PRE-CHIL­DREN’S ACT

Finweek English Edition - - INSIGHT: LOCAL -

Ter­tia Al­ber­tyn, founder of Nur­ture, an egg donor agency, says that be­fore the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Chil­dren’s Act, Nur­ture fa­cil­i­tated com­mer­cial sur­ro­gacy ar­range­ments. “We had ap­pli­ca­tions for sur­ro­gate moms that charged any­thing from be­tween R50 000 to R500 000. But we only chose sur­ro­gate moms that charged from R80 000 to R120 000 be­cause we didn’t feel it was eth­i­cal to be charging so much,” she says.

The com­mer­cial sur­ro­gacy money cov­ered all out-of-pocket ex­penses, monthly liv­ing al­lowance and a fee to the woman for be­ing a sur­ro­gate. Fried­man ex­plains: “Com­mer­cial sur­ro­gacy was def­i­nitely hap­pen­ing be­fore. But I think your mean av­er­age was prob­a­bly around R80 000 a year, paid in monthly in­stal­ments,”

Adds Blank: “Be­fore [the 2005 Chil­dren’s Act] a sur­ro­gate mom and cou­ple could sit down and dis­cuss how much they wanted to get paid and then they got paid up to R300 000 to carry some­body’s baby, some­times more. They may have got­ten in­cen­tives like cars, rental or what­ever the case may be.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.