Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Surrogacy on the NHS

257 replies

Viewfromtheisland · 04/05/2020 11:48

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
Cattenberg · 07/05/2020 01:20

I don’t think it’s ethical for anyone to profit from surrogacy. Not the surrogate mother, nor the agencies, the legal firms or the clinics.

I could write a lot about the profiteering of UK fertility clinics and how their charges don’t reflect the cost of treatment, but are based on what the market will bear. Professor Robert Winston has spoken out about this. I’ll just mention that private clinics make a lot of money out of egg donors. One donation is often divided between two or three recipients, each paying thousands of pounds extra for the use of donor eggs in their treatment.

The cost of all this puts added pressure on the surrogate mother. To quote a US guide for surrogate mothers on the subject of abortion and fetal reduction:

In many surrogacy journeys, any decisions regarding pregnancy termination or selective reduction fall to the intended parents.
[...]
Most intended parents who pursue surrogacy have already spent thousands of dollars and many months trying other infertility treatments before choosing this path. Because of this, they want a first pregnancy to be successful as possible. After all, they are spending thousands more dollars to have a woman carry their child for them — so they want to reduce the likelihood for complications prior to starting the process.
[...]
If you’re considering becoming a surrogate, abortion and selective reduction is something that you should think hard about. In many surrogacy situations, you will be required to abide by the intended parents’ wishes, even if it may not have been the path you would take yourself.

surrogate.com/surrogates/pregnancy-and-health/surrogates-and-abortion-what-to-know-before-taking-this-journey/

Al1Langdownthecleghole · 07/05/2020 08:07

I had some professional involvement with a potential surrogate who was looking at expenses of £10,000. This was several years ago. It’s not a fortune, but is comparable to perhaps an annual salary of 25-30 p/w in retail or care work.

It’s not an attractive offer for professional, well paid women, but it’s enough money that a woman on a lower wage, perhaps struggling with childcare, might consider it an option. How is that not exploitation of financially vulnerable women?

FannyCann · 07/05/2020 08:09

Cattenberg

You are correct that there is a lot of questionable activity at IVF clinics.
In the UK the payment to egg "donors* is capped at £750 but my local IVF clinic (Care Fertility are a nationwide chain) they advertise on the website that women who opt for egg sharing will receive a substantial discount on the cost of their treatment. Prices quoted are £1000 as oppose to the full cost of over £3000.

I also suspect that they cheerfully keep treating women who anyone with a minimum of medical knowledge would recognise to be extremely unlikely ever to have a successful pregnancy. In this podcast which discusses a range of interesting issues relating to medical ethics it is stated that (USA) clinics justify charging huge sums to women who they know will not have a successful pregnancy on the grounds it is good for their mental health to know they have tried everything and given it their best shot.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/venus-rising/id1481872967?i=1000456653311

As regards financial pressure on surrogate mothers the woman whose story I posted upthread explained that as an altruistic surrogate mother for her great friends she felt huge pressure not to back out when the red flags started appearing as she knew they had already spent so much money on finding an egg donor etc.

It's ironic that their friendship broke down irreparably anyway even though she carried in and "gave" them twins.

Al1Langdownthecleghole · 07/05/2020 08:12

Oh, and let me repeat once again. Fertility treatment on the NHS is for people who are medically infertile.

The policy doesn’t discriminate against people’s sex, sexuality (or gender if you must). It’s to treat a medical condition.

CaliforniaMountainSnake · 07/05/2020 09:19

Can someone please clarify.

In the UK it's illegal to pay for sperm donation right?

Is it illegal for an agent or ivf clinic to then sell the sperm on? Why?

Is it illegal to pay for egg donation? Is it illegal for an agency to pay to then sell the egg on?

OhHolyJesus · 07/05/2020 09:21

I wonder A1 if this might cause it to go full circle and actually all IVF will be stopped on the NHS, as it's not a medical condition (one of these guys sperm was used so his sperm is just fine).

I expect it will go further before there's a chance it might go back but this isn't about a medical condition or discrimination.

Honestly the NHS could just implode. Maybe since Boris has his life saved by then and his baby brought here safely he will find a new love for the NHS. I wait with baited breath.

Elsiebear90 · 07/05/2020 11:25

@CaliforniaMountainSnake as far as I’m aware donors can only be compensated for their time and costs associated with being a donor, this is to avoid desperate people choosing to become donors for financial reasons. I assume this is why there are laws against surrogates being paid as well. Most people choose to become egg or sperm donors under these scenarios for altruistic reasons as they receive minimal payment.

The clinics can charge for sperm because there are costs involved in donor screening, processing, storing and testing the sperm samples etc. Which is the main reason (as well as legal and ethical reasons) why people should use a clinic rather than a friend or random person off the Internet, (some women do resort to that though as it is expensive going through clinics) you really don’t want to be injecting a strangers bodily fluids into you when they could have all manner of diseases. Also, there have been cases of men exploiting desperate women sexually and men having vasectomies and knowing they’re infertile yet “advertising” their sperm or “services”. The BBC made a documentary about it a while ago.

Olliephaunt4eyes · 07/05/2020 11:32

In the UK it's illegal to pay a sperm donor. Not at all illegal to buy sperm from abroad. I don't know about egg donation, but I know there is a flourishing market in sperm from Denmark, in particular. You can pick your sperm donor from a catalogue, pretty much - eye colour, hair colour, education level etc. And you pay extra to have exclusive use of that sperm in this country, and reserve it for use with multiple pregnancies.

Cattenberg · 07/05/2020 11:42

California - this is the HFEA’s information regarding “Using donated eggs, sperm or embryos in treatment”.

In the UK, it’s illegal to pay a donor anything other than expenses. This means that most donors donate for altruistic reasons rather than financial gain.

The expenses limit is £35 for sperm and embryo donors and £750 for egg donors (per donation or clinic visit.) Normally the donor’s expenses should be covered in your overall treatment cost but double check with your clinic.

However, on the pages aimed at donors themselves (“Donating your eggs” and “Donating your sperm” ) the advice isn’t quite the same:

It's illegal to pay for egg donation in the UK. Egg donors can receive compensation of up to £750 per donation ‘cycle’ to cover their costs (a donation cycle is one complete round of treatment, at the end of which the eggs are collected and donated). However, you can claim more if your expenses for things like travel, accommodation and childcare are higher than this.

If you're an egg donor who is not a permanent resident of the UK, you may be compensated in the same way as a UK donor but you will not be able to claim for overseas travel expenses.

Sperm donors can receive up to £35 per clinic visit to cover their expenses, with more available if your expenses for things like travel, accommodation or childcare are higher than this. It’s illegal to pay sperm donors more than their reasonable expenses.

If you’re not a permanent resident of the UK, you may be compensated in the same way as a UK sperm donor but you won’t be able to claim any overseas travel expenses.

www.hfea.gov.uk/treatments/explore-all-treatments/using-donated-eggs-sperm-or-embryos-in-treatment/

As for whether it’s legal for clinics to sell donor eggs and sperm, I’m not sure. I believe that in the UK you have to be registered with a licensed clinic before you’re allowed to order eggs and sperm, and the samples will be sent there. I’m not sure if you already have to have a treatment plan in place.

In practice, the private egg banks and sperm banks absolutely are selling eggs and sperm. The London Sperm Bank was offering a “three samples for the price of two” deal a while back for the patients treated at their sister clinic.

But I suspect the clinics describe it as paying for a treatment process, including donor screening (many prospective donors aren’t suitable), laboratory processes, storage etc.

Cattenberg · 07/05/2020 11:43

Cross-posted. Sorry it’s so long.

CaliforniaMountainSnake · 07/05/2020 12:25

So if I donate my eggs, litrially risking my life. I can be compensated for up to £750. The clinic can then charge thousands for my eggs based on the fact they have stored and screened them.But, you can almost guarantee that a profit is also made on the sale price. And they sell one "crop" of eggs to multiple women to maximise profit.

I just can't see how that is ethical. How can you take a product for essentially free and then sell it on for massive profit. Especially when the person your taking the product from is putting their health on the line. This applies to both egg donations and surrogacy.

The whole thing just seems corrupt to me. It's the companies and the CMs that are centred not the women.

And all the people that bleat on about giving people a family, what about poor people. I couldn't afford a surrogate. Do we only care if rich people can have babies? I'm by no means saying it should be avaible on the nhs. Just saying it's elitist. Rich people thinking they should be able to buy everything they want, even if that's humans.

CaliforniaMountainSnake · 07/05/2020 12:29

you really don’t want to be injecting a strangers bodily fluids into you when they could have all manner of diseases.

This really made me laugh. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has willingly and enthusiastically been "injected" with a strangers bodily fluid. 😉😁

Alot of natural conceptions start in exactly that way.

Elsiebear90 · 07/05/2020 14:21

@CaliforniaMountainSnake ha ha well I’m not one to judge by any means, but if I absolutely have to handle sperm, I want to make sure it’s not contaminated first!

FannyCann · 08/05/2020 10:04

More about maternal deaths and risks in surrogacy.
The NHS, like the USA, keeps no records of the numbers of surrogate pregnancies and births they deal with, there is no research into the increased risks, the raised numbers of twins, the babies born prematurely requiring special care in NICU.

mailchi.mp/cbc-network.org/remembering-lost-mothers

Remembering Lost Mothers
by Kallie Fell, CBC Research Associate
In January we reported about the tragic death of Michelle Reaves. In light of

both Mother’s Day and New York’s new surrogacy bill, we want to retell her story. Michelle, described as a “beautiful soul”, was a wife and mother of two small children who lived in San Diego, California. Michelle was pregnant, as a second time surrogate, for the same family when she tragically died, January 15, 2020, of a rare and highly fatal pregnancy complication, amniotic embolism.

Michelle was in a hospital delivery room on the morning of January 15th when her condition took a turn for the worse. “One complication led to the next and she fought for her life,” Michelle's friend Jaime Herwehe wrote on the gofundme site. "Although the baby made it out safe, Michelle did not.” Family friend Andrea Axelson reported that Michelle "began hemorrhaging" while delivering a baby girl.

We know that pregnancy carries risks, but surrogate pregnancies, even if the woman is only carrying a singleton, adds additional risks compared to a live birth spontaneously conceived. Studies in the medical literature have shown higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight babies, maternal gestational diabetes, maternal hypertension (pre-eclampsia), and placenta previa in gestational surrogate pregnancies. Surrogate pregnancies also have a higher rate of cesarean section deliveries, which add additional risks to mother and baby.

No one in the U.S. is required to track, report, or collect data on surrogate mothers, therefore we don’t know how many surrogate pregnancies end in the death of the mother and/ or the children she carried. Sharon LaMothe, who is a surrogacy consultant in Florida, and a two time surrogate herself states that there have been other deaths that were unreported.

Like the tobacco industry, which for decades denied any link to smoking and lung cancer and pulmonary diseases, the surrogacy industry purposefully does not want the unsuspecting public to think surrogacy may be harmful to the health of women and children. Their strong profit motives, like Big Tobacco, drive practice and not the health and well-being of women and children. For example, it is common to transfer more than one embryo into the surrogate’s uterus, in order to improve success rates, knowing that this is detrimental to maternal-child health, even though professional standards say single embryo transfer is safer.

The cause of Michelle’s death, amniotic embolism, confers a very high mortality rate to women as well as the child she is carrying. According to the Mayo Clinic, women are at risk for amniotic embolism if they have placental problems, like placenta previa, cesarean section, or they have preeclampsia, all known risks to surrogate pregnancies. Thankfully, in Michelle’s case, the baby she carried to term was delivered alive.

With the rise of the maternal mortality rate in the United States and with so many known and unknown risks to women and children, we feel there is ample evidence to give us pause to legalize commercial surrogacy. As Mother’s Day approaches, we take a moment to remember all of the women that have been used and exploited by surrogacy. Specifically, we would like to remember the women who lost their lives in an attempt to give the gift of life to someone else. As you remember these women, these mothers, please, join our movement to #StopSurrogacyNow by going to www.stopsurrogacynow.com and signing the petition.

We have produced a powerful documentary movie that displays the unexamined and disturbing reality of surrogacy. This film “takes a compassionate look at the emotional and physical impact on the surrogate, but also, importantly, on the child”. You can watch it free on Amazon Prime: Breeders: A Subclass of Women?.

Are you interested in learning more about surrogacy? Our website has many different resources including these two fact sheets:
• 3 Things You Should Know About Surrogacy
• Telling the Truth About Surrogacy in the United States
Interested in learning more about how we fought to keep surrogacy out of New York? Click any of the links below:
• Gloria Steinem Calls Upon NY Gov. Cuomo to Not Legalize Surrogacy
• Legalize Surrogacy: Why Not?
• Memo to NY State Senators
• Performance Artists Warn Against Commercial Baby Surrogacy Market
Where does your state stand on surrogacy? Find out using our interactive map.

CaliforniaMountainSnake · 08/05/2020 11:23

Absolutely heart breaking for Michelle Reaves children. How can they ever get over that.

One of the many reasons I'm against surrogacy is I don't believe a woman without children can make a properly informed decision on whether to surrogate, and I don't believe a woman with children should be able to risk her life and wellbeing by being a surrogate.

So basically noone should be a surrogate.

Maybe they can get those womb transplants sorted, then all the transwomen can be surrogates 😁

0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h · 11/05/2020 17:55

Hmmm. Yes. Let's not let women do anything remotely risky. It's not like they're unable to assess the risks of child birth or IVF. Let's assume they're completely unaware and should be protected from every negative outcome. Let's get the climbers off the mountains, the jockeys off the race horses and the paramedics out of duty. They are Mothers and clearly not thinking straight about how sad it would be for their children if anything happened to them in their pursuit of their personal goals (and yes, being an altruistic surrogate is a personal goal akin to climbing a mountain for some women-plenty of accounts to back that up out there).

FannyCann · 11/05/2020 18:58

Oh hello 0v9c99f9g9d939d9f9g9h8h

Remind me, how did you get on with those 118 questions?

Clymene · 11/05/2020 19:28

Am I the only person on this thread who thinks that 0v's posts are terribly male in tone?

OhHolyJesus · 11/05/2020 19:58

Ov9 has a child via surrogacy so the tone on this thread (and others) and the pro-surrogacy content is not a surprise to me Clymene but I think Ov9 is a woman.

Now we are meant to be oppressing women the lovely, generous, completely informed women who want to be surrogates and by sharing information that might put them off, or by suggesting that they might have ulterior motives or not have the best interested of the baby at heart, we are shaming them.

How terribly anti-feminist of me. Reminds me of the happy hooker argument.

CaliforniaMountainSnake · 11/05/2020 21:55

I don't actually value the opinion of people that have used surrogates when it comes to surrogacy.

Even the nicest, kindest, caring people will find ways to justify it to themselves, because it benefits them and gives them what they want. They aren't gonna admit they asked someone to risk health and life for their own personal gain.

They only have their personal experience of surrogacy. Just because they had the happy surrogate, with the happy journey and happy ending, it doesn't mean the industry as a whole is all happy rainbows and sunshine.

And they are completly bias. They're not going to admit what they did was purchase a human and comodify a woman's body. Who even if willing and not financially motivated is acting in a way that is damaging toward other women.

OhHolyJesus · 11/05/2020 22:14

I agree California but it's a shame that some of the Ethics Committee (Surrogacy UK, non-profit pro surrogacy) have an existing bias for the same reason, they either have been a surrogate mother or have children through surrogacy. There's only one man but he financially benefits from surrogacy as a family lawyer (been busy lately with Freddie McConnell's case).

These people are connected to the APPG on Surrogacy and are no doubt influencing policy.

surrogacyuk.org/ethics-committee/

Interestingly I saw this from the Chair of the Ethics Committee, Dr Herjeet Marway.

Apparently a surrogate mother is the one to gestate and give birth - no kidding - and so a SM is usually a woman. No shit. Also a nice paragraph about how men can lactate.

www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/thebirminghambrief/items/2018/09/the-ethics-of-surrogacy.aspx

CaliforniaMountainSnake · 11/05/2020 22:40

and so a SM is usually a woman

😂😂😂😂😂😂

It's two sides of the same coin isn't it.

FannyCann · 11/05/2020 22:45

and so a SM is usually a woman

Well I'm sure they'd use a bread mare or a dairy cow if they could.

Same coin.

OhHolyJesus · 11/05/2020 22:54

To be fair they could give it a try with a transwoman. It didn't work for Lili Elbe but science has moved on since then. If transwomen are women then having babies with their reproductive systems should work out just fine.

I saw something a while ago about there being a study on uterus transplants and I thought it was a hoax but if the Ethics Committee on Surrogacy UK think it's possible, you know they are usually a woman but not always then it could get ethical approval.

To be honest I wouldn't put it passed them.

FannyCann · 11/05/2020 23:08

They actually don't have to bother with the uterine transplant.
Just be prepared for a little risk...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3158531/

Swipe left for the next trending thread