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

'Many, many illegitimate children were raised by their grandmother who pretended to be the mother. Is that not surrogacy in effect?'

No, not even sightly!

"It can be achieved by a man having sex with the surrogate"

See, she's not the surrogate, she's the mother!

No, when the child is adopted by another woman I think birth mother is the appropriate term to distinguish between the woman raising the child and the woman who gave birth to the child.

You didn't mention women in your previous post though.

Oh god this is feminism at it's worse. A lot of shrill words and where are the peer reviewed articles? A lot of patronising rubbish spewed here. Lots of anecdotes and not a lot else.

Many, many illegitimate children were raised by their grandmother who pretended to be the mother. Is that not surrogacy in effect?

No. Not remotely the same. It was a situation forced on them by social prejudices and structures at the time. The vast majority of the mothers , would I have little doubt, have preferred to be recognised as the mother.

As an aside I detest the use of the phrase "illegitimate children". It's nasty, judgemental and outdated. You could easily have said "children of unmarried mothers" or "single mothers"

@Bushhbb

This large study looked at donor egg pregnancies and demonstrated a significantly increased risk for pregnancies where a donor egg has been used. The study wasn't confined to surrogate pregnancies but to all IVF using donor eggs. Arguably the increased risk may be slightly less for surrogate pregnancies where the woman is young and healthy and with a good obstetric history. However, surprisingly, many surrogate mothers do not fit that profile. According to UK HFEA figures for 2016 some 23% of surrogate mothers were age 40 or more. Already at increased risk of raised blood pressure. Whilst I don't think it is something any woman should be doing, I really, really don't think it is something women in their 40's should be doing and like Barracker I judge the commissioning parents who would expose a woman to this risk and the doctors who enable it.

My understanding of the mechanism is that where a donor egg has been used the mother's body recognises the stranger, as it were, and a graft/host response occurs affecting placentation. I believe the mothers may be medicated with some sort of anti-rejection type drug to help prevent this. This is information Jennifer Lahl has discussed, she is in the USA, obviously healthcare varies around the world and it may be different in the UK.

obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.13910

AnotherEmma

"It can be achieved by a man having sex with the surrogate"

See, she's not the surrogate, she's themother!

Thank you Emma. One would have hoped it wasn't necessary to state the bleedin' obvious , but apparently not.

where are the peer reviewed articles?

Those wanting more information may like to look at this thread I started, and if you have peer reviewed articles please do share.

Surrogacy Resource thread : please post your links here
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3782983-surrogacy-resource-thread-please-post-your-links-here

IcedPurple

What are you talking about? I said that an informal surrogacy could occur - a father comes to an arrangement whereby he impregnates a woman, they conceive a child and when it's born she hands the child to its father for him to raise with his partner who adopts the baby. In that relationship there is a father, a mother and a birth mother. What is your problem with that?

It's entirely different from a scenario where a woman 'chooses' to become pregnant knowing that she will give up that baby to other people. Amazed that you can't see the difference.

I can see the difference but I can also see similarities and I was pointing out that a baby conceived to be raised by a person other than the woman who gives birth doesn't have to have been conceived via donor eggs, sperm and IVF as a pp stated.

Full then why ask it people are happy for gay couples not have genetically related children if surrogacy is banned, if not to appeal to a sense of guilt or need to appease men?

TheTigersBride

What makes the difference between a surrogate and a mother in your view then, or is there never a difference?

Ok so apparently (according to Wikipedia!) there is "traditional surrogacy" which is when the "surrogate" is also the biological mother, it is her own egg which is fertilised (whether naturally or artificially) and then she hands over the baby to the parents... I would call this adoption and not surrogacy, I don't see how they are different? Is it simply that a "surrogate" agrees to the adoption before getting pregnant whereas an "adoption" is a decision made after the birth mother gets pregnant??

Wikipedia also tells me that gestational surrogacy was first done in 1986. So this particular kind of surrogacy is not old at all. Younger than me in fact

No. Not remotely the same. It was a situation forced on them by social prejudices and structures at the time. The vast majority of the mothers , would I have little doubt, have preferred to be recognised as the mother.

As an aside I detest the use of the phrase "illegitimate children". It's nasty, judgemental and outdated. You could easily have said "children of unmarried mothers" or "single mothers"

At the time, the judgement and social prejudices were caused by the shame of illegitimacy. It's no good prettifying it by using terms such as single mothers when talking about history. Of course today children aren't considered illegitimate and I would not use the term now, not would I label an individual child born years ago as being illegitimate but when discussing the social judgement at a point in history I think it's right to use the language of the time.

when it's born she hands the child to its father for him to raise with his partner who adopts the baby. In that relationship there is a father, a mother and a birth mother. What is your problem with that?

You mentioned 'partners' not women.

But I have a huge problem with an immediately post partum mother 'handing' away the child she has just given birth to. English law does too, for now at least, as I've said repeatedly.

Do you seriously not see any issues at all with taking a tiny newborn away from the woman who has just birthed it?

I can see the difference but I can also see similarities

What similarities? Surrogacy involves the 'commissioning' of a baby with the intent of taking it away from its mother as soon after birth as is possible/legal. That's true even if the surrogacy is 'altruistic'. Your scenario involves a family making the best of a bad situation where a young girl has accidentally become pregnant. The mother will continue to play an active role in her child's life even if she is not 'officially' the mother.

So really it's a dumb comparison.

The mother is the person who carries and gives birth to a child.

I find your determination to impose the word "surrogate" on some of those persons very odd. It smacks very much that a "surrogate" is something less- some sort of walking , talking laboratory instrument.

Your point about the grandmothers of "illegitimate children" being surrogates was ridiculous and offensive.

Pardon me for not producing peer reviewed studies. I thought that we were discussing our opinions on things, not producing an academic paper. Each of us is entitled to hold our own opinion. I did not say 'it is a fact that all people are damaged by being the result of egg donation' because I can't back up that assertion. But I can say that I felt, having listened to the stories of those affected, that in my opinion its not something I support. Which is just an opinion.

I don't believe for a second that you have formed every opinion in your life based on peer reviewed studies.

It's not usual for surrogates to have sex with the man surely?!

I like that the man gets to be called father while the woman who is impregnated (the old fashioned way!), carries the baby and gives birth to it is not the mother.

Very interesting views on this thread.

A lot of the conversation around surrogacy takes a really minimising/ odd view around the pregnancy and birth aspects. If the woman has a donor egg I've seen it said that she has no link to the baby at all. This is the sort of woman as a vessel/ ignore the impacts of pregnancy and birth view that USA anti abortion types are so fond of.

Wikipedia also tells me that gestational surrogacy was first done in 1986. So this particular kind of surrogacy is not old at all. Younger than me in fact

That might well be when the first legal, recognised act of surrogacy occured but were records ever kept of what you call traditional surrogacy?

At the time, the judgement and social prejudices were caused by the shame of illegitimacy. It's no good prettifying it by using terms such as single mothers when talking about history. Of course today children aren't considered illegitimate and I would not use the term now, not would I label an individual child born years ago as being illegitimate but when discussing the social judgement at a point in history I think it's right to use the language of the time

Well we will have to disagree. There are many phrases related to slavery, treatment of people of colour, treatment of mentally and physically disabled people which are no longer used. Or maybe you still use spastic, mongol or negro?

That is aside from the sheer nonsense of comparing a deliberately engineered baby made to order situation with a family doing the best they could in the situation.

It's not me that calls it "traditional surrogacy", it's Wikipedia. I expect there were records yes.

The article defines "gestational surrogacy" as a pregnancy in which the surrogate mother is not the biological mother ie it is not her egg, she is impregnated with another egg (either the intended mother's egg or a donor egg). 1986 was the first time that happened.

@FrogsFrogs

A lot of the conversation around surrogacy takes a really minimising/ odd view around the pregnancy and birth aspects. If the woman has a donor egg I've seen it said that she has no link to the baby at all. This is the sort of woman as a vessel/ ignore the impacts of pregnancy and birth view that USA anti abortion types are so fond of.

Yes, hence the awful terms used to deny the mother's link to the child she gestated and birthed, from the coldly clinical 'gestational carrier' to the revoltingly twee 'tummy mummy'.

And don't get me started on 'surrobub' or 'surrogacy journey'....

How much information are Egg "donors" really given when they sign up? Is it really a fully informed choice? This podcast discusses some of the details of the procedure. How the "donor" is dosed with hormones to produce the maximum number of eggs. Retrieving each egg invokes a transvaginal needle stab. It actually brought tears to my eyes, the thought of forty individual needle stabs as described.
I can't imagine why any woman would agree to do this, especially in the UK where payment is fixed st £750. In the USA where payment may be in excess of $10k there is an obvious temptation.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000458521512

No, it is definitely not usual for the surrogate to sleep with the intended father! Clinics or self insemination are used.

When rich white women become surrogates for poor people, then we will be able to call it a choice.