Surrogate dies in childbirth, leaves behind two of her own kids

[ConfessionsOfTeenageDramaQueen]

"According to the post, Michelle and Chris decided to help another family who wasn't able to have children after they were done having kids of their own.

Michelle was on her second surrogacy for the same family when she lost her life.

Like any other pregnancy, surrogate pregnancies involve the same medical risks of carrying a child and giving birth."

This makes me really angry. Link below.

www.foxla.com/news/california-mother-of-two-dies-giving-another-family-the-gift-of-life?fbclid=IwAR2RgBrXZnWZa1DES4PQWDYMifkY7YCpLy6WVEOoHj6cD145L9Xof1Iy4mI

Well, I am. I think it's irresponsible. However, I don't know about the woman's circumstances. It might be that she was desperate. We should really be mad at the social and financial structures that lead women to make decisions like this.

I know I'll be flamed for this, but precisely because of this risk, though small, I see it as only right that a woman should be paid (handsomely) for providing people with this opportunity.
And to those who always come with the 'baby selling business': it's not as if women would be doing this for 20 years and ten children one after the other. There could be legal safeguards put in place.
Having to do this for free, despite the discomfort, risk and possibly complications and long-term repercussions for thewoman and her family, is the outrage for me.

A prostitute is selling a service as well as someone else.

Having to do this for free,... who are these women forced into surrogacy?

"Having to do this for free"

That's the point. No woman has to do it at all.

I see a recommendation in the UK government guidance to go through an agency, but how reputable are the agencies? I assume they're not charities but businesses, so what ethical framework do they work under, if any? Are they primarily looking out for the intending parents or the woman who's going to go through the pregnancy?

In the UK it is illegal to advertise for or to be a surrogate, to match surrogates with intended parents, or to profit from surrogacy.

The two main UK organisations are COTS (Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy) and Surrogacy UK. I realise I keep mentioning the same groups, but it's because they are by far the oldest and most experienced. COTS was founded in 1988, Surrogacy UK in 2002. Both are non-commercial, not-for-profit organisations.

COTS introduce their website by saying "COTS is NOT an American style commercial surrogacy agency. Our prime objective is to pass on our collective experience to surrogates and would be parents". Support is through the online community, and dedicated support workers for intended parents and surrogates. There is also counselling support, medical support (from a Nurse Consultant for CREATE Fertility Manchester) and legal support.

Surrogacy UK has a board of trustees, an advisory board, office staff, and dozens of volunteers (e.g. support workers) giving back to the organisation. Among these people and the whole membership there is a wealth of surrogacy experience whether as a surrogate or intended parent. There is also an ethics committee made up of an independent group of experts from various relevant fields such as pyschology, law and medicine.

Kikibo.... Incubating and selling a human being for financial gain, giving a baby over to fuck knows who. Where are the protective factors for the baby?
What kind of people buy a baby? People who believe that have a 'right' to have one, no matter what.
It's exploitatatve which ever way you look at this. When you hear of happening in incredibly poor communities abroad, (like people selling organs), you can have sympathy and understanding, and despise those exploiting peoples desparation. In the UK or other rich countries, it is both the surrogate and the buyers that are exploiting the baby.

There are probably more laws around dog breeding businesses than human surrogacy.

I think in the UK our laws were intended to allow friends and family to surrogate for their loved ones - but outlaw commercial surrogacy. In modern times people are navagating round the laws so we actually now have commercial surrogacy in all but name.

Common sense would dictate that we therfore ban all surrogacy. But instead the proposal is to allow commercial arrangements like in the USA. It's scary we're moving backwards not fowards.

There are probably more laws around dog breeding businesses than human surrogacy.

There are! Licensed dog breeders may not breed more than six litters from a bitch. The kennel club takes this further and won't register puppies after four litters.
But we have our very own Carol Horlock who has had 14 surrogate babies.

In the UK it is illegal to advertise for or to be a surrogate, to match surrogates with intended parents, or to profit from surrogacy.

The law Commission proposals for new surrogacy include lifting a ban on advertising and allowing "non profit" making agencies to charge for matching services.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/06/Surrogacy-summary.pdf

Common sense would dictate that we therfore ban all surrogacy. But instead the proposal is to allow commercial arrangements like in the USA. It's scary we're moving backwards not fowards.

I agree. There are so many 'what ifs' and ethical minefields with surrogacy. The only sensible solution is to ban it in all its forms, as many Western countries have done. The very worst outcome is that a small number of people don't get to have their 'own' child, but nobody is guaranteed everything they want in life.

Yes, the Law Commission have been consulting as you say Fanny. The Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 is due for an update as it is quite basic and does not include regulation surrogacy in the UK.

My understanding is that the consultation period is closed, but I can't see anything yet on the results. As far as I can see, they're currently "collating and analysing responses, and will be developing our policy and final recommendations, and instructing parliamentary counsel to produce draft legislation to effect these recommendations." The final report and draft bill aren't due until 2021.

An outright ban on advertising for organisations could mean not as many people find the decent organisations or know what they stand for. They might instead work independently, without benefiting from the expertise, support and safeguards of joining an organisation.

Some organisations have pointed out that if they were to become profit-making, and surrogates paid a fee, fewer intended parents would be able to afford surrogacy. Again this could increase the number of independent or overseas arrangements, and decrease those joining an ethical non-profit group in the UK.

Surrogacy will happen one way or another, and IMO it's much better for this to be open, ethical and informed, rather than behind-the-scenes or under the radar with no safeguards.

An outright ban on advertising for organisations - meant to say as is currently the case.

In the USA young women at college are targeted by advertising to become egg donors. You think adverts like this are a good idea?

www.elevateeggdonoragency.com/

The agencies will make a profit. Directors will be paid handsome salaries to balance the books and show no profit.
They already do.

The services of Brilliant Beginnings will set you back around £13K for the full package. All "non profit" making. How does Natalie Gamble pay the mortgage I wonder?

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

What's with goats? (A baby goat is a kid - some kind of subliminal message the young women are too stupid to see? How patronising.)

Mops Surrogacy already happens outside of the law in the UK, and this couple who bought the twins were from Spain where it is illegal. She died. The twins died. Please see the link to the crowdfunder in the report and read the text of why they are raising money.

www.cbc-network.org/2015/10/american-surrogate-mom-dies/

I know. The kids right?
They could have gone for a batch of fluffy chicks. After all they want a decent clutch of eggs.

The services of Brilliant Beginnings will set you back around £13K for the full package. All "non profit" making. How does Natalie Gamble pay the mortgage I wonder?

Ah, the same Natalie Gamble who was referred to as a 'fertility lawyer' by a pro-surrogacy poster earlier in the thread. Sounds lucrative, that fertility lawyering.

Does anyone with experience know if this is a rubber stamping exercise, or is there some discussion? I see a social worker is involved.

It is much more than a rubber stamping exercise in my experience. Having borne a surrogate baby in 2019, myself my husband and both intended parents each had to be interviewed by a CAFCASS officer. We also had to provide proof of the parents’ genetic link to their child via a letter from our fertility clinic, and evidence of our agreement form and other supporting documents including evidence for the expenses incurred and reimbursed during my pregnancy.

I don’t know much about COTS but I understand that Surrogacy UK fees for intended parents are more like £1k and they cover the costs of administering and running the organisation as described by @MopsRUs

On the feminism question I recommend this article www.google.co.uk/amp/s/surrogacyuk.org/2019/10/19/surrogacy-and-feminism-can-the-two-go-hand-in-hand/amp/

Surrogacy will happen one way or another,

Not if you make it completely illegal in every form.

Hi Anon can I ask what was done in advance of the agreement - was a social worker involved before you got pregnant? Did someone check your suitability in terms of mental health or physical health?

@OhHolyJesus initially I had a GP appointment and my GP compiled a report on my physical and mental health. I then received independent legal advice, medical screening and counselling all at the fertility clinic. My husband and I each had individual counselling as well as couples counselling then a group session with the intended parents. This was as governed by the clinic’s ethics committee (there is currently no regulator of UK surrogacy, something the Law Commission proposed to change in its consultation paper).

We also had a consultant session at the clinic to discuss specifically the risks for the pregnancy given the kind of protocol we were considering and my own age, health and medical history.

MopsRUs

Your post describing the typical process makes it sound so lovely and thoughtful but it highlights how the whole process is reliant on phenomenal good luck that nothing goes wrong and the hope that the birth mother won’t change her mind.

As an example:

The two parties meet, chat, discuss for ages before hand about what to do in all eventualities (fantasy idea). It’s decided that she should abort in event of an abnormality but when it comes to it she just can’t do it. What then? Who takes the baby after it’s born?

Non-profit means the organisation doesn’t make a profit so the owners don’t take a profit-share (or profits might be reinvested). It doesn’t mean they don’t pay themselves a handsome salary.

Thank you Anon I'm glad there was counselling available for you and your husband.

What kind of protocol was it sorry I don't understand that part - was this to do with whether it was your eggs or a donors?