Podcast Review: The Surrogacy Landscape Podcast – Episode three, the future

The title of Episode Three of The Surrogacy Landscape Podcast, 'The Future', is largely self-explanatory. Hosted by Harriet Errington, a partner at Boodle Hatfield, it discusses the challenges that UK surrogacy law currently presents – and perhaps more interestingly, how it might move forward. Of course, a podcast of this brevity does not allow for deep consideration of all the conceptual and academic discussions that have informed reform conversations. However, with the expert help of interviewees Andrew Powell (a barrister), and intended father and influencer Stuart Armfield, it provides a practical and frequently comparative insight into the domestic position on surrogacy. This would be useful for those beginning to approach the 'minefield' that is this practice – whether in a personal or professional capacity.

The podcast begins with an overview of the current problems of UK surrogacy law, as well as the Law Commission proposals on how these might be remedied. Certainly, it does not shirk away from the difficulties it presents, both ethically and legally. It raises questions, for instance, as to whether the proposals go far enough – or whether there has been a 'missed opportunity' regarding international arrangements. There is also relatively frank conversation about the 'moral hot potato' of whether surrogacy should be compensated. Nonetheless, this could perhaps have considered more critically whether the labour of love narrative so common among UK surrogates is indeed incompatible with a commercialised model.

Though both interviewees are experts in their own right, their distinctive experiences add colour to this podcast – allowing them to give different insights on the same issue. For instance, one of the major recommendations of the Law Commission Report is that intended parents should, in qualifying circumstances, be listed directly on the child's birth certificate. From Powell's perspective as a family barrister, the importance of this lies in the fact that a birth certificate is a significant legal document. As such, it needs to reflect who is caring for the child in practice in case the right to make major decisions (for instance, medical intervention) needs to be proved. Though Armfield also agrees with this proposed reform, however, his reasoning is less instrumental. Simply, for him it would have been 'magical' to have been recognised as his child's father from birth. This contrast reflects the complexity of surrogacy reform – which has not only practical, but also deeply personal, implications.

That being said, there are some limits to the sections of the podcast that are rooted primarily in the personal experience of the interviewees. Particularly striking a was discussion towards the end on the matching process in the USA as opposed to the UK. One of the reasons Armfield preferred the former was that he found it less 'cringey'. In particular, as both sides are aware of what they are letting themselves in for, he suggests that there is less need for initial, awkward, interactions. He analogises his experiences in the UK as like going on a 'first date'.

Yet, academic research previously undertaken into surrogacy in the USA (for instance, by Zsuzsa Berend), has highlighted how often surrogates and intended parents there also use the language of first dates to describe the initial matching stages. Though it may be true that surrogates have already been accepted onto programmes and are therefore medically clear to be a gestational carrier, that is not to say they are automatically a good fit for any intended parent. Nor are they necessarily willing to work with someone they do not have a connection with. Though there is certainly much to be said for the robust screening of many US states compared to the UK, as well as the matching support that agencies offer, therefore, it is important to recognise that there will always be merit in making sure that the parties are compatible on a personal level; share similar expectations and values. There is no obvious way to legally mandate this – meaning that even with reform, this awkward feeling of 'dating' may not disappear for everyone.

As noted in the podcast, one of the goals of these public discussions is to raise awareness of surrogacy. Certainly, for those who know little about the subject, it gives a useful overview of the current need for change. It also indicates resources for further research. In particular, those who are curious should explore more deeply not only the work of the Law Commission, but also cases such as Baby Gammy. Though only briefly touched on by Powell, this was a factually complex case which vividly reflects the need for a robust regulatory framework for this practice. Given the recently announced delay, only time will tell whether and how the Law Commission finally recommends that this should be achieved in the UK.