Study finds surrogates more likely to experience poor mental health

[DrBlackbird]

A recently published study by Canadian researcher at McGill university has found that: "Among women without known prior mental illness, gestational carriage was associated with a higher risk of new-onset mental illness compared with non–gestational carriers who conceived without assistance or with IVF."

Including "The findings of additional analysis suggest that some gestational carriers may experience grief from relinquishing the newborn, such as that described after adoption or removal of the child into foster care — something that needs detailed study."

This researcher (Maria Velez) has also found in past studies that surrogates (gestational carriers) also have higher morbidity outcomes.

These are worrying findings in light of surrogacy births in the US doubling between 2014 and 2019.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2836835

No shit sherlock.
I suppose we should be grateful that someone is looking into the harms of surrogacy

Thank you DrBlackbird. It is not a surprising conclusion. I wonder though, how many of these studies will need to be done before those in the world exploiting women’s bodies this way will consider their needs.

Hardly surprising.
Thousands of women who placed children for adoption could have told you this. Wait until these commodity children grow into teens/adults and they will share the same feelings of loss/conflicted identity with associated MH problems that adoptees feel.
But all fine just so long as you can source your healthy infant.

Yes agree that it falls under the no shit Sherlock body of research (certainly that women would grieve the loss of a baby carried for 9 months) but which sadly is still required to point out the harms of commodifying women’s bodies and babies. Many many more studies will be required to slow down this exploitation. One of Maria Velezs findings was also that surrogates came more from lower socioeconomic groups. Another NSS finding.

what do they mean by 'non-gestational carriers'? do they mean women who give birth to and keep their own baby? or something else?

If you haven’t come across her before, Dr Suzanne Vierling has some very interesting points in all the methane have to make money from a woman’s body.

Err, that’s supposed to say “methods”.

"Commodity children". That's a depressingly accurate phrase I've not heard before. 😡

What are non–gestational carriers ?

She goes on to say who conceived without assistance or with IVF, implying that these are also pregnant women. Pregnant women are gestating.

It doesn't make any sense.

Nothing makes any sense if you do not name people accurately.

A non-gestational carrier is a surrogate that is not biologically related to the child. A gestational carrier is related if she donated the the egg and is also the surrogate mother.

I understand what you mean but how could a non-gestational carrier do so without assistance? Surely if it’s not your egg there would need to be some form of intervention to implant the fertilised egg?

Non-gestational carrier is an oxymoron.

Gestation refers to the period between conception and birth. Conception is generally understood as the moment of implantation (not fertilisation). Any pregnant woman, regardless of the foetus’s genetic parentage, is a “gestational carrier” because the foetus will spend the entire period between implantation and the end of the pregnancy in that woman’s uterus.

But they are both gestating!

It's as nonsensical as saying 'non-trans women'. All these gestating people are pregnant women. Women. If the relationship the pregnant woman has with the foetus she is gestating is relevant, then clarify that. Do not erase the woman because she is relinquishing bodily autonomy in order to provide a service to somebody else.

Who would've thought that giving away the baby, you grew in your body, would have lasting mental-health effects? Unbelievable.

No shit sherlock

First response nails it.

I agree with you - these are scientific/medical terms though.

Like 'cis'?

I find it highly accurate.

I remember so many past threads where posters would express their discomfort when infants were bluntly described as commodities and women were accurately described as exploited. It doesn’t matter how willing a woman is, their bodies are exploitable resources when other’s use them to produce children for them (ie not the woman having her own child) . Even if it is a woman’s body being exploited for eggs.

The direct and unemotional descriptions of both women’s bodies and infants causes many people intense discomfort if they support the exploitation of these humans but like to try to describe it from an emotionally acceptable point of view. Of course women who are being used as a resource in this way will have some negative impacts. It was dishonest to think they would not.

Well no shit, it goes against our natural instincts to carry a baby then give it away to someone else, and I’m surprised any woman would do it without having no other option and being in serious financial difficulty that it’s her only option to keep a roof over her head. I’ve long thought any woman who does it must be mentally unwell in the first place to be so detached.

I’m sure someone will be along to tell me they’ve been a surrogate and they’re not mentally ill and it’s a ‘great gift’ etc, but I’m afraid nothing could change my mind on this, it’s trafficking children and it’s sick.

The farming of women is big business, though. Article describes how the baby industry is 'booming':

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2025/jul/25/surrogates-gestational-carriers-risk-mental-illness-pregnancy-canada

https://stopsurrogacynowuk.org/2025/07/27/surrogacy-a-risky-business/

A look at some of the stats from.the new study. You'll be astonished to read that it seems some women are carrying babies for money despite the physical and mental risks.

“I’m sure someone will be along to tell me they’ve been a surrogate and they’re not mentally ill and it’s a ‘great gift’ etc”

There has been one poster that I know of that came on to a thread and tried to convince us that there was no emotional coercion from either side and no impact. She was defending her ‘altruistic’ decision. When we kept asking questions, it seems that not everything was as attempted to be portrayed.

It was a reminder that with non-financial surrogacy there is often an emotional need being exploited and it is sometimes confusing, although I would think rare, as it might be the surrogate using their role for some kind of unhealthy dynamic.

What has become very apparent across many threads is that the mental health support and wellbeing checks done by the organisations who ‘counsel’ on this or arrange the legalities may do very little beyond ticking off questions with no exploration. I don’t believe much deep exploration is done before, during or after.