Australian surrogacy gone wrong

[DaffyDill]

So the Australian couple at the centre of the baby Gammy surrogacy debacle will be telling their side of things on 60 Minutes here on Sunday night. :popcorn2:

http://www.news.com.au/national/breakin ... 7017896384 (Link not broken - news site)

The executive producer of 60 Minutes has said the couple will not receive any payment for appearing on the show (60 Minutes has often indulged in "chequebook journalism in the past), and any funds will instead be paid the charity taking donations for Gammy's care.

"We never comment on any commercial arrangements between 60 Minutes and our interview subjects, but given the nature of this story, it's important our viewers know that no money has been or will be paid to the parents," he said.

"However, 60 Minutes will be making a donation to the charity Hands Across the Water, which is raising money for Gammy's ongoing treatment and care."

[utter solitude]

So the Australian couple at the centre of the baby Gammy surrogacy debacle will be telling their side of things on 60 Minutes here on Sunday night. :popcorn2:

http://www.news.com.au/national/breakin ... 7017896384 (Link not broken - news site)

The executive producer of 60 Minutes has said the couple will not receive any payment for appearing on the show (60 Minutes has often indulged in "chequebook journalism in the past), and any funds will instead be paid the charity taking donations for Gammy's care.

Oh geez. I'm really interested in what they might say, clearly some shady shit was happening....

[momof2treasures]

A little off topic here but....I can honestly say I am more than a little surprised about the degree of ignorance by some posters on this site about people with disabilities. This case is insane and these twins deserve better and belong together if they are in fact twins. Many families would adopt them Down's syndrome or not. That being said the comments and generalization of people with disabilities I have read by different posters on this site shocks me . I guess I expect most people on free jinger to have critical thinking skills and a certain degree of enlightenment. Yes we all are entitled to our own opinion but to assume all disabilities result in a life of misery and a burden to society and those around them is just ignorant. These are individuals and even within Down's syndrome you will see each person is different. Many folks with Down's syndrome work and live independently. Not all but not all non-disabled people do either. Some choose not to work and live off the system. To assume such things is as bad a stereotype as racial profiling or misogyny in my opinion. Rant over:) does Australia have a sex offender registry? If so what would be the restrictions on your own child I wonder.

[2xx1xy1JD]

You can give the child the ability to find out those things without revealing the mother's name. That's my point there. No one should be forced to reveal their name if they don't want that, it's a personal choice. The child can have the same medical history just without a name attached.

This whole conversation is about intentional baby-making pursuant to laws and regulation and contracts. Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If you don't want to ever face the possibility of genetic offspring knowing who you are, you don't need to be a donor.

Medical hisotry without a name attached is not a complete history. You don't get updated information. There's no way to contact someone for further information.

Identifying genetic relatives is far more difficult with anonymous donation. One man, for example, could end up being the genetic father of a ton of kids. It's not impossible that these kids could meet and accidentally end up marrying a genetic half-sibling.

There's also the whole idea of a child being able to know their own personal and genetic history.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't know. I probably wouldn't use a surrogate in the first place (I can't afford that). But in the unlikely event that the surrogate broke the contract, I think I would be suing for breach of contract. I would hope that woman would take responsibility for the fetus & then the baby, as she decided that to disregard the wishes of the people who put the fetus in her in the first place. I absolutely, 100% do not want to raise a developmentally disabled person. It's unfair to the person, it's unfair to the parents, it's unfair to society. It's completely different when the disability occurs during or after birth, as accidents happen. But to willfully bring a person into this world only to suffer is a terrible thing to do. I guess what I"m trying to say is that I can't fault the parents, they are stuck in a hard place. The surrogate is mostly a victim of whatever the agency told her, and was desperate for money. I still think it's the agency's fault. I suppose it's also the parent's fault for using a shady agency and having a surrogate do her thing in a country where it is illegal.

And yes, we need women and wombs to bear children. I don't see how asking a surrogate to abort an unhealthy child is wrong in anyway. I don't think it's the surrogates right to hijack the fetus that doesn't belong to her. It's her body, but the fetus is not hers and she does not have the right to decide not to abort if the parents want her to. It's her uterus, and she chose to allow them to borrow it for the duration of the pregnancy. If they want to terminate the pregnancy, that's not her call at that point, IMO.

I rarely say stuff like this - but if anyone is 100% sure that they do not want to raise a developmentally disabled child, then perhaps they shouldn't have kids at all.

Yes, it is possible to screen for Down Syndrome, although the screening is not 100% foolproof. If it's that important to avoid a specific condition, preimplantation screening makes sense.

Down Syndrome, however, is just one potential cause of disability. Simply put, it is absolutely impossible to screen for everything and guarantee yourself a perfectly healthy child, free of any disability. Autism is relatively common, and there is no screening test for it. You can have a child with a psychiatric diagnosis, and there is no prenatal screening for that. Your child may have a brain injury, or meningitis. If you are sure that you would never be able to love, accept and care for a child with challenges, then don't bring a child into the world at all because you have no way of knowing that your child would be healthy and neuro-typical, and rejecting your own child because they are not perfect in your eyes is a totally shitty thing to do.

[utter solitude]

This whole conversation is about intentional baby-making pursuant to laws and regulation and contracts. Nobody is "forced" to do anything. If you don't want to ever face the possibility of genetic offspring knowing who you are, you don't need to be a donor.

Medical hisotry without a name attached is not a complete history. You don't get updated information. There's no way to contact someone for further information.

Identifying genetic relatives is far more difficult with anonymous donation. One man, for example, could end up being the genetic father of a ton of kids. It's not impossible that these kids could meet and accidentally end up marrying a genetic half-sibling.

There's also the whole idea of a child being able to know their own personal and genetic history.

I think you're misunderstanding me, and we're actually agreeing without realizing it... I'm suggesting that it's not necessary for the child involved to know who their donor was. I had a friend who chose abortion over adoption for this reason: the way it was explained to her (by a truly fucked organization, tho, not everything works this way) is that she would give them a ton of information and at age 18, the child would know her name and history, etc. She did not want her name known to the child, for her own reasons, and chose an abortion instead. That is what I'm rallying against here. When I was exploring egg donation a few years ago, it was explained to me that I could choose to have my name be "public" or "private", the distinction being that either the parent(s) and child could find out, or it was jut the agency who knew. I'm not advocating that you just drop off your sperm like returning a book and that's it - just that your name doesn't need to be public if you don't want it. The donor has rights, the intended parents have rights, and the resulting children have rights, they can all be respected.

[kamcho_papio]

I'm not a parent, and as I'm trying to decide whether or or not to reproduce or adopt or nothing, the discussion about the ethics of terminating a fetus with a diagnosis comes up an awful lot. I had a long response typed out, deleted it, then couldn't stop thinking about the topic, so here I am again.

Essentially, I don't think it's especially useful to compare things that might happen over the course of a lifetime, or what can't presently be screened for during gestation, to something like a potentially lethal genetic situation. Things like psych diagnoses, or criminality, or being in an accident are not guaranteed; a prenatal diagnosis like Trisomy 21/Down Syndrome makes some premises fairly certain, and it's up to the parent/s to decide if they can handle it with their resources. I don't know if the distance between prescreening for a potentially lethal gene and terminating a fetus with a duplicate chromosome is very wide, nor if it really matters.

It's possible this is a spot of shifting ethical sand due to changes in society and medicine--a generation or two ago, Down Syndrome children were institutionalized, a few generations before that, they probably did not have a very long life due to the constellation of problems that a baby like Gammy is facing, including heart problems. They might have been considered special, or cursed, or caught in any other web of cultural meaning. I really don't think that the average person choosing to terminate a pregnancy with a diagnosis also thinks people with disabilities are unworthy of life, although that might seem like a paradox. I know it's not the same thing, but here's a clunky analogy: just because a person don't want to teach in a special needs classroom as a profession doesn't mean she thinks special needs kids don't deserve an education.

On topic: this whole situation is really messed up. I don't know who to believe, but a couple who hides in their house, not bathing and letting the RSPCA take their dog away doesn't sound like they're entirely on the up and up.

[2xx1xy1JD]

No, I'm suggesting that any donor be fully informed that a resulting child could access their information at age 18.

While laws are moving toward allowing disclosure with adoption (and have moved radically in that direction where I live), I realize that it's a more difficult situation. The pregnancy probably wasn't intended, relationships may have been very messy, the circumstances may have been totally traumatic, and some people may really need a way of doing things totally anonymously if they are to continue a pregnancy.

Being a donor is a voluntary, intentional action. It's quite different.

[utter solitude]

No, I'm suggesting that any donor be fully informed that a resulting child could access their information at age 18.

While laws are moving toward allowing disclosure with adoption (and have moved radically in that direction where I live), I realize that it's a more difficult situation. The pregnancy probably wasn't intended, relationships may have been very messy, the circumstances may have been totally traumatic, and some people may really need a way of doing things totally anonymously if they are to continue a pregnancy.

Being a donor is a voluntary, intentional action. It's quite different.

While I disagree with you, I do see your point. In a perfect world, donors (whether it's eggs, sperm, or a woman's body) wouldn't have a problem with being totally public about it, we're not there yet.

I wish I could have this kind of healthy debate more often, usually I see it degrade into name calling and "I'm right, you're wrong, stfu!" pack up my toys and leave kind of thing. :D

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm not a parent, and as I'm trying to decide whether or or not to reproduce or adopt or nothing, the discussion about the ethics of terminating a fetus with a diagnosis comes up an awful lot. I had a long response typed out, deleted it, then couldn't stop thinking about the topic, so here I am again.

Essentially, I don't think it's especially useful to compare things that might happen over the course of a lifetime, or what can't presently be screened for during gestation, to something like a potentially lethal genetic situation. Things like psych diagnoses, or criminality, or being in an accident are not guaranteed; a prenatal diagnosis like Trisomy 21/Down Syndrome makes some premises fairly certain, and it's up to the parent/s to decide if they can handle it with their resources. I don't know if the distance between prescreening for a potentially lethal gene and terminating a fetus with a duplicate chromosome is very wide, nor if it really matters.

It's possible this is a spot of shifting ethical sand due to changes in society and medicine--a generation or two ago, Down Syndrome children were institutionalized, a few generations before that, they probably did not have a very long life due to the constellation of problems that a baby like Gammy is facing, including heart problems. They might have been considered special, or cursed, or caught in any other web of cultural meaning. I really don't think that the average person choosing to terminate a pregnancy with a diagnosis also thinks people with disabilities are unworthy of life, although that might seem like a paradox. I know it's not the same thing, but here's a clunky analogy: just because a person don't want to teach in a special needs classroom as a profession doesn't mean she thinks special needs kids don't deserve an education.

On topic: this whole situation is really messed up. I don't know who to believe, but a couple who hides in their house, not bathing and letting the RSPCA take their dog away doesn't sound like they're entirely on the up and up.

Preimplantation genetic screening means you test the embryos and select only the genetically healthy one. It's a legitimate option, IMHO, to avoid genetic and chromosomal disorders.

Otherwise, screening for DS involves a combination of screens to select those who are at higher risk. A definitive diagnosis usually requires amniocentesis, which is somewhat invasive and which poses a risk of miscarriage. You can't do the amnio until the second trimester. By the time the results are in, the pregnancy is often beginning to show and it may even be possible to feel kicks (according to my mom, who went through this). Aborting at that stage is going to feel far different from merely selecting one embryo over another.

[twinmama]

I rarely say stuff like this - but if anyone is 100% sure that they do not want to raise a developmentally disabled child, then perhaps they shouldn't have kids at all.

Yes, it is possible to screen for Down Syndrome, although the screening is not 100% foolproof. If it's that important to avoid a specific condition, preimplantation screening makes sense.

Down Syndrome, however, is just one potential cause of disability. Simply put, it is absolutely impossible to screen for everything and guarantee yourself a perfectly healthy child, free of any disability. Autism is relatively common, and there is no screening test for it. You can have a child with a psychiatric diagnosis, and there is no prenatal screening for that. Your child may have a brain injury, or meningitis. If you are sure that you would never be able to love, accept and care for a child with challenges, then don't bring a child into the world at all because you have no way of knowing that your child would be healthy and neuro-typical, and rejecting your own child because they are not perfect in your eyes is a totally shitty thing to do.

I think a lot of people see a big difference between things afflicting your child before they are here and things afflicting your child after they are here. Some people may not be comfortable bringing a child into the world who is already at a disadvantage with some condition; but a child who later is diagnosed is a different story.

I always said I would consider terminating a pregnancy diagnosed with certain conditions (never had to make the choice so it was all theoretical), but when my actual kids were born 11 weeks early the ONLY thing that mattered to me was that they live. I didn't care one iota if they had CP or any other prematurity related diagnosis.

[kamcho_papio]

Preimplantation genetic screening means you test the embryos and select only the genetically healthy one. It's a legitimate option, IMHO, to avoid genetic and chromosomal disorders.

Otherwise, screening for DS involves a combination of screens to select those who are at higher risk. A definitive diagnosis usually requires amniocentesis, which is somewhat invasive and which poses a risk of miscarriage. You can't do the amnio until the second trimester. By the time the results are in, the pregnancy is often beginning to show and it may even be possible to feel kicks (according to my mom, who went through this). Aborting at that stage is going to feel far different from merely selecting one embryo over another.

I know and understand the technical differences and can appreciate why someone might balk at the terminating a pregnancy but totally support screening zygotes. Cerebrally, though, it seems the end result is the same: determining that a physical (and perhaps intellectual) condition is a decision-making axis. The method by which each is applied seems to have different emotional and ethical resonance, although clearly this is a highly personal choice. I also wonder, abstractly, is what would happen if something like DS and Tay-Sachs were reversed, with TSD not diagnosable until the second trimester, but a fetus with trisomy 21 easily detected before implantation. Would that affect how people felt about the situation? Obviously, it's an unanswerable question, but in context of willingness or unwillingness to terminate, and the legality of doing so, it's something that crossed my mind.

FWIW, I think both decisions--pre-screening and post-first trimester termination--are legitimate, as are choosing to not screen or test, or carry on with a result that would devastate others. I also respect people's choices to not test for something like Huntington's or BRCA2, etc.

Regarding this case, I really have no idea what to believe.

[DaffyDill]

Interview with baby Gammys Aussie parents. Awful, sickening and upsetting television. The convicted paedophile father came across as creepy and manipulative and full of self pity. The baby girl needs to be taken from that home sooner rather than later, methinks...

Just terribly upsetting :(

Link to news report on interview:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv ... 2701987102

Link to 60 Minutes Australia site and video of interview:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/ Not sure if those from overseas can access this or not...

Edit: spelling

[flubber]

Interview with baby Gammys Aussie parents. Awful, sickening and upsetting television. The convicted paedophile father came across as creepy and manipulative and full of self pity. The baby girl needs to be taken from that home sooner rather than later, methinks...

Just terribly upsetting :(

Link to news report on interview:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv ... 2701987102

Link to 60 Minutes Australia site and video of interview:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/ Not sure if those from overseas can access this or not...

Edit: spelling

I only caught the little preview on the news. But totally agree. It seems well rehearsed on the parent's part. The mother struck me as desperate to get her 'lines' in. And something about the way he calls her 'our girl' not by name seemed odd.

Wonder what his ex-wife has to say about him

[Blahblah]

That whole interview was just odd. The weird fake-looking tears, the way that Gammy was referred to as "the" boy (why not "our" boy, or better still, as Gammy?).

And some of the answers were just non-answers, eg when he was trying to explain why they "had to" leave the country?

And a question for those who know about such things: They claimed to have tried IVF for 8 years. Do IVF providers screen prospective parents for sex offender status?

[utter solitude]

I may have missed a post, but what exactly caused the sex offender status? Was it recent?

[DaffyDill]

I may have missed a post, but what exactly caused the sex offender status? Was it recent?

It was more than one offence, and over a few years in the mid to late eighties. Pretty scary to think has now been able to purchase another potental victim.

Court documents released by the Supreme Court of Western Australia reveal that David Farnell, the father of Gammy, assaulted two girls aged seven to ten in 1982 and 1983 at his home and during "secretive meetings" in his garden shed.

He then committed further offences against a five-year-old girl from 1988 to 1992. The identities of the three girls were not released but he appeared to know each of them.

[utter solitude]

It was more than one offence, and over a few years in the mid to late eighties. Pretty scary to think has now been able to purchase another potental victim.

.......Holy Christ!

[DaffyDill]

The reporter actually asked something like "Given your prediliction for young girls, are you certain that is not the reason why you brought the little girl home and left your son?". That question really seemed to knock the stuffing out of him, he may not have expected such direct questions. She really did a good job of asking the hard questions and didn't really give him any wriggle room.

It's pretty sad when the reporter seems to have more genuine concern for the welfare of the babies than the supposed parents.

[laura oz]

They lied their faces off. Goddamnit! They should have NEVER been allowed to have children, especially a little girl. I'm horrified, shocked, pissed, and I just want to shake the people that run the agency until their eyes roll. They either are too dumb to operate a business like this and have no idea what they're doing, or they're too greedy to give much of a damn about supplying a pedophile with potential victims. Fucking fucketty fuck fuck fuck.

[ILikePie]

Although Gammy's biological parents are definitely at fault for leaving him behind, his surrogate mother is by no means an angel either:

coloradonewsday.com/news/regional/72152-inside-the-life-of-gammy-s-birth-mother-behind-the-surrogacy-row.html

I nevertheless hope that he's well taken care of and that his mother isn't just using him as a tool for money and publicity.

[Cheetah]

Interview with baby Gammys Aussie parents. Awful, sickening and upsetting television. The convicted paedophile father came across as creepy and manipulative and full of self pity. The baby girl needs to be taken from that home sooner rather than later, methinks...

Just terribly upsetting :(

Link to news report on interview:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv ... 2701987102

Link to 60 Minutes Australia site and video of interview:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/ Not sure if those from overseas can access this or not...

Edit: spelling

Thanks for the link... I'm watching this now (in the US, so it will work here). Ooh, these people are awful. They've been justifying their actions to themselves for a long time now. The father reminds me of my MIL when she's being really annoying (she's a nice person most of the time, but gets emotional and can't handle criticism).

[Cheetah]

This dad is a psychopath. The interviewer is fantastic... I'm paraphrasing but she's totally calling him on his lack of remorse for his sex crimes (this was noted by the judge). And then she asks him when he finally felt remorseful and he said when he became a parent, and she reminds him that he was already a parent when he offended and why didn't that seem to have mattered.

[Cheetah]

One more from me (almost at the end of this interview)... the dad is now talking about how hard he tried to rehabilitate himself because "people hate sex offenders more than anyone else" and he "wants people to see that he's a good person" (again, paraphrasing)...so it's really about how other people see him, rather than about him wanting to do what's right or not harm others....

(ooh, and now the very end, and one last comparison to my MIL... he's breaking down in the same, "you are making me feel so terrible and I can't possibly handle the stress of being accused of what I really did" way)

[It'sFunToRun]

This dad is a psychopath. The interviewer is fantastic... I'm paraphrasing but she's totally calling him on his lack of remorse for his sex crimes (this was noted by the judge). And then she asks him when he finally felt remorseful and he said when he became a parent, and she reminds him that he was already a parent when he offended and why didn't that seem to have mattered.

The news would be a better thing if all interviewers had balls like hers. In the US it's like everybody has to be everyone's friend, even when they're interviewing a mass murderer or dictator.