PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentCarrot not stick: reforming surrogacy law

BioNews

Carrot not stick: reforming surrogacy law

Published 28 January 2019 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 984

Author

Professor Margot Brazier

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis

Attitudes to surrogacy have altered dramatically since 1978, when Sir Roger Ormrod, then a judge at the Court of Appeal, issued this damning condemnation...

'Irresponsible, bizarre and unnatural.'

Attitudes to surrogacy have altered dramatically since 1978, when Sir Roger Ormrod, then a judge at the Court of Appeal, issued this damning condemnation. In just over 40 years, surrogacy has become an accepted means of forming a family and the source of much satisfaction to intended parents and surrogates. Sadly, the law remains a mess. Now the Law Commission of England and Wales is working jointly with the Scottish Law Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the law.

The second report of the Surrogacy UK working group is timely (see BioNews 983). If you are looking for fireworks in the form of dramatic tales of surrogacy either as tragedy, children abandoned in a far-off land for not being perfect, or heart-warming stories of intended parents able to found the family they thought could never be, then the report is not for you. Nor does it engage in abstract philosophical debate. It offers something of greater value to those who hope at last to see the 'root and branch' reform of the law that the report argues is necessary.

Building on their first 'myth-busting' report, the working group undertakes two major tasks in setting out an evidenced-based agenda for reform. First, the report offers a wealth of information about the actual practice of surrogacy today and the views of stakeholders. Second, it identifies the many significant failings of UK law today, which mean that there is an avalanche of case law, despite surrogacy in terms of numbers of arrangements being small beer compared with other forms of assisted reproductive technologies.

Fascinating though the case law may be, each case represents a human dilemma within which parties to a surrogacy arrangement must live with uncertainty and fear that the courts will not grant the parental order that transforms intended parents into legal parents and founds a family.

The report is comprehensive addressing a host of issues relating law and practice where the group argues that law reform is needed, including funding, access to knowledge on genetic origins and regulation of surrogacy organisations. Two problems stand out as most urgently demanding reform: legal parenthood and expenses or payments to surrogates. In relation to both matters, not only does law and practice conflict, but law and common-sense part company.

As a result of the disconnect between the law and practice, for well over ten years judges have found themselves forced to perform intellectual somersaults in seeking to reconcile their paramount duty to safeguard the best interests of the child with the letter of the law. As Sir Mark Hedley, former High Court judge, said in 2008: 'It is almost impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which by the time the case comes to court, the welfare of the child…would not be gravely compromised at the very least by a refusal to make a [parental] order.'

Central then to the Surrogacy UK working group's recommendations are the need for reform of the law relating to legal parenthood and for clarification of what constitutes reasonable expenses. In both cases the group's proposals are informed by data from their survey. In the context of parental status, the research found that surrogates 'do not want to be regarded as the mothers of the child they give birth to'.

The application of the current rules relating to parental status designating the surrogate as the legal mother at birth, and in many cases resulting in the surrogate's husband or partner being classified as the legal father, have been the root cause of some of the most intractable legal cases. Simply stating that legal parenthood should be conferred on intended parents before birth is easy enough. Translating that objective into law is much harder and the report sets out a number of options.

The question of payments to surrogates and what constitute reasonable expenses may cause some surprise. The working group, informed by the views expressed by surrogates themselves, states clearly that the law should 'maintain the underlying principle that surrogacy is provided on an altruistic basis and that no person or surrogacy organisation should profit from it'.

Additionally, the group found no evidence that paying surrogates more than expenses would increase the number of surrogates in the UK. Unfashionable as it may be in some parts of the academic world, the 'gift relationship' seems to be at the heart of the way that the practice of surrogacy has evolved in the UK. Transparency about what qualifies as expenses is however important if the finding in this report that surrogacy arrangements generally run smoothly is to continue to be the case.

Where problems arise, the arrangement in question may more often be an informal agreement in the UK or an overseas arrangement. The report notes that the proportion of overseas arrangements 'continues to increase', though not to the level of 1000 to 2000 a year, as some have claimed. Nonetheless informal and overseas arrangements will pose the greatest challenge for the Law Commissions.

How can new rules be enforced? If I choose to avoid any scrutiny of my arrangement with a surrogate to carry a child for us via artificial insemination carried out outside a licensed clinic, or I travel to a foreign jurisdiction where my age will not count against me if my credit card is good, should I face criminal penalties? And when my partner and I seek legal means to establish legal parenthood, having already settled the child in our home, albeit in breach of the new laws, may Hedley's successors face just the same dilemma that he articulated, in that removing the child will almost always compromise her welfare?

The Law Commissions face the gigantic task of formulating a legal framework for surrogacy in the UK such that very few people will wish to evade it – law based on carrots not sticks.


UK surrogacy law will be debated at the free-to-attend Progress Educational Trust event 'How Can We Make Surrogacy Law Deliver?', taking place in London on the evening of Wednesday 3 April 2019.

See here for further details, and email sstarr@progress.org.uk to book your place(s).

Related Articles

Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family (from Greek and Roman mythology) entwined in coils of DNA.
Image by Bill Sanderson via the Wellcome Collection, © Wellcome Trust Ltd 1990. Depicts Laocoön and his family entwined in coils of DNA (based on the figure of Laocoön from Greek and Roman mythology).
Comment
12 June 2020 • 4 minutes read

Re X [2020] - Driving the law to its grave

by Rita D'Alton-Harrison

Section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 contains the eligibility criteria for the granting of a parental order in surrogacy arrangements. It is an important section. Yet intended parents and their lawyers may be forgiven for wondering whether the section is also necessary to ensure the child's welfare.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« 40 years of IVF: past, present and future

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.

Find out how you can advertise here
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Popular
  • Recent
8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Was the Women's Health Strategy worth the wait?

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Why the UK should extend the 14-day rule to 28 days

25 July 2022 • 5 minutes read

200 Years of Mendel: From Peas to Personalised Medicine

15 August 2022 • 5 minutes read

Same-sex parent should not have been forced to adopt child

15 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: Editing the Human Genome – Where Are We Now? What Happens Next?

8 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Citizenship and same-sex parents – about time, Sweden!

8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856