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

Availability of counselling is fortunately not just down to clinic ethics - it is a legal requirement to offer it to anyone undergoing fertility treatment.

I had an issue with the recent surrogacy story on the bbc. I was called a fruitcake for questioning the morality of getting the surrogate to carry twins for the two men.

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.

Well quite.

In my case I was a gestational surrogate ie it was the intended parents‘ genetic material - they had already created their embryos through a round of ivf which were then frozen.

By protocol I was referring to the drug protocol. The options for frozen embryo transfer are to have a natural cycle (no meds at all), a short medicated cycle or a full medicated cycle. With all drugs and medical procedures come a degree of risk and an important part of informed consent is a full understanding of those risks.

I had an issue with the recent surrogacy story on the bbc. I was called a fruitcake for questioning the morality of getting the surrogate to carry twins for the two men.

Choosing twins is just one more consumer choice. No thought about the woman going through a twin pregnancy. And pretty stupid imo as the best chance of a healthy term baby is if it is a singleton.

Some comments from Drs below an article I was looking at about this.

Funny these claims about no advertising, agencies not allowed to charge a fee etc.

Surrogacy UK charges £1200 to become a member, and like all such organisations have found a way to circumvent the no advertising rule by operating a message board as well as social events to match potential birth mothers with those seeking to acquire a baby via surrogacy.

Every professional involved in surrogacy makes money. Altruistic is a complete misnomer and the UK parents I spoke to told me it cost them £30K all in to have a child through altruistic surrogacy. They followed the rules to the letter btw, they cut no corners and did nothing illegal either.

The difference between the UK's altruistic and the US commercial system actually lie in the protection for birth mother and child. Advocates seeking to harmlessly "update" the UK surrogacy law are proposing changes which will take us much closer to the US system. You can check out the proposals yourself, of course, but the language is deliberately difficult to understand and full of needless legal jargon.

So much so that in my view the most striking thing that happened at the meeting on the Surrogacy Law proposals held by the Scottish Law Commission in Edinburgh was this:

After a number of us raised a variety of points demonstrating unequivocally that the proposals were to the detriment of birth mothers and children, a well meaning and really quite lovely Sheriff of the Court took the mike.

She wanted to reassure us, she said, that those like her, whose job it was to deal with surrogacy cases (in the process of granting or withholding parental orders), were incredibly thorough and dedicated in making sure that the needs of the children but also the birth mothers were met. The best interest of the child was foremost in all that her and her colleagues did and we should therefore have complete trust in the system.

To which one of us quipped "oh we do trust you, but you seem to have missed the fact that the proposals remove you and your colleagues from the process entirely".

She had. Completely. And that despite sitting through a rather long and tedious presentation which laid this all out in detail. They had, however, spent more than half the time talking about how much more money should be changing hands and how much money was already changing hands, and who earned the bulk of it (it wasn't the birth mothers). And why more money was absolutely desirable. And how the proposed new system was just so much better for everyone than the existing one. So she missed that wee section that talked about removing her and her colleagues from the process by essentially granting the parental order automatically and prior to birth.

(To simplify it, the current system means the birth mother has to opt out of her parental rights, whereas the new system will require her to opt in. And it gives her far less time to do so, cutting it from six months to six weeks in England and three weeks in Scotland.)

Surrogacy UK charges £1200 to become a member, and like all such organisations have found a way to circumvent the no advertising rule by operating a message board as well as social events to match potential birth mothers with those seeking to acquire a baby via surrogacy.

How does it cost a grand to simply introduce a surrogate mother to 'intended parents'? "Altruistic"? Yah sure.

Charlie what was the sheriff’s response?

Aesopfable she had none. I'm not even sure she believed us, because she kept repeating how much her and her colleagues cared about the children and how they did everything to secure their welfare.

There certainly should be a mandatory insurance policy in the UK, in case a surrogate dies, or suffers disability

What is the legal situation in the UK if the baby is unwanted, because of disability, relationship breakup of the buyers etc ?

They can't - and shouldn't be - forced to take a baby they no longer want, but shouldn't they be made to pay maintenance, at the same rate and for the same length of time as an NRP would ?

A father doesn't get to avoid maintenance for the child he caused to be created, just because he changed his mind
Neither should baby-buyers.

I read that these fluffy agencies like Surrogates UK, who introduce surrogates to buyers
have in the past proposed that surrogacy agreements be legally binding,
so that the mother can't change her mind about handing over her baby

Doesn't sound like all the arrangements stay amicable and friendly, or they wouldn't be proposing this.

As a feminist, I would campaign against forcing any mother, including a surrogate, to hand over her child, just because someone "bought" them

Will we eventually copy the outrageous system in the USA, in which the baby-buyers can legally monitor and enforce the lifestyle of the surrogate during pregnancy,
even choose to terminate / not terminate some of the foetuses ?

I read that these fluffy agencies like Surrogates UK, who introduce surrogates to buyers
have in the past proposed that surrogacy agreements be legally binding,
so that the mother can't change her mind about handing over her baby

I don't think it's 'in the past'. There's a section on their website - I know because a PP was linking to them in every other post - where they descibe their 'campaign for legal reform' or something like that. It's along the lines you describe - they want to make life easier for the 'intended parents' and force the mother to give up all maternal rights to the baby in her womb.

It's inhumane and degrading.

But in all scenarios there are problems:

Should the birth mother want to keep the baby, should it be forcibly removed?

Should the baby buyers not want the baby should they be forced to take it?

Should neither want the baby who is responsible?

Should both want the baby who decides what’s best?

As I’ve said, a positive outcome for surrogacy for two (out of three) parties is only possible if all parties honour the agreement, nothing comes up that throws a major spanner in the works, and no one changes their mind half way through the whole process.

In other words, no legislation can exist that won’t fall down at some point with a case.

BigChocFrenzy it's quite obvious where these two agencies stand if you look at the forms they make you fill in if you want to acquire a baby via surrogacy.

One practically apologises that those commissioning a baby cannot control what the birth mother does, eats ans drinks during pregnancy (all frequently stipulated in US surrogacy contracts and legally enforceable). The other requires agreement to the baby being handed over at birth.

There's also a section about termination and under which circumstances, invasive fetal testing, and again, the tone of the acknowledgement that no birth mother can be forced to agree is almost apologetic.

The FAQ asks about birth mothers losing benefits, so it's quite clear which economic class the majority of the birth mothers are from.

And both estimate the cost of acquiring a baby in this way at £20K to £30K on top of the agency fees.

Could you have paid that much for a baby? We couldn't have and we are not poor by any means.

Yeah, these fluffy agencies deeply care about the birth mothers who become "team mates" for the paying clients. The word (birth) mother is studiously avoided, but that her partner/spouse will be named as the father on the birth certificate is acknowledged with the dry advisory that this'll be changed later with the issue of a parental order.

(Remember the greedy bitch stole our twins story we discussed earlier? The fact that her partner was named as the father on the birth certificate was rolled out as yet another terrible thing the birth mother did, despite the fact that this is what happens as per the law.)

And when I'm asking could you have paid that much, I'm not saying I don't understand the strong desire to procreate and raise offspring. I suffered a pregnancy loss after infertility issues, I know what an overwhelming feeling this desire for a child is, and I'm not blaming anyone for trying everything possible to make this wish come true.

But that doesn't mean, we should be allowed to pursue every available option without first and at the very least as a society considering the moral and ethical issues around each choice.

As an experienced surrogate I do understand that this is an emotive and divisive topic and I am not on a mission to persuade everyone that surrogacy is for them - just to present the other side of the argument to try to help form a balance view. To that end...

Agency Cost

As we all know surrogacy in the UK is currently unregulated (something the law commission proposes to change). In the absence of current regulation, agencies perform many safeguarding and information services - which do cost money. For example, Surrogacy UK pay for DBS checks and GP checks (neither of which are free) for potential surrogates, facilitate members’ advisory and agreement sessions, employ administrative staff to safely maintain records, maintain a board of trustees and run a website. All of these things cost money.

(As an aside Surrogacy UK mandate that surrogates have insurance during and after the pregnancy paid for by the intended parents.)

Cost of surrogacy

I can believe that the £30k figure quoted is well within the normal range. Sounds astronomical doesn’t it? But let’s break it down.

All pregnancies incur cost, and there are additional costs associated with IVF pregnancies - clinic costs, medication, scans etc. £15k+ is not atypical for a round of IVF and could be more if several rounds are needed. This is because of the nature of the pregnancy - and is not limited to surrogacy. Sadly it isn’t something everyone can afford and is seldom offered on the NHS for surrogacy.

Then there are the pregnancy expenses payable to the surrogate. Typically £7-£15k but could be more or less. Sounds like a lot - but all pregnancies cost money, it’s just we count and record the cost of a surrogate pregnancy. So for myself my expenses were:

• £3k for my partners loss of earnings for the 10 days of unpaid leave he took immediately after the birth to support me and help with the house and our children
• £1.5k maternity clothes including business wear, underwear, flat shoes, coats, tights etc
• £350 to update my will to reflect the surrogacy arrangement
• £250 toiletries eg maternity pads, gaviscon, breast pads, vitamins, dry skin cream etc

Then there was childcare, travel costs, parking, extra food... it adds up. It is illegal for the surrogate to profit from the surrogacy arrangement in the UK.

Reform

Yes the Law Commission have proposed that parental rights are vested in the intended parents from birth with a six week objection period. An important point is that this pathway can only kick in if some key steps have been followed BEFORE seeking to get pregnant - including counselling, health screening and legal advice. This enhances current education/safeguarding arrangements to offer greater protection for all parties.

No legislative or regulatory changes are going to cover all the what ifs - but the proposed changes are designed to make surrogacy safer for all involved.

FWIW my personal experience of surrogacy has been an uplifting and empowering one. I have created a family. I have made parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles - and brought great joy to them all. The baby I bore is the healthiest and happiest little person, and I feel no feeling towards the child other than being my dear friends’ much wanted baby. My husband, parents, children and family have all been greatly supportive.

I just do not believe that typical pregnancy costs are £7-£15k. Simply because, being perfectly economically average myself, as is most of my social circle, very few people I know would actually be able to afford to have children. I could well see the total cost of having a child reaching that sum within a year, but that amount for pregnancy alone on top of all the stuff babies need and the cost on maternity leave? Nope - not possible for a typical household.

Which indicates that, whether illegal or not, surrogates are being paid.

In your case, anon, obviously you were undertaking genuinely altruistic surrogacy, which I personally think is a good thing when it works well. I don't think that such an ideal scenario should be used as a basis for making legislation. Legislation simply must balance the ideal scenario with the many potential complications listed by previous posters.

I also don't think, regardless of safeguards, a birth mother should be able to sign away her rights in advance of the birth. We don't allow it in adoption cases, regardless of how many counselling, screening and legal appointments a woman has had. I really don't see why surrogacy should be any different.

Hi again Anon

I make that just over £5k for your expenses and I cannot see how that could possibly reach £15k, or £17k which is what I've heard. My own pregnancy didn't cost anywhere near what you specify. There are good cheap maternity clothes available and whilst I understand everyone has different needs I think many manage on far, far less.

I appreciate that your own children should be cared for and your partner would take leave if it was his baby, and in that case you would be off work for much longer than 10 days. Did you have to make an arrangement with your work seeing as you needed to recover and perhaps pump milk at work on your return?

Commercial surrogacy is illegal in the UK so how and who do you think should he responsible for regulating it? I see it as a lot of the burden actually falling to the NHS as after the insemination at a private clinic it falls to the NHS to care for the mother and child as patients, unless of course the intended parents have private health care and provide this for both.

Who stops someone walking out of the hospital with the baby? Where are the papers signed? What if the mother has a home birth?

I can well believe 7-15k for a straight forward pregnancy.
just have a look at the price list of the portland.
if you add in birth costs, and 'expenses' like parking, having to take unpaid leave for appointments and time off before/after giving birth.

I recon it's rather cheap.

Oh also we're the intended parents given a DBS check?

If the £7-£15k includes private medical costs then I can well believe that. But I thought from the cost breakdown that the medical costs were accounted for separately. Sorry if I've misunderstood.

The commissioning parents meet all the medical costs but the expenses of the surrogate mother can be stretched quite imaginatively.
The going rate is now just under £15k with £20k becoming more common.

Additional costs

Yes, I dont know why people keep saying it's illegal in the UK for the surrogate to profit as though it's adding anything much to the discussion.

As we all know surrogacy in the UK is currently unregulated (something the law commission proposes to change).

I'm afraid if you're starting with that, I can't take anything else you say seriously. This is simply not correct. We have a law regulating surrogacy. It's called the Surrogacy Arrangement Act 1985 (which prohibits commercial surrogacy and ensured that surrogacy agreements are legally unenforceable). This was amended first by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (which gave birth mothers the right to keep the baby) and then the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (which specifically banned sex selection for implanted embryos, strengthened the rights of the child so conceived and born and gave rights to same-sex couples to be parents of the resulting children).

Surrogacy in the UK is regulated, you simply don't accept that because it regulates different aspects of surrogacy.

As for the reforms, the Law Commission is seeking to remove rights from birth mothers and children and make commercial surrogacy possible in the UK. Without enabling a true public debate about surrogacy - the Law Commission simply asserts that surrogacy is a valid form of starting a family and goes from there. But the question whether it is or should ever be a form of starting a family is where debate should start. And my answer would be no, it's not and should be completely outlawed as it has in a number of other European and other countries in recent years.

Within Europe, the UK is the only one seriously considering moving towards the US system, although the Law Commission hides this behind a lot of jargon, a 500-page proposal and 117 at times nearly incomprehensible questions.