Surrogacy awards for professional and health services are problematic in the surrogacy world.

Surrogacy awards may seem like a nice way to recognise the work of people in the industry and community, but it comes at the cost of integrity.

When the community sees a service or professional receiving a surrogacy award, they may assume that the award was based on credible criteria and that the nominees, finalists and winners have established themselves as leaders in their industry.

But what if the awards have no credibility, or accountability, or even clear criteria? And who are the judges – what are their qualifications in this industry, in health services?

Most industry awards are just a marketing tool.

In the health industry, which includes fertility professionals and clinics, there are prohibitions on advertising anything that is false, misleading or uses testimonials and endorsements, or that lacks acceptable evidence to support the claim. Health services and practitioners may be found to breach AHPRA National Laws which restrict advertising awards. According to AHPRA, advertising can cause harm to the public, and services have a responsibility to take steps to prevent this from happening.

Accepting a nomination or award as ‘fertility specialist of the year,’ or ‘hospital of the year’ breaches the National Laws.

The community deserves better. When they see a service advertise an award nomination calling for public votes to support their nomination, or announce themselves as an award winner, it should be clear what the service did to receive the award. What makes a service ‘the best’ in the surrogacy industry, where there are less than 150 surrogacy births a year across the country? And who decides – people with no experience of surrogacy, or of fertility and healthcare?

And what about other nominees? Why are Australian services standing alongside international surrogacy providers of questionable ethics and integrity? Some of those services offer commercial surrogacy, in countries with little to no regulation, despite commercial surrogacy being illegal in Australia.

What are we endorsing when we accept this as the standard for our practice?

Services and professionals need to ask more questions before accepting nominations and surrogacy awards. Questions such as  – what are the judging criteria? Who nominated us? What was said in the nomination? Who are the organisers and the judges – what are their qualifications? How are the finalists and winners judged and determined?

There must be critical engagement by the profession. Professionals jeopardise the integrity and reputation of their skills, expertise and experience, which in turn lowers community expectations of us.

The industry, professionals – clinicians, health practitioners, lawyers and psychosocial professionals – need to hold the industry to account. Surrogates, intended parents, donors and the people born through fertility treatment – deserve integrity and ethics in the services supporting them.

While professions are regulated in Australia, the surrogacy industry is not. Consumers – patients and clients – are at the risk of the industry who seeks to profit from their goodwill and desperation. We need better regulation of the industry, to ensure standards and licensing of services that operate in this space.

The community might be interested in what makes a good quality service provider. While the fertility industry is self-regulated, word of mouth recommendations which are not tied to mutual benefits or conflicts of interest are the best way for people to find providers who will put their needs above their financial interests.