC judgment.

BeetrootRocks · 01/04/2020 16:27

And if the woman hired as a surrogate is seriously injured or dies as a result?

BeetrootRocks · 01/04/2020 16:28

The idea of the NHS being forced to pay to put a woman in another country at risk is grotesque.

Lordfrontpaw · 02/04/2020 08:47

Having a baby is not a human right, nor does it save your life. She could adopt, as a lot of people do. Sorry if this sounds bitchy and un feeling but the NHS is there to look after us all and save lives, not procure women for having babies.

Irial · 02/04/2020 09:35

on one of the links

The court heard earlier that having at least four children was the woman's 'central ambition' - her sister has 10 - but radical surgery made her infertile.

10 kids?

OhHolyJesus · 02/04/2020 09:36

I'm very intrigued as to why she is going to the US specifically. There are other countries that allow commercial surrogacy.

Any thoughts?

Imnobody4 · 02/04/2020 10:06

This is an example of judges overreaching the law determined by parliament. There is no human right to have a child anymore than there is a human right to have sex. I'm shocked by the arrogance of this judgement.

AnneLovesGilbert · 02/04/2020 10:11

Terrible news.

DidoLamenting · 02/04/2020 10:12

“It is no longer contrary to public policy to award damages for the costs of a foreign commercial surrogacy......"

That is just nonsense.

Procrastinator2 · 02/04/2020 10:31

Disappointed in Lady Hale.

FannyCann · 02/04/2020 19:53

I haven't checked back through all the details @OhHolyJesus but I think she wants to do it in the USA because the contracts mean she can be sure of getting her baby, the surrogate mother has no right to change her mind. Somewhere the case referenced how she could not do surrogacy in the UK because of the fear that the surrogate mother would change her mind and seek to keep the baby.
Also I suppose high end maternity care in the US is perceived to be safer than going to one of the bargain basement destinations perhaps. Or maybe the USA is perceived to fulfil this part of the judgement: "the foreign country has a well-established system in which the interests of all involved, the surrogate, the commissioning parents and any resulting child, are properly safeguarded" ?

Swipe left for the next trending thread