Category Archive

By Tina

Being a surrogate was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. But it put me in the position of having to make some difficult decisions – like facing the possibility of becoming pregnant with multiples and facing the issue of selective reduction.

Last year, the Washington Post, in an article titled “Too Much to Carry,” explained why selective reduction is used and how high-risk multiple pregnancies can be difficult for some women. It also told what the couples went through in choosing selective reduction, a decision that does not come lightly.

I’m not getting into the abortion debate. That is not what this is about. It is about the surrogate knowing her medical risks when carrying multiples. Remember: This is not just about the parents-to-be, it’s also about the surrogate and her health, her family and the lives she is carrying.

In these types of in vitro situations, multiples easily occur. Surrogates need to know what their bodies can handle before agreeing to carry someone else’s child – or children.

I told my intended parents that I was willing to carry twins but would do selective reduction if triplets resulted from the egg transplantation. Before making this decision, I consulted with my doctor to understand my physical limitations and risks. I was told I was too small to carry three babies to term. It would be too risky for the babies and me. (If it were up to me, I would have carried multiples.) Luckily, I got pregnant with twins and did not have to face this decision (phew!).

Discussing selective reduction is not easy. It must be discussed carefully and candidly and specified legally (read: put it in a contract) before anyone enters into any surrogacy relationship. The couple I helped was very understanding of my choice to selectively reduce if the situation called for it.

I know that selective reduction is not for everyone. It wasn’t something I would have considered, but in my case, the medical risks were too great.

How do others feel about selective reduction? If you’ve been a surrogate or an intended parent, how did you handle this issue?

By Erika

Some women are afraid to donate their eggs more than once. Not me. Guidelines by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) suggest a limit of six donation cycles. That’s how many times I’ve done it. I found the process very simple, and since my last donation in 2007, I haven’t yet experienced any side effects or physical trauma.

I’ve worked with Alternative Reproductive Resources (ARR) throughout. It follows the ASRM’s guidelines and won’t allow women to donate their eggs more than six times. I appreciate that limits are placed. You never know what kind of new information or research will surface in the years ahead. I believe that by putting a limit on donations, we are offsetting the risk of future medical complications.

A recent ABC News article on a woman who donated more than 12 times, suggested that she may have put her health at risk by doing so. I wonder if she was aware of the risks and the ASRM guidelines. I hope she doesn’t pay the price.

If you are considering donating your eggs, do your homework and know your medical history. Make sure you work with an agency that follows ASRM guidelines. ARR also has a code of ethics, which made me feel better about my decision to donate as often as I did.

By Robin von Halle

There’s a reason to go with a reputable agency that specializes in matching egg donors and gestational surrogates to those who are unable to bear children through traditional means. Services go beyond vetting candidates to make sure they’re on the up and up and emotionally equipped for the job. We also bring in experts to guide intended parents and donors and surrogates through the complex legal and psychological issues.

The importance of this role has been brought home through news coverage in recent months of heartbreaking situations that have arisen when couples have followed a do-it-yourself path.

Back in October, the Today Show did a story on Tom and Gwyn Lamitina, a Florida couple who fought for but lost custody of their daughter who was born by a surrogate they had hired who decided to keep the baby. Since then, the couple has filed a civil case accusing the surrogate mother of fraud – saying she produced a “litany of lies and dreadful acts of deceit.”

Two months later FOX News told the story of a South Carolina woman accused of promising couples she would be their surrogate – who exploited at least six people out of $14,000.

An agency with a proven track record and references supporting it will help intended parents offset the risks that can be involved with this process. The good ones will provide psychological screening of surrogates, legal representation for all parties and a support system for all those involved.

Caveat emptor is, unfortunately, the operative phrase when people show no qualms to take advantage of couples who are desperate to create families, leaving them financially strung out and without a child.

By Robin von Halle

Are you a 5′9” or taller Caucasian female, who is between 18 and 30 years of age, very attractive, college educated and athletic with no genetic medical issues? If so, an ad in the Stanford University Daily promises to pay you $100,000 for an egg donation.

Frankly, I’d find such advertising amusing if it didn’t cross a dangerous ethical line - treating human life like a commodity. No wonder some people think we’re in the business of selling “designer genes.”

When agencies compensate egg donors based on SAT scores, athletic trophies and beauty pageants, it sends a negative message about fertility practices. That’s why we at ARR felt it was so important to adopt a code of ethics and to promote that code on behalf of our entire industry.

Our code of ethics calls for compensating egg donors and gestational surrogates solely for their time, effort and inconvenience, in keeping with the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines. There are no premiums for blue eyes or Ivy League degrees.

We hope others in our industry will join us by embracing similar ethical standards. The world should know we’re in the business of helping build families, not auctioning off genetic matter to the highest bidder.

By Mary Ellen McLaughlin

If egg donors weren’t compensated, the whole business of assisted reproductive technology would be a shadow of where it is today. “No one would [donate eggs] for free,” one donor told a writer with MSNBC. “Maybe for your sister, but not for a stranger.”

That’s exactly what I’ve found in 15 years of working with egg donors for ARR. For many of our donors, altruism plays a critical role in their decision. Many have witnessed, first hand, the infertility of a friend or family member. But few would donate without compensation unless it was for someone she knew.

That doesn’t mean we condone the practice by some agencies of promising enormous amounts of money to egg donors.

Compensation to egg donors is intended to reflect the time and inconvenience the process entails. Our donors undergo a lengthy screening process, medical evaluations, hormone injections and an outpatient surgical procedure to retrieve the eggs. Compensation should not be intended or viewed as a bonus for good looks, brains and athletic prowess (and providing such genetics to the highest bidder), but to reflect a process that’s a lot more complicated and, often, uncomfortable, than people realize.

Without compensation, families would be far more limited in their options, as they are in Germany and Italy, where egg donation and surrogacy are illegal. When compensation is fair, both donors and recipients can benefit.

By Robin von Halle

I wasn’t sure I was hearing the prospective client right, so I repeated what I thought I’d heard back to her: “You want us to find a surrogate to have your child, not because you can’t have one yourself, but because you’re too busy with your job to undertake a pregnancy yourself?”

Indeed, I was hearing her right and was no less astounded at the words coming out of my mouth as I was when they came from hers. This woman wanted a child created from a no muss, no fuss pregnancy. That meant someone else doing all the heavy lifting (and carrying).

It’s not the first such request we’ve gotten. We also recently turned down another woman who was looking at surrogacy as a happy alternative to losing her figure. And we recently read in People of former dance-pop star Taylor Dayne’s single parenthood through surrogacy (”Some women love being pregnant, but I didn’t need that.”).

When we turn such people down, they inevitably fail to appreciate our philosophy, which we underscore in our code of ethics. It isn’t the money issue, but that our donors and surrogates are a valuable - and valued - commodity. Our agency partners with them to help those who have no other viable options. Not to facilitate vanity pregnancies.

By Robin von Halle

Sorry, but I am tired of Alexis Stewart (yes, Martha’s daughter) and her wearying quest to have a baby. Anyone who has fought this battle - and we deal with many of you every day - has got to be a bit tired of her attitude. As recounted by People and bemoaned with Oprah, she considers it a “chore” to undergo the daily regimen of shots and treatments designed to reinvigorate her “crusty” eggs - at the princely sum of $28,000 a month (thanks Mom!). She also declines to go through in-vitro solutions (which would allow her to use donated eggs that haven’t acquired that same crust), wanting a child of her blood. Think about it: For the amount she’s spent in what’s so far been a fruitless effort, dozens of women less fortunate and without her financial resources could have established families.