She had to surrender the baby? Sounds more like a Handmaid's Tale story.
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
102 points (100.0% liked)
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
2613 readers
198 users here now
Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
For me it sounds like an error, not a conspiracy.
Must be hell though.
It's an error, but one that 100% should not have happened. Traceability of embryos and donor materials is a huge deal in the IVF world for a number of reasons, including avoiding scenarios like this.
I'd be curious what the results of root cause investigation would yield. IVF practices is one of the reasons I find the current U.S. government fuckery with the FDA chilling (aside from, ya know, stuff like food safety). What little oversight there is in that industry is at risk. Imagine this scenario, but with HIV positive materials. Ugh.
I didn't say it's okay for it to happen. It sure is not.
I said it's not a conspiracy.
Oh, for sure - didn't mean it as if you did, and apologies if my comment was interpreted that way. Meant to lend more emphasis to the it was an error bit.
This does beg the question for me, what actually determines who a baby's legal parents are? I would imagine that in a proper surrogacy situation, there would be some legal agreement signed beforehand, but obviously there wouldn't be in this case since the situation wasn't intended. Is it based on genetics, or whoever the baby was born to (for the mother at least)? I can think of rare edge cases for both of those that might make the matter confusing. This seems to support the former since the woman involved had to give the baby up, but the article seems to suggest that she simply settled the paternity suit rather than being ruled against.
You are correct that there is an agreement signed beforehand. There is also usually an escape clause covering what happens if the surrogate refuses to give up the baby.
Yeah that's just so broadly negligent. I hope her lawsuit puts them out of business after paying her through the nose for all the completely unwarranted trauma.