Gamble & Ghevaert

Archive for the ‘Natalie Gamble’ Category

UK High Court warns of dangers of overseas surrogacy

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

The High Court this week announced its decision to award parenthood to a British couple with a child born through surrogacy in the Ukraine. The child concerned, known only as IJ, was caught in a legal black hole, with no legal parents and no nationality anywhere in the world because UK law said that the Ukrainian surrogate and her husband were the parents, and Ukrainian law said that the British commissioning couple were the parents. To protect IJ’s welfare, the High Court decided to endorse the foreign commercial surrogacy arrangement, even though payments for surrogacy in the UK are normally prohibited.

The case follows a previous case from 2008, the first to ratify a foreign commercial surrogacy arrangement, in which twins born ‘stateless and parentless’ in the Ukraine were also rescued by the High Court. In the case announced this week, the court emphasised that the British parents had ‘done their conscientious best to act lawfully and to prepare for all contingencies but had been misled by some unduly simplistic advice from the Ukrainian surrogacy agency’.

Mr Justice Hedley said he had made the unusual move of publishing his decision in order “to emphasise the legal difficulties that overseas surrogacy agreements can create. In the experience of the court to date, overseas jursidictions can confer parental status on the commissioning couple but that status is not recognised in our domestic law… Those who travel abroad to make these arrangements really should take advice from those skilled in our domestic law to be sure as to the problems that will confront them… Reliance on advice from overseas agencies is dangerous as the provisions of our domestic and immigraiton law are often not fully understood.”

The case highlights how important it is for Brits considering overseas surrogacy to know that favourable law abroad won’t protect you worldwide. Being named on a foreign birth certificate, or even having a foreign court order which names you as the parents, will not be enough to make you the parents in the UK or to ensure that you can bring your baby home.

The case also highlights the growing problems caused by mismatched international surrogacy laws worldwide. The French court last week had to consider a similar case involving a French couple with two surrogate children born in the USA, where they were named on the birth certificates. Unlike the UK decision, the French court ruled that the couple could not be treated as their children’s legal parents under French law.

More information about international surrogacy is available on our website, as well as further information about the cases of Re IJ (2011) and Re X and Y (2008), in both of which we acted successfully for the parents.

Natalie quoted in today’s Guardian on the Elton John story

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

From the Guardian, 29 December 2010 (Helen Pidd):

You can tell everybody this is our son

Helen Pidd byline. Helen Pidd

Elton John and David Furnish John and Furnish announced that their son had been born on Christmas Day. Photograph: Theo Wargo/Getty Images/Time Inc
When the Beatles imagined their lives aged 64, they sang of knitting sweaters by the fireside, doing the garden and balancing grandchildren on their knees. Three months off that landmark birthday, Elton John might have partly retired from the pop music industry, but he is set to be busier than ever after becoming a father for the first time. The singer announced today that he and his partner, David Furnish, who is 48, have become parents after using a surrogate mother in the US.
The boy, Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John, was born in California on Christmas Day, weighing 7lb 15oz, John’s LA-based publicist confirmed. The name Levon is the title of a track on John’s 1971 album Madman Across the Water. In a statement, the couple said: “We are overwhelmed with happiness and joy at this very special moment. Zachary is healthy and doing really well, and we are very proud and happy parents.” The identity of their son’s surrogate mother is being protected by the new parents, and all questions about the birth and conception were answered “no comment” by the singer’s UK-based publicist.

It is not known who is the father, but Natalie Gamble, a specialist in fertility law at Gamble and Ghevaert LLP, said that one or both men will have provided sperm. She said that in all Californian cases of which she was aware, prospective parents must provide the sperm, and the egg would come not from the surrogate but a second woman.

John has spoken in the past of his desire to become a father, announcing last autumn that he wanted to adopt a 14-month-old boy from an orphanage in Ukraine. He said then that the couple had always talked about adoption, but that he had objected because of his age.

It was the death of his keyboard player, Guy Babylon, that helped to change his mind. Babylon, who died of a heart attack aged 52 last year, had two children whom John described as “wonderful”. He said at the time: “What better opportunity to replace someone I lost than to replace him with someone I can give a future to?” His plans to adopt were reportedly thwarted by Ukrainian laws. Instead, the couple turned to the US, a popular destination for UK citizens hoping to enter into surrogate arrangements.

In some US states, including California, parents who have paid a surrogate can apply for a prebirth order. This means that they, and not the woman who carried the baby, will be listed on the birth certificate as parents, regardless of whose egg and sperm was used in conception. And in California, unlike in Britain, surrogates can be paid an unlimited fee.

Olga van den Akker, professor of health psychology at Middlesex University, said the potentially enormous sum paid by John – who has an estimated fortune of £185m, according to the Sunday Times Rich List – could cause problems for his son further down the line. “We don’t know how much Elton John paid for him, but it was almost certainly a lot more than he would have paid in the UK, where around £10,000 per child is the norm. In the US, babies can cost a lot, lot more than that, especially where celebrities are involved. “Problems could arise if he thinks that he has been sold by his ‘mother’ – either the surrogate, and/or the egg donor, if one was involved.”

Lawyers said that the sum paid would become legally important if John and Furnish want to bring up Zachary in the UK, where surrogacy is legal only for altruistic and not commercial reasons. Surrogacy has been regulated in Britain since 1985, after Kim Cotton was paid £6,500 to carry a child conceived using her own egg and the sperm of a man whose wife was infertile. Gamble said: “The immigration and nationality rules are complex, and John and Furnish’s child may require special permission from the Home Office to enter the UK. In any event, their legal status in California will not be automatically recognised here, and they will need to apply to the UK high court for a parental order which legally recognises them as parents.”

A judge must then weigh the child’s welfare against the need to uphold public policy – in other words, recognising the child’s need for loving parents while acknowledging that UK law does not encourage the commercialisation of surrogacy, said Gamble. “Of the three publicly available judgments made on foreign surrogacy arrangements in the UK court since 2008, all three have allowed the child to stay with the parents,” added Gamble, who this month represented a couple in a similar situation to John and Furnish.

In that case, the couple were deemed to have paid more than just “reasonable expenses” to an American surrogate. But Mr Justice Hedley allowed the couple to keep the child after ruling that the existing rules on payments were unclear, and that the baby’s welfare must be the main consideration. Only in the “clearest case” of surrogacy for profit would a couple be refused the necessary court order to keep the baby, he said.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Children are not commodities to be bought and sold. It is not the case that everybody has the right to a child, whatever the cost.”

Potential legal issues aside, several celebrities congratulated the singer, with Elizabeth Hurley among the first to offer her best wishes. She wrote on Twitter: “Massive congratulations to David and Elton on having their beautiful son. Can’t wait for my first cuddle.” Lord Sugar expressed disbelief at the news, tweeting on the microblogging site: “Am I hearing things right on Sky news Elton John becomes a surrogate father.” He added about an hour later: “Oh well congratulations to him.”

Surrogacy and the law

UK

• Only non-commercial (ie altruistic) surrogacy is legal.

• Surrogates cannot be paid a fee for carrying a child. They may only charge “reasonable expenses” ranging from £12,000 to £15,000, according to the voluntary organisation Childlessness Overcome Through Surrogacy.

• UK law does not recognise surrogacy as a binding agreement on either party. There is little the intended parents can do to secure their position before the birth, even if baby is genetically related to both intended parents and not the surrogate. It is illegal to advertise for surrogates or intended parents.

• The surrogate is always registered as the legal mother of the child, even if an embryo from the recipient couple was used, as in gestational surrogacy.

California

• Commercial surrogacy is legal.

• Surrogates can be paid unlimited fees for carrying children.

• The commissioning couple have parental responsibility, not the woman who gave birth to the child. Californian courts have consistently upheld the intended parents’ rights and obligations to their parenthood when they use a surrogate or egg donor to help create their families.

• Surrogacy agencies are legal. Surrogates and egg donors can advertise themselves on websites.

• California recognises a contractual intent as a basis for parentage, meaning that prospective parents using surrogates can get their names on the child’s birth certificates.

There is more information about gay surrogacy law and international surrogacy law on our website

Landmark international surrogacy case – child’s welfare is paramount

Friday, December 24th, 2010

We are pleased to report that we have successfully won legal parenthood status for a British couple who entered into an international commercial surrogacy arrangement with a surrogate mother in Illinois.

In only the third published decision of its kind (Natalie having also acted for the parents in the first High Court decision of this kind, Re X and Y, made in 2008), the court upheld the best interests of the child and authorised payments of more than expenses to the surrogate mother.

The court’s decision in the case of Re L made the front page headline in the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/8190131/Childless-couples-win-the-right-to-pay-surrogate-mothers.html) with a further article, following an agreed statement made anonymously by the parents (who wished to tell their side of the story), several days later (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8194099/Surrogacy-couple-paying-American-woman-was-our-last-chance-for-a-child.html).

The case is important in establishing that, following changes to the law made in 2008, the welfare of the child is now the court’s ‘paramount’ consideration. Judgment was published on 8 December 2010 by Mr Justice Hedley and it has been heralded as a landmark decision awarding legal status to the parents notwithstanding the public policy ban on commercial surrogacy in the UK.

More information about international surrogacy law is available on our website.

Natalie Gamble speaks at Progress Educational Trust Annual Conference: Cross Border Reproductive Care – Who oversees overseas?

Sunday, December 5th, 2010

Natalie Gamble was delighted to address the Progress Educational Trust’s Annual Conference on 24 November 2010, speaking to an eminent audience about the legal issues for patients having fertility treatment overseas, including donor conception and international surrogacy.

Reproduced below is Rachel Lyons’ article about the event, which appeared in BioNews 586

In a cold room at the Institute of Child Health in London, talk turned to warmer climes during session two of the Progress Educational Trust (PET)’s conferencePassport to Parenthood’. Even though the temperature of the room was cold, the debate surrounding who does (and should) oversee overseas cross-border reproductive care ‘hotted up’.

The session was chaired by Dr Evan Harris, adviser to the Social Liberal Forum and former Liberal Democrat Shadow Science Minister. The main aim of this session was to provide an overview of the current legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding cross-border care and to establish whether any changes are required.

The first panellist of the session was Juliet Tizzard, Head of Policy at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The HFEA is the UK’s fertility regulator and has a clear responsibility for regulating the activities of fertility centres in the UK. Juliet’s talk mainly focused on the question of whether this responsibility applies to overseas reproductive treatments.

Juliet began by outlining three ways in which the HFEA (and its clinics) has a responsibility, role or duty in relation to cross-border reproductive care. Namely: to inform the patient about the possibility of going abroad for services, to refer them abroad for reproductive services, or to be involved in the shared care arrangement system between the UK, European Union (EU) member states and internationally.

Juliet said the circumstances surrounding shared care arrangements cause the most problems for the HFEA. According to Juliet, the HFEA has sought legal advice on the extent of its powers to regulate the activities of UK licensed clinics which enter into a shared care arrangement. The advice that the HFEA received was unequivocal. The HFEA has almost no powers over clinics that provide information about or refer patients to clinics in other countries.

Regardless of this however, Juliet explained that the HFEA does expect centres, whether referring patients abroad or recommending shared, cross-border care, to provide patients with information about the consequences of having treatment outside the UK. For instance, patients having donor conception treatment abroad should be made aware that they (and their resultant child/children) will not be able to request information from the HFEA about their donor.

Juliet concluded by saying the HFEA will soon be revising the information they provide to patients and will make details available after they’ve concluded a consultation in January 2011. The HFEA hopes this will help those considering whether or not to travel abroad to understand the advantages and disadvantages. This, in turn, will help patients find the clinic that best meets their needs and will enable them to make informed treatment choices at their chosen clinic.

Second to speak was Natalie Gamble, who was introduced as the UK’s leading fertility lawyer and a founding partner of Gamble and Ghevaert LLP. The main focus of Natalie’s talk was the issues surrounding the patchwork of laws and regulations governing cross-border reproductive care. As she said: ‘the law is struggling to catch up’. Natalie’s primary concern was the information available on donor rights, parenthood and international surrogacy arrangements.

Natalie started by confirming information on country of conception is key for patients. Potential patients may not have the same protection that they might have had in their home country. The problem is many are not aware of this and how it might impact on their situation.

People need to be concerned about whether they will be treated as the legal parent of a child born to a surrogate. Natalie said the law of the person’s home country applies. In the UK, a child’s father and mother have parental responsibility for the child if they were married to each other at the time of his or her birth. Where a child’s mother and father were not married to each other at the time of his or her birth, only the mother has automatic parental responsibility for the child.

Natalie used surrogacy in cross-border situations as the perfect illustration of where the intended mother and father may have immense difficulty claiming legal parenthood over the child. As Natalie put it, ‘there is no harmonisation here’. Different countries take radically different stances. She cited the case of re X and Y (Foreign Surrogacy) 2008 to highlight how difficult the situation can be. The case concerned a British couple who went to the Ukraine to undergo surrogacy, but the child faced considerable immigration difficulties. Under Ukrainian law, the commissioning couple were treated as the child’s parents from birth so the surrogate mother was not the child’s mother.

Under UK law, which applied to the commissioning couple, they could not be treated as the child’s parents without a court order. The child was potentially then both stateless and parentless. The judge in the case The Hon. Mr Justice Hedley cautioned those contemplating parenthood by entering into a foreign surrogacy agreement because of the possibility of unintended consequences.

Natalie concluded her talk by making three clear statements. First, there needs to be better public information available for those considering cross-border reproductive care. Second, the law globally is struggling immensely with this area. And lastly, we have to remember that ultimately, the first priority is to the resulting child and ensuring that they are protected.

The third speaker on the panel was James Lawford-Davies, who is a solicitor and partner at Lawford Davies Denoon. His talk focused on the EU’s approach to cross-border care. He explained each EU member state has an obligation to protect the free movement of persons and services and there should be no restrictions on this right. He provided the example of the landmark case of Yvonne Watts who challenged this right all the way to the European Court of Justice.

Even with this landmark case, James emphasised that the law remains uncertain. However, it is hoped that the draft Directive concerning the application of patient’s rights in cross-border healthcare will provide more legal certainty on the quality and safety standards across the EU. James did show slight concern for the margin of appreciation aspect of the Directive, which will mean provisions will be in place to enable member states to enact limitations on certain treatments. However, James (and the audience) did seem pleased the Directive might enforce the requirement that Member States have to provide information about the procedures and services available.

The final speaker of the session was Zeynep Gürtin-Broadbent, a research fellow at the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge. Zeynep began her talk by discussing the difficulty in defining cross-border reproduction, as it is a new and rapidly evolving problem with a lack of empirical data. However, she was comforted by the fact that there are a large number of studies being undertaken, which should provide us with greater insight in the near future.

Zeynep questioned the diversity of cross-border reproduction, namely who/what is doing the travelling (intending parents, donors, the import and export of gametes) and the reason for this travel. Zeynep suggested four categories illustrating why people might go to a different country for reproductive treatment: 1) travel for legal restrictions, 2) resource scarcity, 3) safety concerns and 4) personal preferences.

Zeynep believes that it should be down to the regulators to tackle the issue of patients going abroad. She believes the regulators need to assess whether the current law is fit for purpose. She suggested the harmonisation of laws is a burden for the EU and individual member states to resolve. Zeynep believes there needs to be sound empirical evidence and creative thinking to solve these dilemmas.

The discussion that followed covered issues of the welfare and interest of the child, the disparity of the information available and the issues surrounding surrogacy and legal parenthood. The final word final word must go to Juliet Tizzard who said that ‘[the HFEA] is not wanting to wash their hands of this issue’. We await the results of the consultation, which will be launched in January, with interest. A report on the third session of the conference will be published in next week’s BioNews. PET is grateful to the conference’s gold sponsors Merck Serono.

There is more information about international surrogacy law, fertility law in the UK and donor conception law on our website.

Article on lesbian parenting law published in Family Law

Friday, November 26th, 2010

We have had an article published in leading legal journal Family Law about the case of T v B recently heard in the High Court. The case involved a lesbian couple in dispute following a split, and the court found that the non birth mother was not a ‘parent’ under English law and so not financially responsible for her child. Our article reviews the case and its implications for same sex parenting.

You can read the article in full at Lesbian mothers in dispute: T v B (Family Law, November 2010) or find out more from our website about lesbian parenting law.

Come and see us at the Fertility Show this weekend

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

The Gamble and Ghevaert team are looking forward to exhibiting at the Fertility Show at London Olympia this Friday and Saturday – do come and see us and say hello!

We are also speaking:

Saturday 1.45 – 2.30 Single women, lesbian couples and alternative parenting – Natalie Gamble

Saturday 2.45 -3.30 Going abroad for treatment – Natalie Gamble and Louisa Ghevaert, together with Nic Dawson

Find out more at www.fertilityshow.co.uk.

Scrapping the HFEA is a mistake

Friday, September 24th, 2010

Gamble and Ghevaert take the view that the government’s recent decision to scrap the HFEA is a big mistake, aimed only at short term cost savings. The HFEA has led the world in fertility sector best practice since its inauguration in August 1991 and it is a highly regarded guardian of our world leading fertility treatment and embryo research. We work with leading fertility lawyers around the world and have listened to their struggles in regulating fertility best practice and their envy of our specialist watchdog. The HFEA is a long established institution providing a much needed point of reference and a source of public information on assisted reproduction generally and its loss will be great at a time when more people than ever before are turning to third party reproduction as a means of building their family and badly need guidance.

Independent’s Pink List 2010 honours Natalie Gamble

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

We are delighted that Natalie has been named in the Independent on Sunday’s Pink List 2010, the paper’s renowned annual review of the 101 most influential gay and lesbian people in Britain. At number 88, Natalie is recognised as a “pioneer of fertility law” who was “heavily involved in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and nominated in 2008 as Stonewall’s Hero of the Year”.

The only practising lawyer named, Natalie is ranked alongside British gays and lesbians at the very top of a broad range of professions. The Pink List 2010 includes politicians Lord Mandelson and Deputy Lib Dem leader Simon Hughes, judges Lord Justice Etherton and Sir Adrian Fulford, former head of the Law Society Dame Janet Paraskeva, business leaders Lord Black (the Telegraph), Sir Michael Bishop (BMI) and Dawn Airey (CEO of Channel 5), theatre directors Sir Nicholas Hytner and Sir Cameron Mackintosh, Director of the British Museum Neil MacGregor, Radio 4 broadcaster Evan Davis, poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy, Turner Prize winning painter Sir Howard Hodgkin, Rabbi Lionel Blue, authors Sarah Waters and Philip Hensher, fashion designers Christopher Bailey and John Galliano, actors John Barrowman, Fiona Shaw and Simon Russell Beale, and celebrities Stephen Fry, Sue Perkins, Matt Lucas, Gok Wan, Alan Carr, Will Young and Radio 1 DJ Scott Mills. The number one spot – balanced fairly between the sexes – is rightly shared by leading business guru Mary Portas and courageous rugby player Gareth Thomas.

A new entrant to the list at number 88, Natalie is ranked among these pre-eminent individuals as the 25th most influential lesbian in today’s Britain. Her inclusion recognises Natalie’s groundbreaking work as a leading fertility lawyer, and her work as a prominent champion and advocate of same sex parents.

Prime Minister David Cameron, writing in the Independent on Sunday 1 August, said “The wall of prejudice is chipped away by high-profile role models, by public celebrations, by a positive approach to diversity. That’s why I congratulate everyone on this list for doing their bit to inspire and change attitudes. This is a country where people can be proud of who they are – and quite right too.”

You can find out more about Natalie Gamble and her work or read the Independent’s Pink List 2010 in full.

Times article on unregulated fertility sites quotes Natalie Gamble

Monday, July 19th, 2010

By Mark Bridge, The Times, Saturday 17 July 2010

Shadowy world of web’s unregulated fertility sites

Unregulated “fertility” websites that put their members in touch with sperm donors for a fee are exploiting vulnerable women and risking users’ health and finances, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has warned.

An investigation by The Times this week also found that such sites, which enable people including single women and lesbian couples to obtain sperm outside of the regulated market, are being used by men searching for nostrings unprotected sex. The HFEA believes that the sites’ role as facilitator may in fact constitute illegal “procurement” of sperm, and it is taking legal action against one website to close it down. A spokesman said: “If you use a site that does not direct you to a licensed clinic, you put yourself at risk that the sample you receive is neither safe nor screened and that the donor is not who they say they are.” The regulator also warns that donors who donate sperm via these sites rather than at licensed clinics will be the legal fathers of any children born to single women or unmarried couples and may be liable for child support.

Natalie Gamble, of Gamble and Ghevaert, a firm of solicitors that specialises in fertility law, said that the legality of the sites was a grey area. “What is illegal is procurement of gametes [sperm and eggs]. It comes down to the definition of what procurement is. Putting sperm in the post would seem to be clear. Less clear is helping individuals to make contact with one another.”

Membership of the websites, such as Co-ParentMatch.com and Feeling-Broody.com, costs about £10 to £15 a month. Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at the University of Sheffield, claimed: “They’re in it purely for ‘If a man wants to impregnate the South East… he will be in poor sexual health’ money. It’s blatant profiteering.” He added that the sites profited from the relative expense of licensed clinics which charge about £800 for frozen sperm and one insemination cycle and from a shortage of sperm at clinics now that children born to donor sperm are allowed to contact their natural father when they are 18.

The website of Fertility 1st, which the HFEA is taking legal action against, states that customers should budget £150 for sperm to be couriered. The other sites leave such arrangements up to the donor and recipient, who might decide that his sperm should be delivered to her home, or that he should visit to “produce”, or have sex with her. Whatever the arrangement, Dr Pacey cautioned that sperm obtained using the sites is not adequately screened, so puts the recipient at risk of blood-borne and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. It may also carry genetic disorders such as Down’s syndrome. He says that the risk was even greater if, as our investigation suggests, some donors have predatory intent. “If a man wants to impregnate the South East, that ups the risk that he will be in poor sexual health.” He added: “A licensed clinic will run tests before taking samples and again six months after the last sample was taken and frozen. Sperm can only be used after this final check.”

Seyi Joseph, of FeelingBroody.com, said that her site only covered its costs. She added that it has links to documents that explain the rules on legal paternity. She advises that donors be tested for a range of diseases. Nigel Woodforth, of Fertility 1st, said that donors at his site must take regular health tests. He added that donors at the website do not give identifying details to the recipient, and that their records are destroyed after their membership expires. Co-ParentMatch.com did not return our calls.

Time spent undercover on unregulated websites revealed a sad world frequented by men eager to “help” vulnerable women. When I joined one site under the alias of luciex, or Lucy, a 29-year-old nurse, I was contacted by a queue of donors keen to offer “NI”shorthand for natural insemination, as in sex (Mark Bridge writes). As Lucy I signed on at Co-ParentMatch.com, which claims to be the “No 1. Leading website of its kind”a “regulated environment” that uses the slogan: “After all, there’s no time to waste, the biological clock is ticking…” Having uploaded a picture of an attractive brunette and paid £9.95 a month, I was contacted by, among others, men claiming to be a 30-year-old studio manager and a “ready and able!” 58-year-old American “peacebuilder”. Profile photographs showed mainly thirtysomething and middle-aged men, some engaged in manly outdoor pursuits, others dressed for a hot dateone in a crisp white jacket. The tone of conversation was hardly clinical. One man sent “Lucy” a blunt “I am from Manchester and available for NI if you can travel when you are ovulating.” He said that he was a married man and donated to overcome both the national shortage of sperm and narrow-minded attitudes to lesbian parents.

Another tried charm, writing: “Hello Lucie! You reallly [sic] look so gorgeous and I would be happy to donate my sperm so you can become pregnant [...]” Meanwhile, a man whose photo loosely resembled AliG wrote: “Hi how u doin?My names [...] im 30 from London would you like to chat? x”, adding his mobile phone number. When Lucy failed to respond he asked: “Hi Lucie how r u hun? Good i hope… What did u decide to do? Id like to help you become a mother x” Most, when asked, said that they were willing to donate by natural or artificial means, so came across as opportunists rather than full-on predators. Some offered meaningless reassurances about their sexual health. One wrote: “I have also been checked for STDs two weeks ago, in case you wondered.”

Not one asked Lucy why a single woman of only 29 would want to conceive with donor sperm or how she intended to bring up the child, although three professed some interest in a co-parent role. On the other hand, two said that they would be unwilling to take on parental responsibility. One wrote: “I am a donor only and cannot offer financial or parenting support.” It is illegal for donors to charge, and none of the men who made contact requested payment. One did say: “Expenses may be travel costs or hotel costs etc if donation was done on neutral ground.”

Laura Witjens, left, of the National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT), says that the casual nature of agreements on expenses leaves them open to abuse. “It is common for guys to insist on natural insemination so ‘pay me and sleep with me’, she said, adding: “Some even sent me photos of themselves ‘donating’. It was shocking, and I’m Dutch, so that’s saying something.”

In spite of this dubious donor-base, the sites manage to entice women “and the odd sincere gentleman”, Ms Witjens said, in part by presenting a clinical façade, using stock photographs of babies to play on emotions. I have spoken to several women who have used the sites who were angry at first when I criticised them. They said, ‘Why make it difficult for people to conceive?’ But they were surprised and grateful when I explained the dangers and the legalities.”

Bringing up baby (the options for gay men)

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

This month’s Out in the City magazine for gay men features an article titled ‘Bringing up Baby’ which we wrote for the magazine. The feature reviews the options for building a family through conception as a gay man, including surrogacy, co-parenting and known sperm donation, including the recent changes to UK surrogacy law.

You can read the article here (Bringing up Baby) or see our website for further information about surrogacy for gay men, and co-parenting and known sperm donation.