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
PETBioNewsCommentNo surprises in surrogacy ruling

BioNews

No surprises in surrogacy ruling

Published 18 June 2009 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 114

Author

Dr Kirsty Horsey

Bionews Contributing Editor
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis

Last week's news that Patricia Briody has lost her case at the Court of Appeal should not come as a surprise. The court that originally heard her case recognised that she should be compensated for the 'disappointment and distress' that resulted from medical negligence leaving her unable to have children...

Last week's news that Patricia Briody has lost her case at the Court of Appeal should not come as a surprise. The court that originally heard her case recognised that she should be compensated for the 'disappointment and distress' that resulted from medical negligence leaving her unable to have children. But they did not see why damages for this should extend to the costs of using a surrogate mother. They worried that the chances of success using her own eggs, fertilised with her partner's sperm and implanted into a surrogate, would be low: when she brought the case she was already in her forties. In addition they stated that the US surrogacy agency that Ms Briody then planned to use was a violation of the principles of UK law.

The Court of Appeal was presented with new evidence: a British woman had volunteered to be a surrogate, thus no laws would be broken. She is thirty, therefore with her eggs, an attempt might be successful, if Ms Briody's stored embryos failed to implant. But the Appeal Court judges rejected this, saying it had no bearing on their decision.


But they can hide this decision within legal principle - in law, damages for negligence are meant to compensate for loss, to restore the claimant to the position they would have been in if the negligence had not occurred. The only way this could be the case is if money could restore her ability to have children. As the judges acknowledged, there may be some cases in which the costs of a surrogacy could be awarded: this may have been the case if Ms Briody were younger, and the chance of achieving a successful pregnancy was greater. But, the court stated that using donor eggs, fertilised by her partner's sperm and carried by a surrogate, defeated the entire object of her claim and would be in no sense restorative. She wanted to have children of her own, and if she neither provided the genetic material or carried the child, this would not actually be the case. It would be trying to make up for her loss by giving her something different. And that's just not how the law works.


But this is the point that can be questioned. Although we might like to think that attitudes have changed towards surrogacy in particular, and family forming in general, this does not seem to be the case when courts are faced with unusual cases such as Ms Briody's. Instead, genetics and traditional understandings of the ways we go about getting children are relied upon, and legal sophistry used to cover this up.

Related Articles

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
18 February 2011 • 1 minute read

Birth of surrogate child highlights difficulties with Indian surrogacy laws

by Nishat Hyder

Uncertainty has arisen over the procedures followed by an Indian surrogacy clinic following the birth of twins to a gay couple from Spain. The couple used a donated egg, which was then artificially fertilised and implanted in a surrogate....

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Comment
27 October 2009 • 5 minutes read

Moving surrogacy law forward? The Department of Health's consultation on parental orders

by Natalie Gamble and 1 others

Of all the prospective parents conceiving through assisted reproduction, those in surrogacy arrangements often face the most difficult legal issues. The surrogate and usually also her husband will be treated as the child's legal parents at birth, leaving the commissioning parents with no legal connection with their child whatsoever, even where both are the biological parents....

Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
Image by Dr Christina Weis. © Christina Weis
News
9 June 2009 • 3 minutes read

New Zealand woman awarded surrogacy costs

by Dr Kirsty Horsey

New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has ruled that a woman who was left without a womb after going into hospital to have a baby is entitled to compensation to cover the cost of using a surrogate to carry a child for her. The ACC will...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Should IVF be restricted to married women?

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

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

This month in BioNews

  • Recent
4 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Widening the debate about direct-to-consumer genetic testing and donor conception

4 July 2022 • 3 minutes read

Join PET and Genomics England to celebrate the 200th birthday of Gregor Mendel

27 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

Thirty years of PET: our 'Fertility, Genomics and Embryo Research' report

27 June 2022 • 5 minutes read

Children's rights and donor conception: What next?

20 June 2022 • 4 minutes read

The problems with lifting donor anonymity earlier

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