A Venture Capitalist Goes to Extremes to Punish Her Surrogate

> how much control does someone typically have over a surrogate during the pregnancy?

The original article makes it clear: The product is fully controlled all the way to "The Island" [1]

And that is achieved not by direct legislation but by the lack of it. That lack is filled by contract law and an expensive, convoluted legal system which puts the surrogates in a precariously vulnerable position.

>> tuckerman: Very little [control], ultimately the healthcare the surrogate is receiving is _her_ healthcare.

That means, if something goes wrong the surrogates are stuck with med bills too, in addition to the legal ones.

[1] "The Island" 2005, recommended viewing, the movie might be available on big tube.

> how much control does someone typically have over a surrogate during the pregnancy

Very little, ultimately the healthcare the surrogate is receiving is _her_ healthcare.

> what are you supposed to do in the event a surrogate has irreparable harm

These things are spelled out in the contract that the IPs have with their surrogate. Both things you mention are specifically called in our contract and the agency/IPs usually have insurance to cover these cases.

Source: I had my son through surrogacy

It’s an interesting tale of what happens when you have enough wealth to insulate you from the insane decisions that a manic episode can generate. An ‘average’ person pursuing this sort of harassment campaign would end up institutionalized, at least temporarily. They would at least have someone tell them straight up that they need help, something this woman has probably never had to face (at least since being wealthy)

I feel bad for this woman, she’s trapped in a manic prison by having enough wealth to turn everyone into enablers. I’ve seen active mania and how it affects decision making and the perception of reality in the people suffering under it. I’d much prefer a lack of guardrails nudging me towards treatment instead of wealth enabling me to engage in a public campaign of harassment.

Sometimes a lack of consequences is more debilitating than facing the consequences of your actions, if facing those consequences can set you on a better path, something I’ve learned from personal experience with chemical addiction. I used to do a lot of drugs, and so did Zappos founder Tony Hsieh. The main difference between him and I is that I eventually ran out of money and had people attempt to talk some sense into me instead of enabling me to death, something which I am very thankful for today.

This story sounds like the worst consequence of American liberalism and capitalism in one.

This would be a hit TV show on par with Baby Reindeer, if it was ever televised.

Absolutely. It was escalating through the story, but this paragraph nailed it:

> She also hired psychics to give her answers. As she tells it, they all blamed Smith. One suggested that an ex-boyfriend of Smith’s had turned her against Baby Leon. Another claimed to see traumas on Smith’s belly and said she was clearly having rough sex. He warned: “She has something to hide.” When Smith refused to release her medical records unless nonpregnancy information was redacted, Bi saw it as confirmation that Smith was hiding crucial details.

What in living fuck do psychics have to do with a surrogacy process?

Also, this:

> SAI countered that there was “no documented bleed” on the date in question but clarified that there was “some light pink fluid which the doctor was not concerned about.” SAI said Smith asked the doctors to tell Bi directly, and that the contract gave Smith two weeks to tell Bi. “That’s emergency information,” Bi said. “She should have told me right away.”

You're going to have a hard time convincing a court that an obstetrician noted, and was unconcerned about something but that you believe it was "emergency information".

> If Bi had been told, she believed that Leon would be alive. She would’ve insisted on a C-section immediately.

A layperson insisting on a C-section at what would have been ... 27-28 weeks gestation? Where viability is ~70% at best? There's so much to poke at there. Ostensibly, Bi had a contract with the surrogacy agency that "guaranteed" a "well baby". One, who writes that contract? And seems to me the mere act of "insisting" on a C-section (which let's also be clear, has a risk to the mother, though lower) at that gestation would be at odds with any "guarantees".