Surrogacy on the NHS

[Viewfromtheisland]

Didn’t know it was allowed in Scotland but I’ve been educated by the Daily Record today....

Is the law behind the times on this then Ov9 Calling the surrogate mothers surrogate mothers? Your posts appear to be leading to the American model, calling them gestational carriers and the removal of surrogate mother's parental rights...

Also, your point about a surrogate mother's husband being a legal parent was to prevent men from renting out their wives wombs, this lead to baby factories in India, which in part, lead to the banning commercial surrogacy in 2017.

Maybe the UK is behind the times.

Should not be allowed for anyone, just using poor women to produce babies. Should definitely not be allowed on NHS

I find it sickening how many people make money out of surrogacy. Yet the women are expected to do it out of the kindness of their heart and a few expenses.

Surrogacy in this country is not about what's best for the woman or the child. It's about making money, it's capatalisim at its finest and they will milk the nhs for money if they can.

One thing I was shocked by in The Unexpected Mother was the part when Susan Ring finds out her fee is the same as the matching agency, when she is going through the pregnancy but with her additional horror of the killing of a triplet at the commissioning parents insistence in her womb, after they had insisted all three embryos were implanted in the first place.

$11,000 for 10 months (or more if you count the bit before implantation). I don't agree with commercial surrogacy but why in the world would the woman doing the work get the lowest fee? Even when women's bodies are useful for our baby making facilities we still get treated like shit.

The law perceives itself as behind the times, yes. That's why it's in the process of writing new legislation. A lot of which you're too late to influence.

Even when women's bodies are useful for our baby making facilities we still get treated like shit.

I know, really says a lot about how little respect they have for women and what we would have to go through, both physically and emotionally to gestate, birth and give away a child.

@OhHolyJesus

I respect your opinion and your right to have it even though I do disagree myself. I will say though that adoption as a solution for infertility is very easy to suggest when you’re not infertile yourself and is not the “easy” option or solution to infertility as people believe it to be. I personally, after much research would not adopt for a number of reasons, not because I have a desperate desire to create a child of my own, but because I have no desire to undergo the adoption process and be handed a child (it’s extremely rare to receive a newborn) to parent that I know next to nothing about and may develop a number of issues due to their unfortunate start in life. The statistics surrounding adoption are extremely off putting, as is the entire process, and not everyone who would make a great parent is cut out for it. I don’t want to derail the thread, but I frequently see adoption suggested as though it is an easy solution to infertility and used in arguments to deny couples fertility treatment and irks me as it’s simply not realistic (very few people are handed a baby) and does not take into consideration that adoption has its own unique issues and is not for everyone.

Errr there was a public consultation....

I'm sure you're right and dissenting views will be ignored, much like the GRA laws and recent public consultation, but whilst I respect your free speech you can be reassured that your posts stating we are too late to the party only spur me on. So thanks for the renewed verve which I shall apply to my current plan of action.

Ov, I said very clearly that surrogate mothers can call themselves whatever they like, to protect themselves emotionally and mentally. You said I stated the opposite.

However, I will continue to call them surrogate mothers.

@Elsiebear90

I appreciate your view, we don't agree necessarily but I am interested to hear more.

Why do people want to adopt newborns? Why not older children?
I understand that children who go on to be adopted can experience trauma, and I do not dismiss how extra tough that would be, but isn't that a motivating factor to actually help those children more than day a newborn child, who may have suffered in the womb but not the psychological trauma of neglect as say a toddler or older child?

A friend of a friend has adopted a gorgeous little boy (I've seen pics, he is truly beautiful) and it has not been without struggle, but he is a really happy little boy and they made that happen . They made a safe home for him and he is loved. He will grow up to be happy (I hope, certainly happier than if he has stayed with the mother and father by all accounts). He will know that he was adopted and be raised in a loving home. I wish more people could do it. The system for adoption is tough for a reason.

Frankly, as per David Farnell, surrogacy is a way around the usual checks and balances. If surrogacy was to remain I'd like to see the same systems in place for adoption. Why should convicted paedophiles get babies just because they can provide the gametes needed to be a biological father?

Re: adoption - it's worth remembering that many many people would not be able to adopt their own children. It isn't a system set up to enable people to become parents at this point. It's a system set up to find caregivers for children who have often undergone significant trauma.

Oh

I can only speak for myself, but I have generalised anxiety, so I honestly don’t know how I would cope with a child who has significant issues, I understand this could happen if I were to have a biological child, but statistically it is much more likely that an adopted child would have issues due to the trauma they have experienced. There’s also a chance I would be refused adoption by my local authority due to my mental health problems as they are ongoing, even though they are not severe (no history of suicide attempts, self harm, hospitalisations, long term sick etc).

I would prefer a newborn, as they have undergone less trauma usually than children removed at a later stage. My best friend’s parents fostered and all three children they fostered had extreme behavioural issues due to what they had experienced before being removed from their parents, were extremely violent and had attachment issues. They stopped fostering in the end as they felt unable to cope and that it was unfair on their own children.

When you adopt you are told very little of what has happened to the child and there is next to no support provided once the adoption is formalised. I think it takes a special kind of person to cope and enjoy parenting children like this and I think I could maybe cope to some degree (although I have doubts due to my anxiety) but I fear I would be miserable and resent the child and it wouldn’t be good for any of us. I know that this isn’t the case for all adoptive families, but statistically it’s very common.

I originally had planned to adopt due to being in a same sex relationship, however, after much research into the process, statistics, reading posts on this forum etc I would rather remain childless than risk taking on a child I couldn’t cope with whom I would resent. Therefore, we have decided to go with donor insemination through a licensed clinic, which isn’t ideal, for a few reasons, however, it’s the only option I feel comfortable with that allows us to become parents. I would be fairly content I think with remaining childless, however, my fiancée feels her life would be incomplete without a child. I understand that you don’t agree with this, which is fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is just me being honest about why we are going with this option rather than adopting.

oh

Go ahead. No conspiracy theory. There will be more I have no doubt. They can't help it if you feel this is important and have done nothing to inform yourself, this is all very straightforward to find out about.

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h

I didn't think it would be possible for me to be more opposed to surrogacy but you're doing a splendid job of making me think surrogacy should be completely banned. For everyone

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed161502

I have just read the transcript from the link posted by @Cattenberg. It is truly horrific. One thing that jumped out at me was the way that social media enabled the commissioning parents to effectively 'shop' for a surrogate - they were on a forum looking for a new match just days after getting the parental order for their young twins, born by surrogacy. Their relationship with the mother of the twins had broken down. They then signed an agreement with X (who had learning difficulties) at a railway station, having met her for the first time. Both surrogacy arrangements seem to have had forum hosts acting as some kind of bizarre overinvested intermediary, almost like a pimp. When the new surrogate mother flew to Cyprus it was only the second time she had met the commissioning parents. I seriously question the ethics of doctors who could place embryos in the body of a woman who has learning difficulties, even if she appears to agree. Just awful...

With all the examples and the history of my posts why do you think I am ill-informed Ov9?

I have been reading on the historical background and recent cases of surrogacy for about a year. It's no PhD but when I have an interest in something I tend to want to know all I can. I know that surrogacy isn't always the fluffy family stuff you read in womens weekly, or like that awful, self-absorbed woman in Grazia. Where do you read about the other side, the dark side of surrogacy? Not in the mainstream UK media that's for sure.

Also I don't know who 'they' is, the Law Commission? There are no conspiracy theories, simple facts do me just fine, by their own admission mostly, the FOI I posted was very revealing. There isn't meant to be a bias ahead of the design of a public consultation, it's also meant to be accessible and easy to follow. Despite this I think it's telling that they have delayed their decisions based on the responses. I wonder if they were somewhat overwhelmed with responses?

The Law Commission can't help if I think this is important no but the Law Commission's objective was to invite opinion and 'take the temperature' on the views of the general public. My opinion is as valid as anyone else's, for or against. The Law Commission would be glad of the level of interest I'm sure. How boring would it be to do all that work for a handful of responses!

Elsie I am sorry you feel the way you do but I make no judgement of your choice not to adopt. You sound self-aware enough to have made the right choice for yourself and your partner. I agree it takes a special type of person to adopt, (I also think midwives, doctors and nurses are special kinds of people and shouldn't be burdened with the legal issues surrounding surrogate mothers and babies in their care.) Your choices are yours to make and I'm glad you're able to pursue your dreams of being a family (although your fiancé seems more like the one pursuing them but I'm sure you take these decisions as a couple, they are life-changing after all).

I do disagree with the process but realise why you have come to this fork in the road. I hope the sperm donor father is a good man who would be kind and supportive of any child you made with him, I hope that if the child found him and made contact at a later date he would want to know them. I hope any child made this way didn't struggle with not knowing half of their history growing up but we know some do, some don't. I hope yours is one that doesn't. There is no way of telling in advance.

I don't think lesbians or gay men are bad parents, I think it's quite likely that many or most would be better, for all kinds of reasons, than some heterosexual couples. I honestly don't think your own sexual orientation has a bearing on anyone's ability to be an excellent parent or a rubbish one.
( I feel differently about gender ideology and parenting but that's another thread!)

The one indisputable fact is that the biology required in a same-sex couple is simply not all there to make a baby so others need to be involved. Until science can make babies in bags, and the ethics board rubber stamp it, this is what we where we are.

If your fiancé carries the baby the child will be growing up with his or her mother so this is can only be a good thing. I wish you all the best I really do.

I don't actually think two women using doner sperm to create a child can be compared to two men using surrogacy to create a child. In the former the donor is not required to go through a medical procedure, he doesn't need to sacrifice his physical and emotional well-being. He's not required to put his life and health in danger. He's required to wank in a cup, somthing he probably does on a regular basis anyway.

In the latter, usually two women have to go through medical processes and put themselves at great risk. We still don't know the long term effect of egg harvesting, but it's looking like cancer may well be a side effect of all the hormones used.

Men naturally ensiminate woman and walk away every day, and having been doing so for 1000s of years. So I can't really see a problem with a women using donor sperm.

Yeah it's shit for gay men that they can't have a biological family, but life sucks. Not everyone gets a fair shot at everything. I don't think we should allow women and babies to be abused - and surrogacy is abuse whether the surrogates agree or not - so people that can't have babies in a conventional way can be given children.

Money money money money....

www.facebook.com/160389977329803/posts/2428297823872329/?vh=e

@OhHolyJesus

Fucking hell, she's 21. That's not right. And she used the money to pay off debt. What world do we live in where young women sell their bodies and their babies to pay off debt.

She really is breaking down the stigma though. Showing surrogacy for what it it, a business transaction selling babies.

I refuse to erase the mother so I shall continue to refer to surrogate mothers as mothers Ov9

I think the concept of birth mother is well understood in relation to a woman who gives up her baby for adoption. Why should it be any different for a surrogate mother? If a surrogate mother works, she is entitled to maternity leave, to recover from the birth, which as often as not is likely to be a complicated birth. No doubt she is happy to consider herself a mother when applying for maternity benefits? Or do surrogates forgo maternity benefits as they aren't mothers?

www.fairobserver.com/culture/surrogacy-legality-ethics-womens-rights-news-018210/

"Erasing the Mother
Once the birth mother was removed from the frame both by misapplication of language, labeling and contractual clauses, the next step was to elevate the sperm. Previously, the birth mother was always the mother with the father determined by operation of law (the spouse of the mother), or he consented. Absent that, his parentage had to be proven by DNA. So absent surrogacy, the mother is determined by birth, the father by DNA.
But with surrogacy, that changes. The mother is no longer determined by birth. In most countries, she’s the legal mother because she gave birth to the child. But in the contract, she signs away her legal rights. The female of the “intending parents” may or may not be the egg donor and so may or may not have any genetic link with the child. But it doesn’t matter either way: She is not the mother under law even if she was the egg donor. So the child is legally motherless at birth.
However, if the male in the intending parents is the sperm donor, he is the father. So the egg donor, a female who has a genetic link with the child, is not the mother. The birth mother who actually nourished with her body and gave birth to the child is not the mother. But the male who donated sperm — and then had nothing more to do with the entire process — is the father. His sperm counts more than the egg of one female or nine months of pregnancy and the act of giving birth by another.
It is obvious that women and men are treated differently in that his genetic material makes him the father, but her genetic material does not make her the mother. Women and men are also treated differently because the woman who actually carried the child and gave birth has fewer rights than the male who only donated sperm. If there is a genetic link, sperm rules. If there is no genetic link, sperm still rules, especially in the US, where the contract has been held to override the rights of the birth mother."

And what of this young woman who died giving birth? Was she not a mother, to the baby that survived?
Should her death through childbirth not be acknowledged and grieved? Sh UID it not be counted as a maternal death because she wasn't a mother? What caused her death if it wasn't related to her motherhood?

www.today.com/parents/mom-acting-surrogate-another-family-dies-while-giving-birth-t172216

*Sh UID it not be counted - should it not be counted ...

Did you reply to the Law Commission Consultation Ov9 ?
Because I did, all 118 questions (excluding those that did not apply to me).
My 18 year old daughter replied....she was shocked at question 65, suggesting a minimum age of 18 to be a surrogate mother. She and her friends certainly didn't rate having a baby for someone else as an acceptable gap year occupation and as she said, young women her age are still vulnerable and deserve protection from exploitation.

I wouldn't count the law Commission proposals as a done deal.

In any case - this thread is about the NHS funding surrogacy. I think the post CV NHS is going to be very strapped for cash indeed. I have already been in contact with my MP with whom I am having an ongoing dialogue as he does not approve of the commodification of babies. Now I have another issue to write to him about - I'm pretty sure he won't be a fan of the exploitation of NHS resources either.

@CaliforniaMountainSnake

Only some of the debt was paid off with the surrogacy payment so she did it again for some more cash and then needed a break. Was she pregnant with her own child in that video or the second surrogate pregnancy?

I reckon she was about 25 based on her numbers, two surrogate pregnancies in, with a rocky marriage and joint debt.

I can't imagine what it was that motivated her. A grand per miscarriage too.

Just vile. And heading this way in the Uk....

I find it sickening how many people make money out of surrogacy. Yet the women are expected to do it out of the kindness of their heart and a few expenses.

@CaliforniaMountainSnake

Even the Law Commissioners recognise that a lot of people make money through surrogacy, the lawyers, IVF clinics, agencies and so on. Not paying the woman who risks her health and her life, carrying one or more babies for nine months could be seen as a little er exploitative.
So apparently the answer is to maintain UK law regarding payments as altruistic surrogacy arrangements only, whilst turning a blind eye to the level of "expenses" a surrogate mother can be paid.

Anyone else spend £20k on their pregnancy - excluding any medical fees and any items for the baby?
Me neither.

Hope these are in better focus.