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.

From the judgement posted up thread:

"In the circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that the claimant’s clear preference is for a commercial surrogacy arrangement in California. As Sir Robert Nelson said, “the system is well-established, the arrangement binding and the intended parents can obtain a pre-birth order from the Californian court confirming their legal status in relation to the surrogate child” (para 31). A further disadvantage of the UK system in the claimant’s eyes is that “it is the surrogate mother who chooses the intended parent rather than the other way around ... the idea of being at the mercy of someone else’s choosing, and attending informal parties to meet
Page 8
surrogate mothers frightens her” (para 32). In other words, the friendship model of altruistic surrogacy arrangements promoted by surrogacy organisations here does not appeal."

Reposting the judgement.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0013-judgment.pdf

It's doesn't appeal?!

She's not shopping for perfectly ripe avocados.

Jesus wept.

I don't mean to be nasty but I'm rapidly losing any sympathy I had for this woman.

She could be campaigning for better cancer diagnosis and applying for foster care or to adopt. Any children she manages to have via surrogacy will be her ultimate revenge for what she has suffered and her 'prize/s'.

This leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. I continue to be astonished at the ruling.

I know OhHolyJesus
Having to be friends with the surrogate mother "doesn't appeal"!
And the judges thought : Fair enough. Who wants to be friends with some plebeian Breeder after all.

It's sickening.

It's appalling. How can it be right that the NHS is being forced to pay for something that is illegal under UK law?

Absolutely grim,. How can someone who wishes to be a mother be so bloody disregarding of another? If any of these children are female, would she be happy for them to be a surrogate?

I find this a little jaw dropping, it just doesn't seem to make any sense. I'm trying to think of something else comparable, but I can't really.

That's horrific. I read this thread before but i thought the woman's case sounded so ludicrous that she wouldn't stand a hope of winning. I didn't necessarily think

Does anyone know if she paid her own legal fees? I was wondering why someone who could afford to bring this case wouldn't simply pay for her own surrogacy. I'm wondering if people with interests in trying to undermine protections for surrogates might have funded her.

I didn't necessarily think - ha, didn't finish my thought there. I didn't have much hope that a judge would care about the impact on women's rights but I did think they would care about the impact on NHS coffers. Is the judge allowed to consider that? It seems so obvious that the NHS shouldn't have to fund this.

And would love to know the answer about her legal fees; something about this situation is making my skin crawl.

Cannot believe she has got the go ahead for what she wants. So much is wrong with this i dont know where to begin...

Does anyone know if she paid her own legal fees? I was wondering why someone who could afford to bring this case wouldn't simply pay for her own surrogacy. I'm wondering if people with interests in trying to undermine protections for surrogates might have funded her.

Very good question.

Awful news. Horrifying.

Having a baby is not a human right, nor does it save your life

This.

I am "socially infertile" (didn't meet the right bloke etc etc etc) - do I demand that "the government" or "the taxpayer" or the NHS or someone else other than me should pay for me to have a baby?

No way.

Damages for negligence, but not more money from a very stretched NHS.

Not having children is not a disaster. I'm still fully human

I think I deserve hmmm, to win the lottery, to be 30 years younger, to be smarter, to have my parents still alive, to look like Isabella Rosselini...

Can someone help me out there, please?

So it appears she be going to California at the NHS expense and having another woman have a child for her. Tell me, if the child is born prematurely or with very significant health problems that need treatment before she can come home, will the NHS also have to pay for that treatment? If this child was the fourth, and should sadly die from the above, does the NHS have to pay for a fifth?

There is so much wrong with this judgment.

Horrified by this verdict, seems against our laws and morals. Also a huge amount of money taken away from our NHS

Can someone help me out there, please?

Here you are, you poor thing, have half a million of my taxes.

Wayhay! Ta! I’m going right out to... oh hang on, that’s right... for a quick run around the park.

Indeed KenDodd - is the NHS expected to fund air travel to California for her and her partner/husband, hotel bills, all the other expenses that will accrue from this venture? Four times?

I can't remember and I'm feeling a bit grumpy so I can't be bothered to check my facts but iirc she has received or been awarded some £500 K compensation but wasn't expected to dip into that to fund her surrogacy dreams. This is on top of the compensation. Is there even an upper limit to the expense? Or is it four babies, whatever it costs?

I think that's right Fanny the compensation was settled some time ago but this case came after that and appears to have been treated as a separate thing, so a load of cash awarded for the medical negligence, which I think was, quite rightly awarded (although I've no idea how the amount compares with other similar cases) and it could be roughly 4,000k on top as a surrogacy arrangement in the US with lawyers, life insurance in addition to the egg harvesting and IVF as well as all pregnancy scans and tests and then the actual commercial surrogacy bill is approx £100k x 4 babies to 'complete' her family.

I wonder what her husband and family Male of all this and as a PP said, I wonder who had the money to take the case to the Supreme Court. That's not cheap, if self-funded then she could have skipped that process and paid for the surrogacy herself.

This woman is hellbent on revenge, at the cost of the NHS it appears.

I don't like to diss women generally, but this woman is a selfish bint.

Well this is a disgusting judgement. Upsetting though the medical negligence and consequences are, gives this couple NO right to put another woman's (or 4?) body and life in jeopardy. Disgusting.

Wow! So is this the end or would the NHS appeal?

What bad timing to be putting additional stress on the NHS.

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

It is an accepted legal principle that changes and evolution in law can be judge led rather than statutory. The most obvious example is marital rape.

But that principle cannot possibly apply in the case of commercial surrogacy. There is no consensus that the UK public no longer considers commercial surrogacy repugnant.c

There is no consensus that the UK public no longer considers commercial surrogacy repugnant,

Genuine ignorant question, Dido -is that mandate needed for legal change?