Podcast Review: AntiSocial – Surrogacy

The fundamental premise of the BBC podcast AntiSocial is admirable. It takes a contentious topic that is 'big online' – in this episode, surrogacy – and considers it from different angles. The tagline is that it is 'like Vinted', but instead is where 'facts and analysis' are traded.

Given the misinformation that continues to persist around surrogacy and assisted reproduction more generally (see BioNews 1275), despite the substantial increase in usage that has been recorded in recent years, such projects hold enormous potential and should be welcomed. While the episode is an interesting listen for both newcomers to the subject and those already invested however, it falls short of the nuanced conversation one might have hoped for.

The podcast hears from a number of speakers throughout. Interesting summaries are provided on topics such as the law of surrogacy in England and Wales and divisions within different branches of feminism on the topic. The majority of the episode however is made up of a debate-style discussion between Kreena Dhiman (a parent through surrogacy and host of the 'Intended Parent's Podcast') and Helen Gibson (of the campaign group Surrogacy Concern).

The chair, Adam Fleming, asks incisive questions in a punchy way, which broadly fall into two categories. There are certainly plenty to satisfy those that are curious simply about the human mechanics of surrogacy, with questions like 'who gets the first cuddle'. Though of course only speaking to her own experiences, Dhiman speaks candidly and gives insight into how those conversations take place – information that is not realistically accessible without forums such as this giving a voice to those with first-hand experience.

Fleming also does not shy away, however, from the headline debates surrounding surrogacy – trying to move the discussion through major topics of contention such as legal reform and the language that is used in these conversations. Though an admirable effort, in hearing from speakers with such polarised views on surrogacy, the debate does little to reflect the shades of grey that exist between the black and white perspectives on this form of reproduction.

While there can be no doubt that surrogacy raises extensive and complex ethical issues, for Gibson to simply dismiss the option of regulation as 'something for the birds' with limited further engagement does not come close to doing justice to the five year project of the Law Commission and the careful proposals it made (see BioNews 1185).

Given that the premise of the podcast is providing 'facts and analysis' to move away from the polarising conversations taking place on the internet, it is also concerning how frequently broad-brush statements are made with little follow up. It is asserted, for instance, that a surrogate is the biological mother even if her egg is not used due to microchimerism. Though this process is still subject to scientific research, it is now broadly recognised that during pregnancy, fetal cells cross the placenta and enter the pregnant person's bloodstream (and vice versa). While this impacts the DNA make-up of both, the term 'micro' is deliberate – a child is not thought to carry more than a trace of their birth mother's DNA as a result. While this may be considered relevant to definitions of motherhood, particularly if a biological focus is preferred, it is clearly a substantially lower genetic contribution than a gamete. To make such bald statements without explaining or exploring the process is therefore disappointing.

Similarly, though the chair goes some way to contextualise statistics that are presented in a way that may otherwise be misleading, that this is required seems to run contrary to the foundational principle of the podcast.

That being said, the questions without doubt provide considerable scope for independent thought and reflection on the listener's own time. The concluding theme of how best to balance the rights, needs and wishes of children born through surrogacy, surrogates themselves, and intended parents underpins almost all of the regulatory issues that the practice gives rise to, from the attribution of legal parenthood to who should have the right to make medical decisions. These are touched on in the podcast but not explored in depth – perhaps as to do so would require another episode entirely.

It also rightly notes that surrogacy is of increasing significance to regulators – not just domestically thanks to the Law Commission, but worldwide. It cites Italy, where particularly draconian legislation last year made it illegal for intended parents not only to embark on surrogacy within the jurisdiction, but also abroad (see BioNews 1263). Given that the extraterritorial jurisdiction of British courts is broadly limited to the most serious categories of offence – for instance murder, forced marriage, and female genital mutilation – the difference even within European nations on this topic could not be more stark. Nor is the discussion on the relationship between the far-right, radical feminist thinkers and religion limited to surrogacy or Italy – being without doubt thought-provoking in its own right.

For those that are curious about the topic, there are therefore plenty of issues to reflect on and avenues to explore. This podcast should be treated as setting parameters, but there are plenty of gaps to be filled.

---

The past, present and future of surrogacy law will be discussed at the free-to-attend online event 40 Years of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act: What Next for Surrogacy?, taking place on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

Find out more and register here.