Surrogacy a boon

The law definitely needs tightening up to prevent tragedies like this. However, I was very disturbed by her comment that "What we can't have, we must do without." This implies that all infertile couples should accept their lot and be denied access to fertility treatment.

Of the millions of infertile couples, very few would resort to surrogacy. It is a last desperate resort and the majority of infertile people would stop short of it. Thousands, however, myself included, have been able to have children who are very much loved and wanted, through treatments like IVF.

I suspect that Mrs Gibson has children. If so, she cannot fully understand the pain that infertility can cause. If, in fact, she is unintentionally childless, I must congratulate her on her philosophical attitude to her fate.

I am aware from previous correspondence, though, that she is from a generation which had no choice but to accept infertility, though adoption was far easier than it is today. It is time people realised that infertility is a medical problem like any other. We are lucky today to have operations and treatments which can, in some instances, restore fertility.

It is easy for the older generation to condemn younger couples for using this technology which was unavailable to them.

But they should not forget that medicine has advanced dramatically in many areas and I do not hear our senior citizens stating "what we can't have, we'll do without" when it comes to treatments which can now put right damage due to age and improve their quality of life.

But, in many cases, infertility is due to a disorder of the reproductive organs, which can be put right. So why on earth shouldn't it be treated in the same way as any other malfunctioning organ of the body would be when it is possible?

Name and address received

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.