Gamble & Ghevaert

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Have your say! Donor satisfaction survey

Monday, April 30th, 2012

NGDT wants to hear donors’ voices

Last year, we blogged about The National Gamete Donation Trust (NGDT)’s Donor Satisfaction Survey trying to get  feedback from prospective egg and sperm donors.  They asked for our support to get the issues addressed, and Kriss Fearon from the NGDT wrote following article for our blog.  If you are a donor, please do take part in the NGDT survey as they need just a few more to take part and have your voice heard:

What would you think if you approached someone asking if you could donate a large and very personal gift, and your message was ignored, or answered weeks or months later? If, when you went to see them to talk about the gift, they left you waiting and with the distinct impression they didn’t think the gift was important? Would you carry on trying – or assume they weren’t interested, and go somewhere else?

This is the experience some egg and sperm donors have when they approach a clinic.

The NGDT works with donors on a daily basis and hears directly from them about their experience of donation. Too often the feedback is not good, and yet some small changes in the way donors are treated could produce some big improvements.

To carry weight with the people who can make a difference, the Trust needs to prove that changes are necessary. That’s why we are running a survey: to gather evidence of what works and what doesn’t work. This will be the basis for making recommendations on how to treat donors through the whole process of donation, from information-gathering at the beginning to sharing the outcome at the end of the cycle.

The NGDT are targeting donors at two stages: first, as enquirers, and second, after a donor has completed their donation cycle. It’s important that donors are treated with respect; it’s also important that those who enquire but do not donate are treated well. People think really carefully before they make that first enquiry. It’s often prompted by the infertility of a close friend or family member, so there’s a big emotional investment. The minimum they should receive for this unpaid act of generosity is to be treated courteously.

Why does this matter? For the same reason that poor service matters anywhere else: reputation. Donors talk to their friends and family, who in turn share with their friendship groups. They talk to the media. And, most importantly, prospective donors trust current donors to give them an honest picture of what to expect. The longer-term impact of one person’s bad experience can deter others from ever looking into it. Good donor care is good practice, but it is also an essential recruitment tool.

When you’ve known people with fertility problems finally achieve their much loved and hoped-for child, it is hard to understand why the people whose precious gift made such a difference are sometimes treated so disappointingly. That must change.

http://ngdt.co.uk/donor-satisfaction-survey

For more information about the National Gamete Donation Trust, visit their website at http://www.ngdt.co.uk/

There is also more information about the law for egg and sperm donors on our website.

President of the High Court Family Division endorses international surrogacy

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the High Court Family Division, has made public his decision to give parenthood to the British parents of twins born through surrogacy in India.  The President said the issues were of “considerable public importance” and he wished to endorse the previous judgments of Mr Justice Hedley in other similar cases.

The decision, from one of the UK’s most senior family judges, represents a bolstering of the UK court’s position on international surrogacy:  that although commercially organised surrogacy is not yet permitted in the UK, British parents can be awarded parenthood if they go abroad and pay a foreign surrogate mother more than her ‘reasonable expenses’.  Sir Nicholas Wall made clear that the court’s paramount consideration is the child’s welfare, and that a birth certificate will be given as long as there has been no exploitation and the parents are not circumventing child protection laws in the UK.

In this particular case, two Indian surrogate mothers (carrying embryos created with the intended father’s sperm and eggs from the same anonymous donor) gave birth to a boy and a girl within a few days of each other, following a surrogacy arrangement commissioned by a British couple.  A total of some £27,000 was paid to the Indian clinic.  The court was ultimately satisfied that the parents were “entirely genuine and straightforward” and that “it is plainly in the interests of these two children that they should brought up by Mr and Mrs A as their parents”.

The case follows similar decisions by Mr Justice Hedley in the cases of Re X and Y (2008) in which British parents paid £23,000 to a Ukrainian surrogate mother, Re S (2009) involving a Californian surrogacy arrangement, Re L (2010) involving a surrogate mother based in Illinois and Re IJ (2011) involving a Ukrainian surrogacy.

For further information you can read the judgment in full or see our international surrogacy law pages.

ABA Conference in Las Vegas brings together fertility lawyers from across the globe

Monday, October 31st, 2011

Natalie and Helen were delighted to attend the American Bar Association’s Family and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) conference in Las Vegas (26-29 October 2011).  The conference brought together the world’s leading experts in assisted reproduction and surrogacy law, with lawyers from many US states (where laws vary enormously), Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, the Ukraine, India, Brazil and Greece.  Natalie was invited to speak about English law at a packed session, and was proud to represent the UK alongside leading fertility law experts from Germany, Italy, Australia and Canada.

The ABA conference comes at a key time, with the Hague Conference putting surrogacy on its agenda for international regulation, as well as increasing numbers of clients crossing borders for surrogacy and ART.  We were thrilled to meet so many professionals who, like us, understand and care passionately about helping people build families successfully.  It was abundantly clear that surrogacy lawyers across the globe need to play a key role, both in helping parents get the best legal protection and recognition possible (while national laws are so disastrously mismatched), and in advocating more widely at an international level as a voice for those conceiving in alternative ways.

Thank you to the American Bar Association for hosting such an inspiring international conference, which we know will be just the first step in building a strong international community of advocates for alternative families.

More information about international surrogacy law is available on our website and in particular check out our area for non-UK advisors and US attorneys.

We have a new name and a new home!

Friday, May 6th, 2011

natalie-gamble-associates-icon

nwp_25691

We are delighted to announce that we have moved and are now nestled in beautiful offices overlooking the New Forest with fabulous countryside around us but close to the mainline station at Salisbury. We have also changed our name to Natalie Gamble Associates and are now a team of five looking for a further lawyer.

We continue to be at the forefront of our pioneering fertility work with families who need help unravelling the law in the UK within a global context. We are immensely proud of our track record which now stands at over 10 years of grappling with the law and making changes to help families get the right structures in place to secure their family as a unit.

See our website, now at www.nataliegambleassociates.com or contact us for further information.

nga_-15

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.

Why can’t I have a baby on my own?

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

From The Independent, Thursday 20 May 2010

At 37, Lulu le Vay found herself single, infertile and craving a child. She decided to try surrogacy – but discovered that only stable couples need apply

One evening last September I was sitting in my consultant’s office after a checkup following the fifth surgery on my uterus, when he dropped the bombshell: due to the unlikelihood that my womb would be able to sustain a pregnancy, surrogacy might be a fertility option I would need to consider, if I wanted a child.

It was, strangely, a comical moment. “What?” I remember saying, my cheeks going as white as his collar. “This can’t be happening,” I protested, giggling. “Things like this happen to Sarah Jessica Parker, not me!” I didn’t cry. I went home, chain-smoked a few fags, and went to bed feeling shocked and void of emotion. When I woke up the next day, this alien idea that had been presented to me hovered over me in the abstract ether. Over the following few weeks, as much as it sat on my shoulder pecking at my thoughts, I refused to let it in as something real – as something I would seriously, at some point, have to consider.

Eventually, curiosity got the better of me and I hit Google and contacted some surrogacy support agencies. Within a couple of hours any decision-making process on my part had been obliterated. There it was, in black and white: “I am afraid that, as a single person, surrogacy in the UK is not an option for you. This is because a parental order – the legal device by which you would become the legally named parent of a child born through surrogacy – is only open to couples in a long-term stable relationship.” From an innocent investigation of an area I knew little about, the shock felt like a punch in the stomach.

This wasn’t supposed to be how my life was going to turn out. Since my early twenties I’d had it all mapped out. Throw myself passionately into my career and have as much fun as possible – the things I was good at – and the family stuff could be put off until later. Pah! what’s the rush? But a decade later the trouble started: fibroids (non-cancerous tumours in the uterus); a ruptured ovarian cyst; more fibroids (lots more). By January 2008, aged 37, I’d had three surgeries which had left me with some knock-out scars, emotionally and physically. Recovery from an operation to remove multiple fibroids that January was tough. Blood transfusions resulted in severe anaemia, as well as a bout of E. coli, which the hospital kindly packed me off home with. The C-section-style wound opened and took months to heal.

By the summer, just when my life was back on track – great job, smashing bloke – the pain and the haemorrhaging dominated my life to such an unbearable degree that I had no choice but to undergo uterine artery embolisation, a new-ish procedure which cuts off blood supply to the tumours by pumping radiation particles into the uterus. The pain that followed was untouchable, not even by morphine. I was in fake labour for 12 hours, my lowest life-point to date. Within days the bleeding disappeared – as did the boyfriend – and I became depressed.

More than a year later, in September last year, I was back in hospital with what I might call the nuclear fallout. The scar tissue had caused havoc. My fallopian tubes had twisted around the uterus, and one was badly infected and swollen. The organs had started sticking together and there was a mountainous ovarian cyst. This mess left me with permanently blocked tubes, a severely damaged uterus, and one sympathetic consultant trying to give me a glimmer of hope for the future of my fertility: it seemed that surrogacy might well be my only option. But not as the law currently stands, I found.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990 underwent a major overhaul in 2008, and single women were given the right to receive IVF treatment with donor sperm. And as of last month unmarried and same-sex couples can apply for a parental order for a child delivered by a surrogate. This order formally transfers parenthood from the surrogate mother. Yet single persons seeking to become parents through surrogacy have been deliberately excluded from this measure.

“We called for an amendment to the HFE Bill, while it was being debated in Parliament in 2008, which would have allowed single people to obtain a parental order,” says Louisa Ghevaert, a partner of the fertility law firm Gamble and Ghevaert. “This is a ticking time bomb. The law is discriminating against single people, and to make matters worse, it is completely inconsistent with other parenting laws. A single person can legally go to an IVF clinic and conceive with donated sperm. Current laws should be updated to allow single people to become parents though surrogacy.”

Peter Bowen-Simpkins, medical director of the London Women’s Clinic concurs: “I am astounded to learn that single people are barred from applying for a parental order. The reasons for surrogacy are usually congenital malformations, or surgery that has removed the womb or rendered it no longer able to bear a pregnancy. Neither of these reasons is the fault of the woman, and it seems gross discrimination, especially when we are offering single women donor insemination or IVF.”

We are living in a society in which the family comes in all colours, shapes and sizes. Gay mums and dads, Brangelina’s rainbow family, Madonna’s little Africa, and people like Sarah Jessica Parker creating a family with the help of a surrogate. Families are being built in more contemporary ways, and single parents play a growing role in this mix.

“I myself am a single parent following divorce, and there are plenty of us out there doing a great job,” continues Ghevaert. “It is unfair for people with health problems, or those on a difficult fertility journey, to then be denied the option of a parental order just because they are single. It makes no sense.”

Surrogacy is complex and expensive, and the international laws surrounding it are riddled with contradictions. With the sprawling World Wide Web, couples are leaping unprepared into other territories to bag their surrogate baby, which can lead not only to pressure and the breakup of their own relationships but may also put the well-being of the child in jeopardy.

In 2008, a Japanese couple used a surrogate mother in India. The intense pressure led to the couple divorcing after the baby was conceived, leaving the child abandoned in a hospital in Western Rajasthan. Under Indian law, single men of foreign origin are not able to apply for a parental order.

The SJP story may have sparked public awareness, as the demand for surrogacy is on the rise. But laws need to be in place with equal rights for all people who have a desire to pursue this avenue, and also with protection in place to support the well-being of children born from a surrogacy arrangement.

I’m still unsure what my fertility outcome will be, as I undergo a final round of treatment. But I do know that the surrogacy path is not for me. I may well look into adoption, if and when it feels right. This is a decision not steered by the current law – surrogacy is just not instinctively right for me. But having a choice would’ve been nice.

More information about surrogacy for single people.