Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Appalling Ukrainian surrogacy case

79 replies

RedToothBrush · 08/06/2024 07:45

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/couple-face-spending-months-in-kyiv-to-claim-their-baby-h2fnqtn62
‘We’ll be trapped in a war zone’: couple face months in Kyiv to claim their baby
Fliss and Memet Demir are travelling to the Ukrainian capital, where a surrogate mother is due to deliver the child

Particularly appalling article on a surrogacy in Ukraine without any comment on the mother or the fact it's commercial surrogacy which is illegal here.

Couple can't have children because woman had cancer five years ago. She's still on hormone medication.

They sent embryos to Ukraine in 2021 but they were implanted only in Autumn last year.

They are whinging because the British government withdrew the emergency passport scheme for surrogate babies born in Ukraine to discourage the continued trade. So they now have to go to Ukraine and apply for a passport in person which might take 16 weeks and this is so awful because they might die. They have been told they won't be fast tracked and they should not travel to Ukraine by the government.

This emergency scheme was withdrawn in August. You'll note this is prior to the surrogate being implanted.

They didn't want to do surrogacy in the UK because
The couple were concerned about surrogacy in the UK, which has been long criticised for its poor legal framework. Demand also far outstrips supply because surrogates can not be paid except for expenses, so they turned to Ukraine, where surrogacy costs about £40,000 and their parental rights would be immediately acknowledged.

Natalie Gamble, a solicitor at NGA Law, a specialist reproduction firm, said Ukraine had been a popular choice for British parents before the Russian invasion because of its clear surrogacy laws and established agencies. In contrast, the “murky and fudged” UK law initially treats the surrogate and her spouse as parents, making everyone nervous, she said.

Two attempts to implant the couple’s embryos failed and, devastated, Demir and her husband explored surrogacy in the UK. They attended charity events to meet potential philanthropic surrogates, but said the process felt like speed dating.
^^
Mr Demir says: “They tell you to try and arrange social events, barbecues, to meet surrogates. The charity organising it, they say, ‘Fliss, you need to work on your social media profile, just put up pictures with nice people’. It just felt like a popularity contest.”

Demir was still going through treatment, and her body had started rejecting one of the breast implants. She was having weekly injections to remove a litre of fluid from the breast, and was rushed to A&E because of infections.

“I was so unwell, we were just broken,” she says. “And there’s all these fresh-faced lovely couples who also want a baby. The surrogate is going to pick them, not the woman who might die of cancer.”

They did not get a surrogate offer, and began to come to terms they would never have a child. War had broken out in Ukraine, and they feared their remaining two embryos were lost.

But in the autumn, after the situation stabilised, the surrogate agency got in touch with the option of trying again. Demir recalls: “We thought, it’s our final chance, what have we got to lose? Desperate people do desperate things.”

So no thought to the surrogate and just how exploitative this is. Or the risk to their unborn child.

Just a tantrum that THEY will now have to travel to Ukraine and won't get special treatment and how it's dreadfully unfair to their British daughter that they have to wait up to 16 weeks for a passport

Plenty of time to reflect on conditions when they've been told

Doctors have asked that they bring everything for their baby, including bed sheets, because supplies are scarce. The couple, who have never been to Ukraine, chose a hotel because it had a generator and a bomb shelter.

Of course 16 weeks in Ukraine is not acceptable for them because the wife can only get 3 months of hormone therapy from the NHS. And this is putting her health as risk.

Nothing about the conditions their daughter will be born in and how risky / awful that might be for the mother. It was perfectly fine for their daughter to be at risk from the war during the pregnancy, but it's somehow dreadful that they have to go there themselves and wait around.

If Ukraine is good enough for them to have a surrogacy pregnancy in, then it's good enough for them to travel to as well. Who deliberately creates a baby in these circumstances and then has the brass neck to complain that they will also have to experience the war zone first hand.

The staggering selfishness is off the scale. The article doesn't reflect on it at all - just that our surrogacy laws aren't lax enough so it's driving couples abroad.

If we tightened our laws here to recognise this as people trafficking then maybe that would give pause for thought because these 'respectable' couples go abroad because our lax laws allow us to do so. We should and could criminalise this. 'Respectable couples' are precisely the ones who should be clamped down on precisely because they are less likely to try and damage their status by acting in a criminal manner.

On the plus side I'm glad the government has said no fuck off to special treatment - they withdrew the emergency scheme to stop twats like this for good reason. These dickheads made a choice to go ahead in the middle of a war after the scheme was withdrawn so I'm all out of fucks to give to them.

At least the article may act as a deterrent for others. That's the only positive.

Monsters.

‘We’ll be trapped in a war zone’: couple face months in Kyiv to claim their baby

Fliss and Memet Demir are travelling to the Ukrainian capital, where a surrogate mother is due to deliver the child

https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/couple-face-spending-months-in-kyiv-to-claim-their-baby-h2fnqtn62

OP posts:
NotBadConsidering · 08/06/2024 10:31

The parents are going to have some uncomfortable conversations when the child grows up.

Especially as they have documented their callous regard for the child’s mother in an interview with one of the world’s biggest media groups on the forever internet.

DoreenonTill8 · 08/06/2024 10:36

Disgusted by the purchasers of a human, and re Natalie Gamble, a solicitor at NGA Law, a specialist reproduction firm can't believe someone would do a law degree and specialise in supporting human trafficking.

ShotgunSally · 08/06/2024 10:41

Have commented in the Times, the Times always seems quite pro surrogacy and their readers are not ( including me). Yes the woman has had a tough time with her health but everyone around her should have said no. All my sympathies are with the surrogate and the little baby not with the selfish couple and hopefully the government will continue with their current advice just don't go.

HobnobsChoice · 08/06/2024 11:57

I just read this and was appalled. I'm also interested in the pose in the first photo which appears in the OP as well with his and her hands almost on her stomach in a way that you see in pregnancy photoshoots.
While I am deeply sorry that this woman has had cancer and had such a terrible time, I still cannot support the trafficking of babies. This is a child they arranged to be born in a warzone and chose to do this because they want to avoid the legal aspects that would happen in the UK. They made these choices and either didn't research fully the position with the UK passport withdrawal or they knew and chose to do it anyway and now want an exception to be made for them. A bit like the people who go on holiday with no insurance and then wonder why they have to pay a hospital bill when they are in an accident. Except there is a tiny baby at the heart of this and a woman who will give birth in a perilous situation to fulfil this couples desire for a baby

escarg0t · 08/06/2024 12:00

The poor child and mother.

FrancescaContini · 08/06/2024 12:06

TheClogLady · 08/06/2024 08:27

Imagine having the gall to buy a newborn baby from a woman in a war zone and then bleat to the media about how the government aren’t keen on helping you with your human trafficking project.

The epitome of entitlement.

Ws2210 · 08/06/2024 12:08

I cant beleive aome people think this is ok.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a book about surrogacy. Not a novel but something sociological/journalistic?

ReversedFerret · 08/06/2024 12:13

Natalie Gamble, a solicitor at NGA Law, a specialist reproduction firm, said Ukraine had been a popular choice for British parents before the Russian invasion because of its clear surrogacy laws and established agencies. In contrast, the “murky and fudged” UK law initially treats the surrogate and her spouse as parents, making everyone nervous, she said.

Ukraine's surrogacy industry is largely unregulated and what regulation is there treats the situation as a pure business arrangement. Most surrogacy contacts allow the buyer to place almost any conditions they like on the surrogate (including requiring an abortion under certain circumstances) AND state that the company's obligations to all parties end with birth and they cannot be held responsible for any negative impacts to anyone. The contract also has the surrogate give up all paternal rights from the moment of conception in favor of the "intended parents". Ukrainian law doesn't prohibit or mitigate any of this.

It's the LACK of laws (to protect the rights of the surrogate, the child, and where applicable the surrogate's partner) that made Ukraine attractive destinations for users who wished to cut corners. The problem with the UK (and with any compliant EU country) is that the "help" and the commodity have too many rights which potentially conflict with those of the consumer. These laws are NOT "murky" or "fudged"; they just exist for entirely different reasons than the relevant Ukrainian laws.

“I was so unwell, we were just broken,” she says. “And there’s all these fresh-faced lovely couples who also want a baby. The surrogate is going to pick them, not the woman who might die of cancer.” Yes, because the UK frames and regulates surrogacy as essentially a social rather than a business arrangement, the primary concern is still at least nominally the welfare of the child, not the needs of the consumer. This couple would have (and perhaps did) run into similar obstacles attempting to adopt. Of course it's horrible and unfair and people have sympathy, but the child's best interests still have to be protected.

Incidentally, the last time I renewed my UK passport overseas, it took twelve weeks (the estimate was fourteen), and there was no option to expedite. Granted, that was during COVID - but in light of that sixteen weeks for a first passport of a child born abroad AND the factor of Ukraine being a war zone doesn't seem newsworthy.

Arconialiving · 08/06/2024 12:24

TheClogLady · 08/06/2024 08:27

Imagine having the gall to buy a newborn baby from a woman in a war zone and then bleat to the media about how the government aren’t keen on helping you with your human trafficking project.

This! Selfish bastards with no thought to what is actually best for the baby. All about the wants of adults, not the needs of children.

Surrogacy is abhorrent.

Ohthatoldchestnut · 08/06/2024 12:30

So many red flags. If your child's welfare is of such little concern to you that you intentionally choose for it to be born in a war zone with limited supplies, far from your home, I seriously question whether parenthood is for you. God forbid the child has any issues later. Poor kid.
There are (very, very) rare circumstances where surrogacy works ok for all involved - this is absolutely not one of them. Any industrialisation of gestation is exploitative and there is a reason this form is not legal here.

Having a child is not an entitlement and this couple are utterly selfish.

MintTwirl · 08/06/2024 12:38

Horrid selfish people.

What happens to these babies if they are born with something like Down’s syndrome for example and the buyers decide they no longer want them?

Brefugee · 08/06/2024 12:49

BadSkiingMum · 08/06/2024 08:54

I do actually feel sorry for the woman on some levels because what she has been through in terms of illness is horrific. But I know how infertility can become all consuming, dominate your thoughts and distort all other considerations.

But I still don’t generally agree with surrogacy and what they are planning is wrong and utterly exploitative in a war-torn country.

I can hold both positions in my mind somehow.

My position? they are complete and utter monsters. Exploiting a woman for their wishes then having the absolute gall to complain? Fuck them. Sideways with a pineapple.

That they thought they might not find a surrogate in UK because the woman in the couple might die? And yet they STILL decided to exploit a poor woman - even though the thought that this entitled princess might die should have stopped them in their tracks.

I have (very very limited because of their later decisions) sympathy that they can't have their own child. They should have spent the 40 grand on good therapy.

I am boilingly angry and will support any campaign to get commercial surrogacy stopped as child trafficking.

Ohthatoldchestnut · 08/06/2024 13:27

Exactly, you can be sympathetic to the infertility and suffering through illness. But that doesn't give her a pass to do this - exploiting a likely vulnerable woman and intentionally putting a child in a risky situation.
A lot of women get dealt a crap hand in life and find other ways to grieve the loss of the life and the family they thought they would have. Life just isn't fair to all and never will be. It's fair to acknowledge the bad stuff you've experienced but there comes point where you just have to make the best of what you have and be grateful.

IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine · 08/06/2024 13:43

"Desperate people do desperate things."

OH THE FUCKING IRONY.

TheClogLady · 08/06/2024 16:49

Ws2210 · 08/06/2024 12:08

I cant beleive aome people think this is ok.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a book about surrogacy. Not a novel but something sociological/journalistic?

Julie Bindel has written fairly extensively on the subject: https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/surrogacy-stories
JB in 2016: https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/apr/01/outsourcing-pregnancy-india-surrogacy-clinics-julie-bindel

and JB very recently:https://thecritic.co.uk/the-love-that-cant-be-erased/

Also, Kenyan journalist, Naipanoi Lepapa:

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/how-freelancer-broke-major-scandal-surrogacy-and-won-top-award-kenya

BadSkiingMum · 08/06/2024 20:33

The only thing that I would add is that I have come to the conclusion that the human conscience is far less developed a mechanism than religion, literature and culture would have you believe. Human beings are evolved to adapt and to rationalise away anything that is out of the ordinary.

‘How could they?’
’Quite easily.’

They will get their baby, bring her home, probably be ‘good enough’ parents* and never, ever take a backward glance at Ukraine. They will probably even rationalise away their engagement with the mother as a quasi-charitable initiative, a generous form of social support…

But the impacts (much less well publicised) may well emerge at a later date. 😕

*Looking at the likelihood, given their social class, age and commitment to parenting.

AstonScrapingsNameChange · 09/06/2024 09:12

BadSkiingMum · 08/06/2024 20:33

The only thing that I would add is that I have come to the conclusion that the human conscience is far less developed a mechanism than religion, literature and culture would have you believe. Human beings are evolved to adapt and to rationalise away anything that is out of the ordinary.

‘How could they?’
’Quite easily.’

They will get their baby, bring her home, probably be ‘good enough’ parents* and never, ever take a backward glance at Ukraine. They will probably even rationalise away their engagement with the mother as a quasi-charitable initiative, a generous form of social support…

But the impacts (much less well publicised) may well emerge at a later date. 😕

*Looking at the likelihood, given their social class, age and commitment to parenting.

You make a really interesting point about conscience.

I have every sympathy for the cancer sufferer's illness, but that absolutely doesn't justify the breathtaking selfishness of their subsequent decisions. And the total abdication of responsibility for everything they have chosen to do. Its like they're utterly blind to it all.

This from their lawyer/human trafficking advisor really got me too:

"..the “murky and fudged” UK law initially treats the surrogate and her spouse as parents, making everyone nervous"

That's because the surrogate is the bloody parent! She's not a fricking incubator!

Cosmosforbreakfast · 10/06/2024 15:14

I'm so sorry for the poor innocent baby who had no choice in being brought into this mess. I just hope he/she and mother will be safe. I have no sympathy for these two, they've created a terrible situation, exploited and endangered a woman in a war torn country. Surrogacy is people trafficking. No excuse for it.

GlomOfNit · 10/06/2024 16:07

"“I was so unwell, we were just broken,” she says. “And there’s all these fresh-faced lovely couples who also want a baby. The surrogate is going to pick them, not the woman who might die of cancer.”"

Hmm I can't imagine why they'd do that. I mean, she's been through a terrible time, like so many women have with cancer. But is there to be NO regards for the welfare of the actual baby?

"They did not get a surrogate offer, and began to come to terms they would never have a child. "

Unless they adopt, of course. Which isn't mentioned anywhere (in the quoted part on this thread. I can't read the Times story directly.)

Pinkbonbon · 10/06/2024 16:20

Yuck.
Disgusting people.
Disgusting practice.

I mean its a pretty gross practice even here tbf.
Women letting people treat them like incubators.
Worse than prostitution imo.

Imicola · 10/06/2024 16:27

"desperate people do desperate things".

Honestly, words fail me. These people are dangerous and totally self absorbed. Poor baby, and poor mother.

You'd also imagine that the staff working in the Embassy in Kyiv might have some more essential tasks to be dealing with right now.

RedToothBrush · 10/06/2024 17:22

GlomOfNit · 10/06/2024 16:07

"“I was so unwell, we were just broken,” she says. “And there’s all these fresh-faced lovely couples who also want a baby. The surrogate is going to pick them, not the woman who might die of cancer.”"

Hmm I can't imagine why they'd do that. I mean, she's been through a terrible time, like so many women have with cancer. But is there to be NO regards for the welfare of the actual baby?

"They did not get a surrogate offer, and began to come to terms they would never have a child. "

Unless they adopt, of course. Which isn't mentioned anywhere (in the quoted part on this thread. I can't read the Times story directly.)

If you have cancer and are still under going treatment would you be approved for adoption?

If you wouldn't be, why is it ok to be a surrogate.

OP posts:
IdgieThreadgoodeIsMyHeroine · 10/06/2024 18:09

RedToothBrush · 10/06/2024 17:22

If you have cancer and are still under going treatment would you be approved for adoption?

If you wouldn't be, why is it ok to be a surrogate.

You definitely wouldn't be.

Maaate · 10/06/2024 18:48

This reminds me... What happened to all those babies born just after lockdown that were left in limbo as their purchasers were not able to fly out to pick them up and the mothers were not able to look after them? IIRC this was in Ukraine too

DysonSphere · 10/06/2024 19:18

MintTwirl · 08/06/2024 12:38

Horrid selfish people.

What happens to these babies if they are born with something like Down’s syndrome for example and the buyers decide they no longer want them?

There's a documentary available on YouTube about the Ukrainian surrogacy process. It is hair raising stuff. Among another surrogacy couple who were British and shocked at the reality of what they were facilitating, they focus on a child born with some special needs but then literally abandoned by her American parents who refused to take her back with them.

The child was put in an orphanage, and another woman - maybe a journalist or social worker - started visiting her when she could and playing with her and even with the very limited therapies available to her, the child made some cognitive progression. It would have been a lot more had she been taken by her American parents and given all the medical help available in their far better equipped health system.

At some point an investigative journalist talks to the American father on the phone, and he doesn't really give a toss because his wife wants nothing to do with the less than perfect child.

At the end the child's future looks bleak as the time to remain in that orphanage soon comes to an end and the lady who visits her is in floods of tears saying she fears she will cognitively decline

The hospital facilities featured were bare bones and I think this was filmed just before the war. So I can't imagine now.

It shows how transactional the entire process is.