# Surrogacy and advertising poll



## Freddie (Jul 16, 2004)

Hello there,

Just wanted to let y'all know that I've posted a poll re "surrogacy and advertising in the UK" in the Voting room. If I get a big enough response I just may forward the results to my MP! 

To make it easier to find, here's the link; http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=22132.0

Thanx,
F x


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

How can a surrogate, find the “perfect” prospective parents to work with, or the prospective parents find the best surrogate, and her partner to work with, unless they advertise for each other.  And perfect and best, are different for different people.  No wonder things go wrong so often in the UK, compared to the US.  
In the UK, there are about 100 surrogate births per year and one or more contested custody battle(s) every  year.  In the US, there are at least 3000 Surrogate births per year, and one contested custody battle every 5 -10 years.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2005)

Hya there,
Well to be honest I can't see the problem of using the good old surromomsonline ads, the USA website. There are lots of couples and surros on there if u use the 'search' facility and input UK they will come up.

I have met all 3 of my IP's on there and all have worked out well with my independant arrangements. Anyhow I have voted 'yes' as I think the same 'why should u pay your membership costs just for support and advice but still have the same zero chances of finding a surro with them. JMHO
Tina
2 X surro mum, hopefully 3rd soon!
x
http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=10316


----------



## Freddie (Jul 16, 2004)

Hi Tina,

Thanks for voting. You're right - the surromomsonline ads are great, IF you know about it. The problem with advertising being illegal in the UK is that a) not everyone knows about the US website, and b) it prevents surrogacy being widely known and accepted resulting in a real shortage of surrogates. It would be great if we could just put up posters asking mums who've had easy pregnancies to consider becoming a surrogate - like they do for blood donors!  

I hope we can do something to change the law, but it will need a lot of lobbying. I'd really like to get a group together to lobby parliament and get it into the news; it's the only way we'll get the attention needed for someone to take it seriously. Anyone up for it?

Lol, F xx


----------



## **Tashja** (Jan 13, 2005)

Hello 

I have voted !!

I am all up for helping out if anyone really wants to get this to parliment and see if we can't get something changed !!

All feel free to IM/email me if I can help !!


----------



## Freddie (Jul 16, 2004)

That's great Mrs G! I'll definitely keep you in mind. If you know of anyone else who may be interested, could you ask them to e-mail or IM me.

Anyone else?

Untill we unite to do _something_, nothing will ever change. "From little acorns, great oak trees grow."

Thanx stax.
F x

ps. Good luck MrsG on your next attempt!


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Post Part 1
I think both surrogates and prospective parents should be able to advertise. But it is not just the ability for either side to advertise, so that they can find the best fit. It everything else as well.
Let's start with those appalling figures: in the UK, 1 contested custody battle every 100 births, versus in the USA, 1 contested custody battle per 15,000 births. So which system is better for the child?
1) Lack of professionals in infertility	
----------------------------------------
The lack of independent professional advice is caused, because, it is illegal, for anyone to make money out of infertility. The one exception, is, doctors, and they are allowed to become millionaires, out of our misery.
What the ban on making money out of infertility means, is that there are *no* professional organisations working in this field. No counsellors, no agencies that build up years of expertise, no support personnel, no one. Every other thing to do with children, professionals are not only available, they are usually mandated. But when it comes to infertility, I can't seek professional help. It's crazy.
The free for all in the USA, means that there are some excellent services available for people, lost in the maze of infertility. In the USA, the counsellor we saw, had studied, psychology at college and then done a masters in infertility. She had worked with surrogates, donors, prospective parents and recipients for years.
I read the BBs, and I read about couples, who are desperate for some impartial advice. They can go to some voluntary organisations, but do they have the same standard of expertise? Or they can ask their clinics. But which way is a clinic going to advise a couple, the absolute best way or the most profitable way?
In the 1997 review of surrogacy: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/43/73/04014373.pdf
in the executive summary, point 4 argues against payments to surrogate mums "because they create a danger that women will a less than free and fully informed consent to act as a surrogate."
I would argue that without professional counsellors asking tough questions, a women cannot give fully informed consent. There is such a shortage of surrogates, I would also argue that surrogacy organisations in the UK, cannot afford, to do anything that would put surrogates off, and it is in their best interest to do no more than merely mention the dangers. Our counsellor in the USA, hammered them home, and our contract covered some of the dangers as well.
Also in the 1997 review point 1.5 says "our terms of reference specifically excluded consideration of
i commercialisation ie that third parties should be able to profit from surrogacy arrangements."
For a start the words should say, make 
i commercialisation ie that third parties should be able to MAKE A LIVING from surrogacy arrangements.
There are benefits, and I would argue, some serious problems, with making surrogacy strictly non payment. Also there are pros and cons of allowing professionals to make a living from helping surrogates. How can you have a proper review of surrogacy, if you only consider one side of the coin? 
2) Binding contracts
----------------------
Binding contracts do some very important jobs. Firstly everyone's expectations are in the open, for everyone to read, and secondly, it lays out in black and white, everyone's rights and responsibilities, and thirdly, it makes any disputes, much easier to sort out.
We have contracts for everything, buying a house, taking out life insurance, jobs, etc.. I bought a kettle today, and I have a sales contract, that gives my kettle and I, more rights in law, than any surrogate or prospective parents do. And that is simply insane.
If a friend was to borrow money from me, I could get them to sign a piece of paper and that would be a contract, binding them to pay me back. That kind of arrangement is more likely to protect a friendship in the long run, than harm it, but when it comes to surrogacy, all anyone can see in harm from contracts. Why?
In every other situation in life contracts clarify the situation. Why should surrogacy be so different?
Also in the 1997 review point 1.5 says "our terms of reference specifically excluded consideration of
ii enforceability of contracts ie whether the surrogate mother should be bound by a contractual arrangement to give up her child, or whether the commissioning couple should be similarly bound to make the agreed payments."
In the USA, you find that it is the prospective parents who default most often, on the contract. The parents refuse to hand over the contractually agreed expenses: 
I started a thread "Surrogacy news story today", and Jac and Shupa kindly responded, with details of the story.
And I think story in the Herald Sun posted by Shupa, 
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,12091843%255E663,00.html
brilliantly illustrates, that it is not surrogacy that is at fault, but the way things are done in the UK, that are to blame. One of the lines in the HeraldSun article, was that:-
The couple, from Northern Ireland, are withholding more than $14,600 of the $21,500 expenses they had agreed to pay Ms Caltabiano, claiming they have run up huge legal bills because of her death.
In the USA, the reply from a court would be, you agreed to pay the expenses, it's not the surrogate's fault she died, you should pay up.
In point 5.21 of the 1997 surrogacy review, &#8230;.The limitations of payments would also prevent surrogate mothers from making increased demands on the commissioning couple once a pregnancy was established.
So in the very unlikely event, that a surrogate is unreasonable, a binding contract, protects the prospective parents as well as the surrogate.
But in the UK, without a binding contract it is harder for the either side, to show, what is due to whom. Those involved in surrogacy are caused more pain, by the lack of clear law, and there is no simple way to easily sort out the mess.
And there is no simple easy conflict resolution system. Without a contract, you are down to, who said what, when. In the UK, everyone can look forward to a prolonged messy public court battle.
3) Sensible Conflict Resolution Systems
---------------------------------------------
To go with binding contracts, you need a way of a legal way of mediating any disputes. And the inability of the 1997 review to consider binding contracts, means that the review never considered, a simple way of sorting out problems, which would be in the best interest of the child.
In the UK, it seems to me, that the only way for surrogates, donors, prospective parents and recipients, to get any kind of justice, is to go to the press. Most Americans think, that it might do enormous amounts of harm, for an adult child to read about the battles, that went on between their parents, and a surrogate or a donor, around the time of the child's birth. And no one wants to hurt a child, even one that has grown up. So in the USA, parents, surrogates and donors, are encouraged to use the confidential, easy to use juvenile courts, to sort things out. And binding contracts, make it easier, because what everyone agreed to up front, is written down in black and white.
4)Simplifying the law
----------------------------
Back in 1996, the BMA published Changing Conceptions of Motherhood: Practice of Surrogacy in Britain ISBN: 072791006X. In this publication, they were pretty damming of the current state of the UK surrogacy laws, calling them an irrelevant panicked measure. When we tried to get some advice on surrogacy in the UK, back in 2001, it felt like, nothing seems to have changed. The law is such a mess, we needed to find a top barrister to interpret it, and then, the only way to be sure, that my barrister's interpretation was right, was to go to court, and get a ruling. And finding anyone was a nightmare, because all the barrister's in the field of surrogacy were completely overloaded. So long as the surrogacy laws stay the way they are, barristers, working in this field are assured a very profitable living.
Ahhh! Someone else, who can make money legally out of infertility.
In the UK, it is difficult to write any type of contract, and messy to sort out any conflicts you have. The only way to sort things out is to go to the high court, which isn't necessarily a closed court, so your story could get into the media.
Contrast this with the USA. The law is relatively simple. A competent lawyer can probably sort it out. So we are down, from, a hundreds of pounds per hour barrister, to a 100 dollar an hour lawyer.
But there are law firms, who have been writing surrogacy contracts for twenty years and so it is probably better to go to them. They might charge more, but they will take less time to write a contract, so you actually end up paying less. And they will probably write a clearer contract as well.
Certainly in states, like California, there have now been so many judgements, that you know, whatever you write in a contract, will be applied in court. And most other states, that allow surrogacy, are doing the same thing. Surrogates, parents and donors, know, that the contract is law, and usually don't try to challenge it.
And the California laws were created, by everyone, surrogates, parents, right to life organisations, absolutely everybody. Humans are imperfect, so you can't create the "perfect" system, but the laws are as fair and reasonable to everybody as they can be. Unlike the UK ones, which were created, by a panicked parliament, desperately running from the outrage, caused, by the media frenzy. And reinforced by a Health minister, who wishes to protect their back.
5) Expenses
-------------
The 1997 surrogacy review document in point 5.24 says" we recommend that payment to surrogate mothers cover only genuine expenses associated with the pregnancy&#8230;&#8230;..
5.25 " we recommend that allowable expenses should be:
Maternity clothing, Healthy food, Domestic help
Counselling fees, Legal fees, Life and disability insurance
Travel to and from the hospital/clinic, telephone and postal expenses Overnight accommodation, Child care to attend hospital/clinic
Medical expenses, Ovulation/pregnancy tests, Insemination and IVF costs, Medicines and vitamins.
5.26 If the surrogate mother is employed when she enters into the surrogacy arrangement and has to take time off work in connection with the surrogacy to birth, her actual loss of earnings should be reimbursed.
Although in point 5.9 they talk about how difficult it is to determine loss of earnings. Anything difficult to do, is usually not done.
So the laws are actually sensible, provided the rules allow surrogates to claim *all* their expenses. Both the 1996 BMA report and the COTS response to the 1997 review of surrogacy, called "A Workable Solution"
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qARAztomyqMJ:www.surrogacy.org.uk/pdf/COTS_Reply.pdf+%22A+Workable+Solution%22+SURROGACY&hl=en&start=1
mention that the then current 4000 pound limit for expenses, was unworkable. COTS wants to raise the limit to 10,000 pounds. I believe no limit should be set, partly because, IMO, a surrogate should be paid *all* the expenses due to them, and partly because, at some point in the future, any limit set will be too low, and the government doesn't seem to make any necessary changes quickly. Look at egg donors, the HFEA, knows, that the current limit of 50 pounds a day for expenses, is way too low for egg donors and yet it remains in force(Point 31 of the SEED document).
Lorna


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

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 "&#8230;. There is no doubt that they (clinics) do make a profit when they provide treatment using these gametes&#8230;&#8230;..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&#8230;.
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&#8230;&#8230;.."
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"&#8230;.. In addition to our concerns for the about the physical and psychological welfare of surrogates, who enter into repeated surrogacy arrangements&#8230;." 
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&#8230;&#8230;..
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 &#8230;. 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


----------



## Freddie (Jul 16, 2004)

Wow Lorna! 
You've sure done your homework!! That was an amazing read and very informative. (I hope you won't mind if I extract some of it for my letter to my MP?   ) 

As you seem so clued up, any chance you'd join in our attempt to lobby Parliament? You'd be a great asset! I agree that "allowing both sides to advertise for prospective parents/surrogate simply doesn’t go far enough" but it would indeed be a good start, and we have to start somewhere.

Thanks for taking the time to do those posts - I'm sure the information will be of benefit to all of us in one way or another.

Lol, F x


----------



## Lorna (Apr 8, 2004)

Hi Freddie,
Please feel free to include(or ignore) any part of my post.  Feel free to republish it in any forum, you like, with or without my name at the end.
Unfortunately I can’t lobby my MP as I live in Continental Europe, rather than in the UK.  We will be returning to the UK,  in a few years and I would love the government to have passed sensible infertility laws, by then.  One can always dream
As you may or may not have been able to guess, IMO, egg donation and surrogacy are linked, so it might be worth adding some comment to the egg donation forum.  The SEED consultation document is the government *appearing* to try to fix the problems with lack of donors.  I am pessimistic.  I think things will be just as bad for egg donors and recipients after this review as before.  No real choice for either.  Donors will not be able to choose, whether to donate anonymously or openly, and there still will not be enough donors, for recipients to have a choice.  The government has appeared to do something, but has actually done nothing.
This government, and I suspect previous ones as well, has a history of being seen to do something without doing anything.  The BMA, in 1996, wrote a damming report of the state of surrogacy in the UK, so in 1997, the government responded to criticism, and reviewed surrogacy.  They didn’t do anything positive, just tightened up a few loop holes, that had made surrogacy easier.  So they made the situation worse.
Good luck with your campaign
Lorna


----------



## DaughterofLilith (Apr 4, 2005)

The problem with advertising for either intended parents or a surromum is that there are so many idiots out there who just like to play with other people's feelings.  I just fear that a free for all on advertising would expose potential intended parents to the risk of being ripped off. I do think that message boards and surrogacy organistions are a good idea and should be encouraged as they at least attempt to screenout the time wasters.  Either way, as a potential surrogate or a potential IP it is difficult to meet other interested parties, but it is not impossible.

With regards to surrogacy's legal position, there is so much that has to be taken on trust on both sides.  The surrogate is running all the usual risks of pregnancy plus the risks of not getting her expenses, the parental order not being completed and being asked to pay child support and the parents severing all contact once the child is in their care.

That's a lot to be taken on trust, but you've just got to be the kind of person who has faith in the goodness of human nature to even consider surrogacy/

All the best


----------

