Blog

Over the years I have had many opportunities to talk with people considering or going through surrogacy. I’ve long been fascinated by the ways that heretofore strangers come together, trust each other and creatively share a pregnancy, often long distance. As a family building counselor, I have readily dispensed advise to surrogacy participants, especially to the intended parents. I did so with keen awareness that I had never been in their shoes, that what I was telling them was based on observation of what had to be a uniquely challenging—and remarkably rewarding experience. Everything changed one year ago when we learned that my daughter needed a surrogate (gestational carrier). It is my pleasure to write a series of blogs, “From Both Sides Now”—what I have learned from first observing and now living surrogacy.

Worth The Wait

I remember telling people “You have to like your GC a lot. You have to feel certain that ‘she’s the one’ when you meet her. You will be entrusting your precious unborn child to her. You have to really really like her.”

This person—that you will like so much and trust without question—may not come along as soon as you would like. I’ve observed– and now I’ve learned first hand– that so much of this process is about waiting. You need to wait for a doctor’s appointment and later, to see how many follicles you have. Then you need to wait to see if the eggs fertilize and if they do,

Fertility and Sterility (June 2017) published the results of a self-sponsored public opinion survey to measure the general public’s conception of what is appropriate egg donor compensation, in the wake of the class action lawsuit (which was settled not in their favor). Before the lawsuit was settled, the ASRM had a fixed cap on donor compensation that stayed the same since the year 2000.

Although the was some briefing of the facts to the participants, they were outside of the fertility industry. The ASRM may find some cold comfort that the survey leaned in their favor, although it was likely designed to do so.

I guess the follow up survey will measure the public’s conception of the appropriate compensation for reproductive endocrinologists, and if their salaries should stay at the year 2000 rate.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.001

The Kim Kardashian surrogacy reveal has brought out plenty of critics – ready to use this case to offer uninformed opinions regarding surrogacy in general. Linda Stasi did just this in the New York Daily News on June 23, 2017.

Stasi does a good job of adding provocative commentary to a sensational (and wholly uncommon) story. However, she has written a piece which clearly shows a complete lack of research and lack of understanding related to the complex world of gestational surrogacy. Oh yeah, it is catchy to offer that surrogacy is the choice of entitled celebrities and desperate, impoverished “uterus-renters.” But missing is any acknowledgment that the vast majority of surrogacy cases in this country (indeed ones which also involve Kardashian-like fees) consist of much more compelling fact patterns and much more reasonable motives. The young couples we see in our program who have survived breast and other cancers (and have frozen embryos from their own gametes) are simply eager to have a child. Just as eager as before cancer, but now it is unsafe or impossible (in the hysterectomy cases) to carry. They are looking for a responsible and caring woman to serve as their surrogate. Albeit hard to find, these kinds of women (hardly uneducated or desperate or in financial trouble) do indeed exist. They are often nurses or social workers or teachers – they come from walks of life where helping others (frequently in distress) is part of their nature. And they are strangers –

New York Times, July 19.2016
I.V.F. Does Not Raise Breast Cancer Risk, Study Shows
BY CATHERINE SAINT LOUIS

There was a piece on today’s Morning Edition (NPR) that began something like this, “Here’s a story of the lengths one couple went to have a baby.” As someone who counsels people struggling to build their families, my ears perked up, curious as to what would follow.

The very short version, of what was a sixteen month saga, was that a gay couple had a baby through an egg donor and surrogate in Thailand. When baby Carmen was born, the surrogate tried to claim custody, saying that she did not know that the intended parents were gay and she did not support gay parenthood. Last week the Thai court ruled in favor of the biological father, Bud Lake and his husband, Manuel Santos. Morning Edition was now turning its attention to the relieved parents, celebrating with them and asking Mr. Lake what advice he’d have for others considering surrogacy. He responded, “Be sure to vet your agency. Our surrogate should never have been a surrogate.”

I agree with Lake’s advice to “vet your agency,” but wish that NPR had asked him to elaborate on this comment rather than simply dismissing his surrogate as inappropriate. Even in NPR’s brief account of the tale, there were several red flags that pointed to agency shortcomings that went beyond proper selection and screening of surrogates.

The first thing that jumped out to me was that this surrogate/gestational carrier did not seem to know that her “IP’s” were a gay couple.