Post part 2
These next three points are probably the most controversial part of this post and likely to put people off. Anything that even remotely smells of feminism, allows people to put women down, but I think some of the issues are important.
6) Complete Lack of equality
I read the seed consultation document
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/AboutHFEA/Consultations/SeedConsult.pdf
Point 47 says that "…. There is no doubt that they (clinics) do make a profit when they provide treatment using these gametes……..Like people in any other job, service providers, are entitled to be rewarded fairly for the service they provide. "
And Point 48 says "It is anomalous to us, that whilst the HFEA, has no authority to regulate any other commercial activities of the centres it licenses, it should be required to authorize financial transactions in respect of gametes."
Point 6 comments that the review of compensation was prompted by the "availability of donors. There has been strong indication that the number of sperm donors have been declining consistently for some years and the number of egg donors consistently falls short of demand."
Point 40 talks about setting a compensation level for egg donors at around 500 pounds. In a straight time for time approach, as sperm donors are compensated 15 pounds, egg donors, should have been compensated 800 pounds. Yet in box 8, the HFEA, comments, not only, on how time consuming egg donation is, but how invasive the procedures are, how unpleasant the side effects of treatment are, and that there is a risk of death. So maybe a 1000 pounds would be more reasonable. And now the HFEA plans to treble the compensation for sperm donors….
So let's get this right. Point 48 says the HFEA, is unable to regulate, some of the more dubious services, like sharing eggs from one donor, among multiple recipients. And in point 47, the HFEA sees nothing wrong in clinics making huge profits and feels that clinics should receive fair rewards.
Point 6 says that the HFEA, called a review of compensation levels to donors, because infertile men, can't get a donor, so they plan to raise the level of compensation to sperm donors, to a sensible level, to encourage more men to donate. But, when it comes to women, the HFEA has known for years that there is a huge shortage of egg donors, and done absolutely nothing about it. And to fix the problem, they will offer women an inadequate level of compensation, and not allow women to claim all the expenses, they are entitled to. I am speechless.
How does all this apply to surrogates?
Let's move onto a different report, the 1997 review of surrogacy.
Well in the document
http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/43/73/04014373.pdf
In point 4.40, admits, that if surrogates were compensated fairly for what they do, they would receive around 15,000 pounds.
In 5.11.11, says that "although a theoretical distinction can be made between payment for the purchase of a child and payment for a potentially risky, time consuming and uncomfortable service, in practice it is too difficult to separate the two, and it remains the case that payment other than genuine expenses, constitutes a financial benefit for the surrogate mother."
For a start they used the wrong words. It should be "the purchase of a child and COMPENSATION for a potentially risky…….."
So what the Labour health minister is trying to say, is that it is too much of a political hot potato to compensate women fairly, for their time, pain and suffering. And it speaks volumes about the British public, if treating women equally to men, is political suicide.
5.18 of the surrogacy review document says:
As discussed in Chapter 4, very little is known about the consequences for children of being born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement.
One of the weaknesses of both the BMA report and the 1997 surrogacy review, is that both *only* looked at surrogacy in the UK. By 1997, there hadn't been that many surrogacies in the UK, so there was very little data to review. Neither the BMA, nor the Health minister had gone across the Atlantic and looked at surrogacy ion the USA, where by 1997, there had been thousands of surrogacies in the USA. They would have had access to a much larger pool of data. And they didn't talk to someone like Gail Dutton, whose, primary interest is the psychology of Surrogacy, why do people do surrogacy and what are the effects.
The information from the USA, showed, even in 1997, that children of surrogacy, were some of the most loved., most secure, children, around. And since then, in 2002, one of the ministers experts, Professor Golombok, has gone onto to prove that couples who have become parents through surrogacy, *always* make fantastic parents.
Golombok and MacCallum from the Family and Child Psychology Research Centre at City University, London.
Quote:-
"In fact, the mothers of children born via a surrogacy arrangement show more warmth towards their babies and are more emotionally involved than is the case in families where the child is conceived naturally. Both the mother and father have better parenting skills."
5.18 goes onto to say: "Specifically, it has been argued that the knowledge that they had been relinquished by their surrogate mother who, in some cases may also be their genetic mother, and the knowledge that their surrogate mother had been paid to host the pregnancy, may be psychologically damaging to children."
I am trying to raise my boys to have respect for everyone, and part of having respect, will be to encourage my boys to treat everyone equally. I'll tell them, that I respect, other people's contribution, and that I compensated my surrogate fairly. Sperm donors are compensated for their time, effort, pained and suffering; women, egg donors and surrogates, are not.
7) Protection of women
Every time someone suggests changing the law, another person pops up and says, but we need to protect women. And my brain goes, "yes, and the Taliban, did a great job of 'protecting' women in Afghanistan."
If we have to protect women in one area, isn't the logical conclusion, women need protecting everywhere? How can we expect to be promoted to the board of directors, when we need protecting, from the rough and tumble world of business?
Everyone seems to go on about the women, who might become a surrogate or egg donor for money. If the BMA, HFEA, and/or the Health minister, talked to agencies in the USA, they would find that women do sign on with the agency for money, BUT the women who apply primarliy for the money, when they find out what is really involved, do *not* go through with it.
Women may say after the event, that they became involved in surrogacy or egg donation for the money, but if you look at all the women who are selected for egg donation and those that actually do egg donation, you find that *only* women, who want to help others, donate eggs. Women are incredibly intelligent, well rounded people, are quite capable of making their own good quality decisions. And if you look at the women who make the best sort of donors, they are very similar to those in the UK; women , in their late 20s or early 30s, who have several children, and women who care deeply about others. These women have grown up, they know their own minds and when they make a commitment they see it through, however long it takes.
The HFEA wants to increase the level of compensation for sperm donors, to a fair market level. No one feels the need to protect men from donating for money. I haven't heard any calls to stop men, becoming professional sperm donors and donating 50 times in 6 months(point 6 of the SEED document). No one questions men's ability to think for themselves, just women's. And there wouldn't be any need to worry about our judgments, if we had access to superbly qualified, independent professionals, who could help us make the right decision. But the law, bans, the very people who could help us.
The 1989 Glover report advocated restrictions, on surrogacy, but my feeling is that when societies, force adults to make only one type of decision mandated by the state, people in those societies, almost always have to make a bad personal decision, as it is the only one they are allowed.
One of the reasons for the restrictions is the 1989 Glover report was to protect surrogates from exploitation and children from harmful prolonged battles between surrogates and the commissioning couple. Well I have already said, that clear law, binding contracts and easy to use conflict resolution systems would do far more to protect children, born through surrogacy, from prolonged messy public court battles, than any restrictive practice can.
And as to protecting surrogates, in point 5.17 of the 1997 document, says"….. In addition to our concerns for the about the physical and psychological welfare of surrogates, who enter into repeated surrogacy arrangements…."
In the UK, there is such a shortage of surrogates, couples are going to work with any surrogate they can, even one who is about to embark on her 3rd, 6th or 10th pregnancy.
In the USA, the free market discourages women from becoming serial surrogates. The fear of litigation encourages best practice and that says, no women should do more than 2 surrogate pregnancies, except in exceptional circumstances, maybe she carries one more child, for a couple she has already worked for. A surrogate can't work for an agency after she has completed her 2nd pregnancy, they won't use her, and, if she is honest couples won't either. Ad if she lies, she will be caught out by a background check. So surrogates are discouraged from putting themselves forward more than twice. And with so many surrogates to chose from, who needs to work with a serial surrogate.
The restrictive practices, that now operate in the UK, actually encourage, many of the bad practices the government would like to stamp out. Treat women as adults, let them make their own decisions, and I expect many of the things that are seen as problems now would just disappear.
And what about all the other protection I need, like not being overcharged, or be subjected to dubious practices, like sharing one donor's eggs, among multiple recipients. I am not protected from that, but clinics are protected from interference!!!!
I don't feel protected, I feel suffocated. I feel that the rules are not about protection, but controlling women and keeping women in their place.
Human rights
If you read the book "A Matter of Trust" by Gail Dutton, ISBN: 0965596605, you will discover that for some women, it is the most natural thing in the world to become a surrogate. It is who they are. My surrogate mum, like most surrogates had thought surrogacy was the most wonderful thing to do, and has done so for years, before she became a surrogate. Yet most countries in the EU, ban surrogacy, and will severely punish those who get involved. So the restrictions on surrogacy are a Europe wide issue.
100 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and those ,who were gay, would be gaoled. In 2005, women all over Europe, face the prospect of jail, for becoming surrogates. Is there any difference, between jailing surrogates and jailing gays?
What I find interesting, is that I see the odd post that would indicate, that a ban does not stop women from becoming surrogates. They need to do it, because of who they are. It is beach of women's fundamental rights to ban surrogacy, but then huMAN rights, is about rights for men, not women and certainly not children.
The truth about children born through surrogacy, in countries, that ban surrogacy, must be hidden. And as far as I am concerned, that opens up the possibility of harm to the kids.
So the restrictions placed on surrogacy, are not just damaging to women, they harm children too. The only system, that fully protects children, IMO, is one that is open and up front about what is happening; and has binding contracts, sensible conflict resolution systems……..
9) Well informed Health Minister - Well one can hope for a miracle
The more I read official HFEA or government documents, the more ***** angry I get. These people haven't got a clue what they are talking about and by the mid 1990s, as far as I am concerned they had *NO* excuse not to have learned. They was simply so much data from the USA, on what was a good thing to do, and what was the worst possible way of doing things. They are creating the rules and the laws, and they should know what they are doing. But as the 1997 surrogacy review document shows, they hadn't got a clue.
Point 4.2 and point 4.7 they discuss surrogacy for convenience. That only works with, if the surrogate and the prospective parent(PP) do not meet and no women has gone through a closed surrogacy for years before the 1997 surrogacy review. Closed surrogacy, can destroy the mental health of a surrogate. So why the **** are they even mentioning it for?
Point 4.3 …. The use of a women's uterus for financial profit, as an incubator for someone else's child. Don't they know that the most important thing is the surrogate's mental attitude? A genuine surrogate would go through surrogacy, with an artificial uterus, if it she had to. It is the surrogate's mind that is important, and the state of her body, actually comes second. Maybe it is just me, but I feel the Health minister has got their information, from somewhere like The Times, that carries stories, such as, "Rent a Womb"
Point 4.50 reveals that the review committee never had an open mind, because they call surrogacy: ethically flawed.
Point 5.13 draws parallels between surrogacy and organ donation, but doesn't cover the one fundamental difference that there is a living independent person(s) at the end of it
Every report I have ever seen, refers to previous reports on surrogacy, and in the end they all go back to dear old Jonathon Glover, who placed restrictions on surrogacy; and in the USA, even in 1989, people were beginning to realise, that restrictions were wrong. No one starts with a clean slate and says, how could we design the best system for infertility. It would take a courageous government to do
that
Mind you, if the government opened up infertility to market forces, think of all the extra income professionals would make and think of all the extra tax
revenue
I could go on and on, but I am so sick of reading, half truths, and wrong information in the reports, I am going nuts. So I am sorry to cut this post short, because my brain is about to explode.
And then there are many social issues I haven't even covered, like how disastrous, it is going to be, for the UK economy in 25 years time, if the current birth rate stays the same. But then governments are only in power for 4-5 years, so what happens in 25 years time is irrelevant to them.
In conclusion: Allowing both sides to advertise for prospective parents/surrogate would be a good start, but it simply doesn't go far enough
Lorna
