John Healey MP (the Shadow Secretary of State for Health) spoke clearly and compellingly in the House of Commons this afternoon about the need for proper maternity leave and pay for mothers through surrogacy in the UK (you can watch John Healey’s speech in full here). Introducing a Ten Minute Rule motion, he told Parliament about his constituents, surrogate mother Amy Bellamy and her cousin Jane Kassim. They came to see him at his surgery having been “stunned” to discover that Jane had no legal right to maternity leave or maternity pay to care for the twin daughters Amy had carried for her after Jane was told at 15 that she could never bear children.
Natalie Gamble Associates and Surrogacy UK, are proud to have supported today’s important landmark, the first time this issue has been properly raised in Parliament. As we know so well, for parents who have struggled to build their families through surrogacy (often after a long and difficult journey of infertility), the lack of basic rights to care for their newborn baby can feel like the final insult. It makes no sense and has never been a policy decision; just a gap in the law which has not been addressed. But it is important, as the current position leaves children born through surrogacy in the UK without the legal protection afforded to other children born to their mothers or adopted.
Problems with UK surrogacy law
As well as talking about maternity rights as the urgent first step needed, John highlighted some of the wider problems with UK surrogacy law which need addressing, including:
- the parents not being named on their child’s birth certificate,
- problems dealing with the child’s medical treatment,
- delays in the court system to reassign parenthood, and
- the absolute veto the surrogate and her husband hold, no matter what is in the child’s best interests.
The UK’s surrogacy laws were designed in 1990. After 22 years we live in a much changed world, with more children born through surrogacy and a much more sophisticated understanding of families created in unusual ways. The law on surrogacy was not reviewed properly when Parliament had a chance in 2008 and is overdue for review. John drew attention to other models of surrogacy law, including pre birth orders, which have been much more successful in dealing with surrogacy arrangements in certain US States, and which the UK should look to.
What was said in Parliament?
“Unlike other mothers, Jane is entitled – having her baby through a surrogate mother – to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid, and then only entitled to it when she and her husband have a parental order in place. That means that for mothers like Jane, they are faced with the choice of going back to work very quickly or indeed giving up their jobs entirely. Today is a day when I hope this House will take the first step in closing this legal loophole.
“As the leading lawyer in this field says: The conditions for a parental order do not place the child’s welfare first, and ultimately children born through surrogacy do not have the same protection as other children to the time to bond with their parents in the early months of life. That is from Natalie Gamble, a leading legal expert in this field and one who has conducted more cases and seen through more parental orders than any other lawyer in the country.
“There are probably around 100 babies born through surrogacy each year, but the number is growing as society is changing and science is advancing. Surely there must be a good case for Britain, like some States in the US, to have a system of pre birth orders. But the first and most important step is to secure basic maternity rights. So that mothers like Jane who have their children born through surrogates have the same rights as any other mothers who give birth themselves or indeed who adopt children.
“It is wrong that thousands of mothers who have their own babies or who adopt have a legal right to 39 weeks maternity pay and up to 52 weeks maternity leave, while others have a right to only 13 weeks parental leave unpaid. It is wrong that such parents cannot put their names on their children’s birth certificate, they cannot make decisions about medical treatment for their children until they have a formal parental order in place. It is wrong that such a legal step can be blocked completely by the surrogate mother or her husband; and wrong that it may take months, if a magistrates court is busy, to get that order in place. Above all it is wrong that mothers like Jane are denied the same basic rights to the time they need together with their newborn babies that other mothers have.
“Amy simply wanted Jane to have the same joy as a mother as she had with her own son Archie. Together they make a very powerful case for legal change. This is their campaign and I hope this House will back them today.”
What next?
The Bill proceeded unopposed and was formally listed for a second reading, although in practice it is rare for Ten Minute Rule Bills to be given sufficient Parliamentary time to become law. However, a cross party group of MPs will now meet with the Minister for Employment to press for government-led change. We will continue to support this however we can and if you want to get involved or can help with case studies, please do contact us.
Woman’s Hour today
Natalie was also interviewed on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour, following a discussion on the lack of maternity leave rules for surrogacy which Natalie contributed to back in 2009, and updating the programme on what was happening today. You can listen to Natalie on today’s Woman’s Hour here.
Article: 17th April 2012 www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk
Showing posts with label surrogate mum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surrogate mum. Show all posts
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
Friday, 14 October 2011
International surrogacy parents talk to BBC Radio 4 about their experience
Parents Michelle and Paul (names changed) spoke to BBC Radio 4′s World at One today about their experiences of international surrogacy, and the problems with surrogacy law in the UK. Their legal case (in which we represented them successfully) was reported anonymously by the High Court last December (as Re L (a minor) 2010) and received national press coverage at the time. Michelle and Paul took the brave decision today to speak about their personal experiences, in order to highlight the difficulties they have faced.
As Michelle and Paul explained, they entered into a surrogacy arrangement in Illinois after a very long and difficult journey of failed IVF and miscarriages. They did so in accordance with the law in Illinois and underwent a thorough vetting process with a clear legal procedure designed to protect all involved. Under Illinois law, they were treated as the legal parents of their child from the outset.
However, UK law treated their surrogate and her husband as the legal parents, despite the fact that neither had any biological connection with the child. Michelle and Paul therefore needed an English High Court order to become Mum and Dad in the UK.
One of the key issues for the court here to consider was the mismatch between UK and Illinois law regarding the issue of payments to their surrogate. In Illinois, payments for a surrogate’s inconvenience and discomfort can legitimately be made, although payments for a child are not allowed. In the UK, the law refers to ‘reasonable expenses’ (with no definition of what that means) but confusingly also gives the court a specific power to ‘authorise’ other payments. Ultimately in this case Mr Justice Hedley, noting that Michelle and Paul were the ‘most careful and conscientious of parents’, agreed to authorise the payments so that they could be approved as legal parents. However, he did not accept that the inconvenience payments to their surrogate were reasonable expenses.
It’s a story with a happy outcome, but one which shows that working out what is acceptable to pay for surrogacy at home and abroad is tricky.
In Illinois there is a clear legal framework in which payments are agreed and set out in writing at the outset (following counselling, psychological assessments and legal advice for all). If everything is done correctly at the outset, then the child is a part of the intended parents’ family throughout.
There is no such certainty under UK law. Every judge can interpret what is ‘reasonable’ differently, and the issue will only be considered after the birth of the child when the payments have been long since made, by which time there will always be tremendous pressure on the court to make an order protecting the child’s welfare. As Michelle pointed out so poignantly, the value paid to the surrogate in this case was in fact no more than what has been accepted as being reasonable expenses for surrogacy in the UK, but it was not considered expenses in their case because the arrangement was an international one set up within a different legal framework.
We are left asking – where the values being paid for surrogacy are comparable, does it make any sense to treat them differently just because they are called compensation rather than expenses, and just because they are agreed in writing at the outset? Would it not be better to have a more upfront system in the UK which resolves these issues at the start, rather than after the event?
As Michelle and Paul explained, they entered into a surrogacy arrangement in Illinois after a very long and difficult journey of failed IVF and miscarriages. They did so in accordance with the law in Illinois and underwent a thorough vetting process with a clear legal procedure designed to protect all involved. Under Illinois law, they were treated as the legal parents of their child from the outset.
However, UK law treated their surrogate and her husband as the legal parents, despite the fact that neither had any biological connection with the child. Michelle and Paul therefore needed an English High Court order to become Mum and Dad in the UK.
One of the key issues for the court here to consider was the mismatch between UK and Illinois law regarding the issue of payments to their surrogate. In Illinois, payments for a surrogate’s inconvenience and discomfort can legitimately be made, although payments for a child are not allowed. In the UK, the law refers to ‘reasonable expenses’ (with no definition of what that means) but confusingly also gives the court a specific power to ‘authorise’ other payments. Ultimately in this case Mr Justice Hedley, noting that Michelle and Paul were the ‘most careful and conscientious of parents’, agreed to authorise the payments so that they could be approved as legal parents. However, he did not accept that the inconvenience payments to their surrogate were reasonable expenses.
It’s a story with a happy outcome, but one which shows that working out what is acceptable to pay for surrogacy at home and abroad is tricky.
In Illinois there is a clear legal framework in which payments are agreed and set out in writing at the outset (following counselling, psychological assessments and legal advice for all). If everything is done correctly at the outset, then the child is a part of the intended parents’ family throughout.
There is no such certainty under UK law. Every judge can interpret what is ‘reasonable’ differently, and the issue will only be considered after the birth of the child when the payments have been long since made, by which time there will always be tremendous pressure on the court to make an order protecting the child’s welfare. As Michelle pointed out so poignantly, the value paid to the surrogate in this case was in fact no more than what has been accepted as being reasonable expenses for surrogacy in the UK, but it was not considered expenses in their case because the arrangement was an international one set up within a different legal framework.
We are left asking – where the values being paid for surrogacy are comparable, does it make any sense to treat them differently just because they are called compensation rather than expenses, and just because they are agreed in writing at the outset? Would it not be better to have a more upfront system in the UK which resolves these issues at the start, rather than after the event?
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Surrogate mother to 6 pregnancies, says this is to be her last
Amanda Broomhall, 39, from Penhill, has two children of her own, but since 1997 has helped couples from all over the UK have babies. Surrogacy UK has recently recorded a surge of interest following high-profile surrogacy stories concerning Elton John and Nicole Kidman. Miss Broomhall said that surrogacy was something she "fell into".
She said: "I can, so I thought why not if it helps somebody else? People give blood and give bone marrow. I'm just using a part of my body that would otherwise lay dormant."
Surrogate arrangements are usually set up through agencies, although private arrangements can be made. As a surrogate in the UK, it is illegal for Miss Broomhall to receive payment, although some couples have offered her large sums of money to carry their child.
"People can be desperate," she said. "People ring me up and say 'can you help me have a baby?' and when I tell them I can't at the moment they say, 'I'll pay you lots of money'. They think if they throw money at me I will help them. They think they can buy a child."
For each birth, Miss Broomhall only takes two weeks off work and has never let the process affect her day-to-day life. She said: "If I sat at home and rested as other new mothers do when they are looking after their new baby, I don't think that would help me. I want to get my life back on track, so that's the way I deal with it."
However, nine weeks into her sixth surrogate pregnancy, Miss Broomhall has decided that this time will be her last. She said her age was the main factor in her decision to give up. "I'm not as young as I used to be," she said.
To read more go to
She said: "I can, so I thought why not if it helps somebody else? People give blood and give bone marrow. I'm just using a part of my body that would otherwise lay dormant."
Surrogate arrangements are usually set up through agencies, although private arrangements can be made. As a surrogate in the UK, it is illegal for Miss Broomhall to receive payment, although some couples have offered her large sums of money to carry their child.
"People can be desperate," she said. "People ring me up and say 'can you help me have a baby?' and when I tell them I can't at the moment they say, 'I'll pay you lots of money'. They think if they throw money at me I will help them. They think they can buy a child."
For each birth, Miss Broomhall only takes two weeks off work and has never let the process affect her day-to-day life. She said: "If I sat at home and rested as other new mothers do when they are looking after their new baby, I don't think that would help me. I want to get my life back on track, so that's the way I deal with it."
However, nine weeks into her sixth surrogate pregnancy, Miss Broomhall has decided that this time will be her last. She said her age was the main factor in her decision to give up. "I'm not as young as I used to be," she said.
To read more go to
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Neice acts as Surrogate, ending 15 year fertility struggle for her Aunt
A 29-year-old woman has given birth to her own 'cousin' after agreeing to help in her aunt's 15-year fertility fight. Emma Vaughan, 29, donated her eggs to her 42-year-old aunt Sandra Barlow and uncle Chris and acted as a surrogate for the birth. Miss Vaughan has now given birth to a baby girl called Maia, who is her biological daughter but her cousin by law after Mrs Barlow applied for a parental order.
It brings Mr and Mrs Barlow's 15-year battle to conceive to an end. Their hopes of having a baby naturally were dashed early on when doctors told Mrs Barlow that her fallopian tubes had fused shut and had to be removed.
She was sent for a dye test, where dye is injected into the cervix and uterus to check the fallopian tubes. It showed they were completely blocked and she was operated on immediately. After she recovered, she and her husband, 50, decided to try IVF. In total they spent £40,000 on seven cycles over five years, with Mrs Barlow suffering two miscarriages.
Then in 2008 the couple from Maidstone, Kent, made the decision to seek help from someone in their family, namely their niece Emma. Mrs Barlow said: 'Surrogacy seemed like our only hope. I did some research and looked at a surrogacy agency website. 'I was in awe that people did these amazing things for complete strangers but I wanted to do it within the family. I started to think who in the family could help us. I'm not sure what made me think of Emma.' Emma is the daughter of Mrs Barlow's brother Jim but they lost touch when Emma's parents split up and she moved away to live with her mother. They were reunited 11 years ago after meeting at Jim's funeral and have stayed in regular contact since.
Mrs Barlow said she spent months agonising over whether she should ask her niece before mentioning it to her husband. She said: 'I could tell he was shocked but he said: "We've got nothing to lose". When I rang Emma she instantly said yes. I told her to take some time to think about it but she never hesitated.'
Shortly afterwards, Mrs Barlow joined a surrogacy agency for advice about what would be involved. The couple signed a surrogacy agreement with Emma, although these agreements are not legally binding. 'Sandra and Chris never put me under pressure. It was my choice, I knew I could do it'
To read more go to
It brings Mr and Mrs Barlow's 15-year battle to conceive to an end. Their hopes of having a baby naturally were dashed early on when doctors told Mrs Barlow that her fallopian tubes had fused shut and had to be removed.
She was sent for a dye test, where dye is injected into the cervix and uterus to check the fallopian tubes. It showed they were completely blocked and she was operated on immediately. After she recovered, she and her husband, 50, decided to try IVF. In total they spent £40,000 on seven cycles over five years, with Mrs Barlow suffering two miscarriages.
Then in 2008 the couple from Maidstone, Kent, made the decision to seek help from someone in their family, namely their niece Emma. Mrs Barlow said: 'Surrogacy seemed like our only hope. I did some research and looked at a surrogacy agency website. 'I was in awe that people did these amazing things for complete strangers but I wanted to do it within the family. I started to think who in the family could help us. I'm not sure what made me think of Emma.' Emma is the daughter of Mrs Barlow's brother Jim but they lost touch when Emma's parents split up and she moved away to live with her mother. They were reunited 11 years ago after meeting at Jim's funeral and have stayed in regular contact since.
Mrs Barlow said she spent months agonising over whether she should ask her niece before mentioning it to her husband. She said: 'I could tell he was shocked but he said: "We've got nothing to lose". When I rang Emma she instantly said yes. I told her to take some time to think about it but she never hesitated.'
Shortly afterwards, Mrs Barlow joined a surrogacy agency for advice about what would be involved. The couple signed a surrogacy agreement with Emma, although these agreements are not legally binding. 'Sandra and Chris never put me under pressure. It was my choice, I knew I could do it'
To read more go to
Monday, 21 February 2011
Surrogate mother gives birth to her own grandchild
A 61-year-old woman gave birth to her grandson in February because her daughter couldn't maintain a pregnancy. Kristine Casey, who may be the oldest woman to give birth to her grandson, volunteered to act as a surrogate after her daughter, Sara Connell, failed to bring two IVF pregnancies to term. Mrs Connell and her husband had also tried to conceive naturally for years without success. Mrs Connell said: 'The idea of having a family member being open to doing this for us was so extraordinary'.
Mrs Casey gave birth 10 years after menopause using the Connells' eggs and sperm thanks to hormone treatments that prepared her uterus for pregnancy. With them, the pregnancy success rate is independent of the surrogate's age. She became pregnant after the second course of IVF and gave birth by caesarean section 39 weeks later. Dr Susan Gerber, the doctor who delivered baby Finnean Connell in Chicago, said: 'The surgery itself was uncomplicated, and the emotional context of this delivery was so profound'.
Media reaction has varied with some finding story unsettling while others have welcomed the birth. Margaret Somerville in the Globe and Mail wrote an article titled 'When granny gives birth to her grandson, there's something wrong' in which she says 'my gut reaction was that this was ethically wrong'. Josephine Johnston, a bioethics researcher at The Hastings Centre, New York, however, said: 'It seems like an unquestionably loving and generous thing for a family member to do. It's one of those situations where outsiders might wonder if it's OK or healthy. But the experience of that child and his family will be that it's good'.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hBanFM
Mrs Casey gave birth 10 years after menopause using the Connells' eggs and sperm thanks to hormone treatments that prepared her uterus for pregnancy. With them, the pregnancy success rate is independent of the surrogate's age. She became pregnant after the second course of IVF and gave birth by caesarean section 39 weeks later. Dr Susan Gerber, the doctor who delivered baby Finnean Connell in Chicago, said: 'The surgery itself was uncomplicated, and the emotional context of this delivery was so profound'.
Media reaction has varied with some finding story unsettling while others have welcomed the birth. Margaret Somerville in the Globe and Mail wrote an article titled 'When granny gives birth to her grandson, there's something wrong' in which she says 'my gut reaction was that this was ethically wrong'. Josephine Johnston, a bioethics researcher at The Hastings Centre, New York, however, said: 'It seems like an unquestionably loving and generous thing for a family member to do. It's one of those situations where outsiders might wonder if it's OK or healthy. But the experience of that child and his family will be that it's good'.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hBanFM
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Surrogate mother allowed to keep her baby
A surrogate mother who had a baby girl for a couple but changed her mind about handing her over is allowed to keep her, a judge has ruled.
The welfare of the six-month-old child, known only as T, "requires her to remain with her mother", said Mr Justice Baker, giving reasons yesterday for a decision he made after a hearing in Birmingham last month.
He said: "In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother's care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T's needs, in particular her emotional needs."
The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are "very considerable".
He added: "In particular, the natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child."
He said the mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth.
During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T's birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed.
The mother has two older children. Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005.
After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.
It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W's sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/e7uV7q
The welfare of the six-month-old child, known only as T, "requires her to remain with her mother", said Mr Justice Baker, giving reasons yesterday for a decision he made after a hearing in Birmingham last month.
He said: "In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother's care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T's needs, in particular her emotional needs."
The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are "very considerable".
He added: "In particular, the natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child."
He said the mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth.
During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T's birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed.
The mother has two older children. Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005.
After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.
It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W's sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/e7uV7q
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
Elton John a dad on Christmas day after using a surrogate
Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish have become parents to a son born to a surrogate mother in California.
Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born on Christmas Day, the UK musician and Canadian filmmaker told the Usmagazine.com website.
"Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents," said the couple.
They provided no details about the surrogacy arrangement.
"We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment," the couple told the website in a statement.
They said the boy weighed 7lb15oz (3.6kg).
A representative for the couple said they intended to protect and respect the privacy of the surrogate mother, and would not be discussing any details relating to the surrogacy arrangements.
Sex And The City star Sarah Jessica Parker and her actor husband Matthew Broderick had twin girls by a surrogate mother in June last year and in 2008, pop star Ricky Martin also used a surrogate to have twin boys.
Sir Elton and former advertising executive Mr Furnish met in 1993 and were joined in a civil ceremony in 2005.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hV91AD
Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born on Christmas Day, the UK musician and Canadian filmmaker told the Usmagazine.com website.
"Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents," said the couple.
They provided no details about the surrogacy arrangement.
"We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment," the couple told the website in a statement.
They said the boy weighed 7lb15oz (3.6kg).
A representative for the couple said they intended to protect and respect the privacy of the surrogate mother, and would not be discussing any details relating to the surrogacy arrangements.
Sex And The City star Sarah Jessica Parker and her actor husband Matthew Broderick had twin girls by a surrogate mother in June last year and in 2008, pop star Ricky Martin also used a surrogate to have twin boys.
Sir Elton and former advertising executive Mr Furnish met in 1993 and were joined in a civil ceremony in 2005.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hV91AD
Monday, 13 December 2010
Surrogacy couple in UK win legal right to pay a surrogate mother in the US
A British couple who won the legal right to pay a “commercial” rate to a surrogate mother in the US have said that the act was their last chance to have a child - and disclosed that the woman is now "firmly part of our family".
In a rare legal case, a senior family court judge allowed the couple to keep their newborn child, even though they had payed more than the “reasonable expenses” permitted under English law to the birth mother in Illinois.
Speaking publicly for the first time about their decision, the couple said they had suffered years of fruitless fertility treatment, several miscarriages and had no choice but to seek help abroad.
Their case is one of only three such arrangements ever to have emerged. It attracted condemnation from Christian lawyers, who warned that allowing surrogate mothers to make a profit turned children into “commodities”.
Other family law experts and childless couples said the High Court was right to put the needs of the child first and called for reforms to allow commercial surrogacy in the UK.
In a statement to The Daily Telegraph, the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, expressed their joy at their newborn child, who is known only as “L”.
“We entered into this surrogacy arrangement after a great deal of thought and research, having exhausted all our other options for having a family, and following years of fertility treatment and several miscarriages," they said.
“Our surrogate is a wonderful person who is now very firmly part of our family and will be part of our – and our child’s – lives going forwards. She gave us the most incredible life-changing gift which we will be ever grateful for.”
An estimated 70 children each year are born to surrogate mothers in Britain but hundreds of couples are thought to be so desperate that they are travelling abroad to countries such as India and the USA, where costs can be £25,000 or more.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hQ3qAs
In a rare legal case, a senior family court judge allowed the couple to keep their newborn child, even though they had payed more than the “reasonable expenses” permitted under English law to the birth mother in Illinois.
Speaking publicly for the first time about their decision, the couple said they had suffered years of fruitless fertility treatment, several miscarriages and had no choice but to seek help abroad.
Their case is one of only three such arrangements ever to have emerged. It attracted condemnation from Christian lawyers, who warned that allowing surrogate mothers to make a profit turned children into “commodities”.
Other family law experts and childless couples said the High Court was right to put the needs of the child first and called for reforms to allow commercial surrogacy in the UK.
In a statement to The Daily Telegraph, the couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, expressed their joy at their newborn child, who is known only as “L”.
“We entered into this surrogacy arrangement after a great deal of thought and research, having exhausted all our other options for having a family, and following years of fertility treatment and several miscarriages," they said.
“Our surrogate is a wonderful person who is now very firmly part of our family and will be part of our – and our child’s – lives going forwards. She gave us the most incredible life-changing gift which we will be ever grateful for.”
An estimated 70 children each year are born to surrogate mothers in Britain but hundreds of couples are thought to be so desperate that they are travelling abroad to countries such as India and the USA, where costs can be £25,000 or more.
To read more go to http://bit.ly/hQ3qAs
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Surrogate mum has given away two surrogate babies and is trying for a third, at the age 24
As she lay on her hospital bed breastfeeding her newborn baby, Louise Pollard was overcome with love for the scrap of humanity in her arms.
After all, she'd reached the end of a difficult pregnancy which had seen both her own and her unborn child's life hang in the balance as a result of pre-eclampsia. Despite this scene of maternal bliss, however, just three days later Louise handed Danny over to a couple and drove away - a shattering parting which left her crying for three days and yearning only to see her baby again.
'Afterwards, I sat in my mother's conservatory with my sobs literally racking through my body,' she says. 'I could still smell Danny on my jumper and I desperately wanted to be with him. Giving him up was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life.' So what on earth was this young mother doing giving her child away? At 23, Louise had become - for the second time - a surrogate for a childless couple. Having had her first surrogate baby at the age of just 21, Louise is thought to be the youngest surrogate mother in the UK. But her candid descriptions of the emotional challenges she faced highlight just how much surrogacy is a role that is rarely straightforward.
Her experience was particularly unusual because both the surrogate children she's had so far were biologically hers. 'At one point, I was close to driving up to London to see Danny and I wondered if I'd done the right thing in giving him up, but the legal situation we would have then ended up in - and the distress I'd have caused the couple in question - doesn't even bear thinking about,' she says. (In theory, as biological mother, Louise would probably have a right to keep Danny had she wanted to.)
To read more go to http://bit.ly/cu9S5b
After all, she'd reached the end of a difficult pregnancy which had seen both her own and her unborn child's life hang in the balance as a result of pre-eclampsia. Despite this scene of maternal bliss, however, just three days later Louise handed Danny over to a couple and drove away - a shattering parting which left her crying for three days and yearning only to see her baby again.
'Afterwards, I sat in my mother's conservatory with my sobs literally racking through my body,' she says. 'I could still smell Danny on my jumper and I desperately wanted to be with him. Giving him up was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life.' So what on earth was this young mother doing giving her child away? At 23, Louise had become - for the second time - a surrogate for a childless couple. Having had her first surrogate baby at the age of just 21, Louise is thought to be the youngest surrogate mother in the UK. But her candid descriptions of the emotional challenges she faced highlight just how much surrogacy is a role that is rarely straightforward.
Her experience was particularly unusual because both the surrogate children she's had so far were biologically hers. 'At one point, I was close to driving up to London to see Danny and I wondered if I'd done the right thing in giving him up, but the legal situation we would have then ended up in - and the distress I'd have caused the couple in question - doesn't even bear thinking about,' she says. (In theory, as biological mother, Louise would probably have a right to keep Danny had she wanted to.)
To read more go to http://bit.ly/cu9S5b
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
