I've just been reading a piece by Julie Bindel about how selfish it is for couples to opt for surrogacy when there are so many children languishing in care who need adoptive and foster parents. I normally like her writing, but on this occasion she has managed to link people who choose to go to developing countries to find a surrogate mother with anyone else who needs help to get pregnant in one damning line referring to "expensive complicated medical interventions such as IVF and surrogacy".
I recently interviewed two women who'd had a surrogacy arrangement who agreed to speak to me because they wanted to give their response to the endlessly negative press that surrogacy receives. They were friends, and one had decided to help the other to have the child she longed for but couldn't carry (she'd had to have a hysterectomy for medical reasons). There was no exploitation and no money changed hands. They did it twice and it resulted in two children - now teenagers. They are still incredibly close friends and their families spend a lot of time together. Speaking to them was really moving - they were both strong, positive women who were very proud of the children and of what they'd done. The interview was published in the last edition of the Infertility Network UK magazine.
I'm also never entirely convinced by the argument that people are choosing to go to such lengths without considering adoption. Many couples who can't conceive would love to adopt a baby, but their chances of ever being able to do this are extremely slim as the numbers of babies adopted each year in this country are tiny. That's not due to a lack of couples who would jump for joy if they were able to adopt a baby - it's just that decisions about adoption are not often made so early in a child's life and can take years. It's not fair to blame couples who have fertility problems for what may be seen as shortcomings in the adoption process. Many of the children who need adoptive families are much older and have lived through extremely difficult times which can mean that they need experienced carers - and the adoption process is about finding the right adoptive parents for the child, not about making sure that people who might consider surrogacy or fertility treatment are able to adopt instead.
Of course, Julie Bindel is right that the exploitation of poor women in developing countries is utterly wrong and should be condemned - but it's a shame that she has muddied the waters by appearing to conclude that any surrogacy arrangement or even fertility treatment is somehow just as exploitative and wrong.
You can read her piece here
Showing posts with label surrogacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surrogacy. Show all posts
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Tuesday, 12 July 2011
Surrogacy law - does it need updating?
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble has just sent me a press release about a complicated surrogacy case which has just been through the courts here in the UK. Natalie feels it highlights some of the problems with the current legislation surrounding surrogacy - and it certainly does show how hugely complex the issues can be - see below...
The High Court has made an unprecedented order awarding parenthood to a deceased father of a baby boy born through surrogacy in India.
A couple, known only as Mr and Mrs A, entered into a surrogacy arrangement and their son was born in India on 12 April 2010. The biological parents were Mr A and either Mrs A or an unknown donor. However, under UK surrogacy law, the Indian surrogate and her husband were treated as the baby boy’s legal parents, and Mr and Mrs A applied for a parental order to reassign parenthood and gain a UK birth certificate naming them as mother and father. But Mr A tragically contracted liver cancer during the course of the proceedings and died, leaving the High Court to make a landmark decision to award parenthood to the mother and her deceased husband.
The case was complicated by the fact that only couples – and not single people – can apply for parental orders. When the UK’s surrogacy laws were debated in 2008, Parliament decided that only couples should be able to commission surrogacy arrangements. Parents who apply for parental orders following surrogacy must therefore either be married or living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble, who drafted an amendment to the law in 2008 (which was debated in Committee but rejected) which would have allowed applications from single parents, comments: “The case shows how dangerously outdated our surrogacy laws are. Although Mrs Justice Theis was able to find a way around the law in this case because the father had died after issuing the application, what would have happened if either of the parents had died earlier, perhaps during the pregnancy? This has always been an accident waiting to happen, and the restrictiveness of the current law is leaving children vulnerable and unprotected.
Natalie, whose firm has dealt with many of the leading international surrogacy cases heard by the High Court in recent years including the first to ratify a foreign arrangement, goes on to say: “The case demonstrates the continuing difficulties the courts are facing in dealing with surrogacy arrangements. The High Court is repeatedly having to stretch the legislation in order to secure the status of vulnerable children born through surrogacy, and the emotional and financial cost of this for the family involved is significant. We need a better system of law which caters for these kinds of eventualities, and gives clarity and certainty to ensure that children being born through surrogacy (and their parents and surrogates) are properly protected.”
The case is also the first published case to ratify an Indian surrogacy agreement in which more than expenses were paid to a surrogate mother, following a line of previous published cases ratifying commercial payments for surrogacy made to US and Ukrainian surrogate mothers.
The High Court has made an unprecedented order awarding parenthood to a deceased father of a baby boy born through surrogacy in India.
A couple, known only as Mr and Mrs A, entered into a surrogacy arrangement and their son was born in India on 12 April 2010. The biological parents were Mr A and either Mrs A or an unknown donor. However, under UK surrogacy law, the Indian surrogate and her husband were treated as the baby boy’s legal parents, and Mr and Mrs A applied for a parental order to reassign parenthood and gain a UK birth certificate naming them as mother and father. But Mr A tragically contracted liver cancer during the course of the proceedings and died, leaving the High Court to make a landmark decision to award parenthood to the mother and her deceased husband.
The case was complicated by the fact that only couples – and not single people – can apply for parental orders. When the UK’s surrogacy laws were debated in 2008, Parliament decided that only couples should be able to commission surrogacy arrangements. Parents who apply for parental orders following surrogacy must therefore either be married or living as partners in an enduring family relationship.
Leading fertility lawyer Natalie Gamble, who drafted an amendment to the law in 2008 (which was debated in Committee but rejected) which would have allowed applications from single parents, comments: “The case shows how dangerously outdated our surrogacy laws are. Although Mrs Justice Theis was able to find a way around the law in this case because the father had died after issuing the application, what would have happened if either of the parents had died earlier, perhaps during the pregnancy? This has always been an accident waiting to happen, and the restrictiveness of the current law is leaving children vulnerable and unprotected.
Natalie, whose firm has dealt with many of the leading international surrogacy cases heard by the High Court in recent years including the first to ratify a foreign arrangement, goes on to say: “The case demonstrates the continuing difficulties the courts are facing in dealing with surrogacy arrangements. The High Court is repeatedly having to stretch the legislation in order to secure the status of vulnerable children born through surrogacy, and the emotional and financial cost of this for the family involved is significant. We need a better system of law which caters for these kinds of eventualities, and gives clarity and certainty to ensure that children being born through surrogacy (and their parents and surrogates) are properly protected.”
The case is also the first published case to ratify an Indian surrogacy agreement in which more than expenses were paid to a surrogate mother, following a line of previous published cases ratifying commercial payments for surrogacy made to US and Ukrainian surrogate mothers.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
The risks of using surrogacy agencies
If you needed any warning of the potential pitfalls of entering into surrogacy arrangements without legal advice, an article in the New York Times provides just that.
The paper reports that a California-based surrogacy and egg donation agency that had taken tens of thousands of dollars from would-be parents has closed, taking their money with it.
The agency had clients and surrogates not only in the US, but also in other parts of the world. It is estimated that up to two million dollars may have gone missing. You can read more in the New York Times article.
The paper reports that a California-based surrogacy and egg donation agency that had taken tens of thousands of dollars from would-be parents has closed, taking their money with it.
The agency had clients and surrogates not only in the US, but also in other parts of the world. It is estimated that up to two million dollars may have gone missing. You can read more in the New York Times article.
Friday, 19 December 2008
The risks of surrogacy overseas
More and more couples considering surrogacy are opting to do this overseas, where it can appear to be easier and cheaper, but the case of a British couple who recently ended up in the High Court to save their baby twins from life in a Ukrainian orphanage should give a warning of the dangers that can arise.
The couple had paid a Ukrainian woman more than twenty thousand pounds to act as a surrogate mother. However, the differing laws in the two countries meant that their twin babies were effectively left stateless and without parents. Under Ukrainian law, the surrogate had no responsibilities for the babies once they had been born, and the children had no right to residence in the Ukraine. However, under British law the surrogate and her husband were the children's legal parents, and this meant that the children had no right of residence in the UK either.
After a legal battle, the couple were awarded a parental order by the judge in the High Court and the children will become British citizens. However, the case illustrates the problems anyone who enters into a surrogacy agreement overseas can face, and why it is so essential to take legal advice before going ahead.
The couple had paid a Ukrainian woman more than twenty thousand pounds to act as a surrogate mother. However, the differing laws in the two countries meant that their twin babies were effectively left stateless and without parents. Under Ukrainian law, the surrogate had no responsibilities for the babies once they had been born, and the children had no right to residence in the Ukraine. However, under British law the surrogate and her husband were the children's legal parents, and this meant that the children had no right of residence in the UK either.
After a legal battle, the couple were awarded a parental order by the judge in the High Court and the children will become British citizens. However, the case illustrates the problems anyone who enters into a surrogacy agreement overseas can face, and why it is so essential to take legal advice before going ahead.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Surrogacy laws
Anyone who is either considering surrogacy, or has an interest in the subject, may be interested to read an online commentary on the subject written by solicitor Natalie Gamble, who specialises in fertility law.
Writing for BioNews, published by Progress Educational Trust, she puts a strong case for changes needed to the current surrogacy law. She explains how the "intended parents" - that is those who wish to have the child - are currently not considered the legal parents at birth, and explains why this makes things difficult. With more and more people travelling abroad for surrogacy arrangements which can be cheaper and easier to arrange outside the UK, she also details why this can cause real problems for both parents and for the child concerned. You can read her commentary at www.bionews.org.uk
Writing for BioNews, published by Progress Educational Trust, she puts a strong case for changes needed to the current surrogacy law. She explains how the "intended parents" - that is those who wish to have the child - are currently not considered the legal parents at birth, and explains why this makes things difficult. With more and more people travelling abroad for surrogacy arrangements which can be cheaper and easier to arrange outside the UK, she also details why this can cause real problems for both parents and for the child concerned. You can read her commentary at www.bionews.org.uk
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Surrogacy warnings
When surrogacy goes wrong, the consequences can be devastating for everyone involved, and a couple of recent stories highlight the dangers of not making thorough checks before entering into a surrogacy agreement.
In one case, a surrogate mother was found to have deliberately duped two couples into believing she'd miscarried their babies. She'd used sperm from the prospective fathers with the intention of keeping the children herself. In the other, an American woman was arrested in Ukraine when trying to leave the country with the baby a surrogate had carried for her. The baby was taken into care because there were problems with the woman's papers.
Travelling abroad may seem to offer quick and easy solutions for couples who need to use surrogates, but it can cause unexpected complications when it comes to bringing a child back home. Surrogacy is illegal in much of Europe, and you should check the law very carefully if you are planning on going overseas.
The laws on surrogacy are strict precisely because it is an area where there is so much room for exploitation, and it is absolutely vital to make sure any surrogacy agreement is completely legal and watertight. For more information about surrogacy, contact Surrogacy UK
In one case, a surrogate mother was found to have deliberately duped two couples into believing she'd miscarried their babies. She'd used sperm from the prospective fathers with the intention of keeping the children herself. In the other, an American woman was arrested in Ukraine when trying to leave the country with the baby a surrogate had carried for her. The baby was taken into care because there were problems with the woman's papers.
Travelling abroad may seem to offer quick and easy solutions for couples who need to use surrogates, but it can cause unexpected complications when it comes to bringing a child back home. Surrogacy is illegal in much of Europe, and you should check the law very carefully if you are planning on going overseas.
The laws on surrogacy are strict precisely because it is an area where there is so much room for exploitation, and it is absolutely vital to make sure any surrogacy agreement is completely legal and watertight. For more information about surrogacy, contact Surrogacy UK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)