Interesting Article About Octomom
As a follow-up to Sarah’s post from a few weeks ago about the octomom, a Post-Dispatch columnist has a nice article today that asks some good questions. I am the first to admit I don’t know the answers. I don’t like the idea of laws controlling this situation, but I could be persuaded. Most importantly, people need to understand how they will be condemned and ostracized by others when they do things like implant multiple embryos as part of fertility treatments into a woman who already has six children. The doctor is as much to blame here as the woman. And, because media interviews conducted since Sarah’s initial post indicate that this woman appears to be nuts, the state should probably play a role in monitoring the children. It will already be paying for the next 18 years of their lives. …
“Most importantly, people need to understand how they will be condemned and ostracized by others when they do things like implant multiple embryos as part of fertility treatments into a woman who already has six children.”
I think John Stuart Mill would not approve. It’s not good for our society when anyone who does something kind of stupid and out of the ordinary is turned into an object of national hate. What about the people who naturally have 14 kids? Should they also be scrutinized like this?
I agree the doctor and mother don’t sound like the most responsible people out there, but this doesn’t come close to the terrible things some people do to endanger their children. Everyone is up and arms about someone who is nutty and maybe has the potential to be abusive. Where’s the outcry over parents who already have abused their kids? Is each one of their faces plastered all over the news?
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — March 2, 2009 @ 4:05 p.m.
And is that really what you mean? What if they implant two embryos–that would be multiple–for a woman who already has six children, and the ability to provide for them? Is that also beyond the pale?
I’ve met healthy, happy people for thirteen-children families. Not everyone can afford that lifestyle, but the ones who can don’t need our country’s collective wrath directed at them.
Comment by Sarah Brodsky — March 2, 2009 @ 4:19 p.m.
In the absence of a federal and state safety net incentivizing single-motherhood, there is reason to believe that we would have local support from churches, community organizations, etc. The problem of providing for the needy faces adverse selection. Instead of helping the unfortunate, you help the opportunistic. When decisions about who gets help are made on a local level, more discretion is possible.
I agree with Sarah that a law forbidding multiple embryos is bad, because some people with the means to support multiple children may wish to have them. This woman is exactly the kind of outlier that the current perverse incentives produce.
An argument could be made that given the current system, we won’t get local support and we can’t get rid of federal and state support, therefore we must regulate to prevent this stuff. I do not agree for a number of reasons.
Comment by Josh Smith — March 3, 2009 @ 9:54 a.m.
I don’t think we’re getting to the point here, to the bottom line of the community’s outrage. No one blames Suleman for having 6 embryos implanted when she already had six children at home, no one blames her for having 14 kids total (the Duggards have 18), no one really blames her either for her love of children and her desperate desire to have a large family, being a unique child herself, no one blames her for any of that, her actions being totally legal and fully reflecting the total expression of her rights and freedom in a capitalistic democracy. But, what concerns people, what enrages people (and Oprah said it to Nadya’s dad who was her guest at the show last week) is that her expression of freedom and liberty to do whatever pleases her is impacting her community/state, at least financially, because you find yourself paying to raise Nadya’s 14 children. Those children will be raised by taxpayer dollars, and that’s what generates the death threats, because it’s a bold move that is completely irresponsible for a sound mind that has a clear view of the current economic situation. It’s one thing to be Jim Bob Duggard and have 18 children. He can afford it with his wife. It’s another thing to be Nadya Suleman, single mom with six children (one of them with autism and two others with other disabilities), unemployed, living on disability payments with your mom (in a house scheduled to be foreclosed on in May), and having 8 more…her argument? Those are my children, those are God-given … ouaouh!!! Give me a break. Was it also God’s will when you walked in that clinic and decided to get those embryos, knowing clearly what the outcome could be? How convenient to suddenly think of God. And now, there’s a donation site for people to give money, and help you raise them, when in fact the money will be for your pedicure/manicure…
I am not a proponent for a limitation on how many children a person is allowed to have, I just don’t think it’s fair to those children to bring them here if you’re not going to be able to provide them with decent care. And this, she certainly cannot do right now. Her own parents are questioning her mental soundness. The truth is: California taxpayers will have the burden to raise those children. That’s where the debate starts. Some people just see it as a worthless venture, as it shouldn’t even have happened, and justly so. Sadly, another case where law and ethics are completely unparallel.
Comment by Clovis Ouangraoua — March 3, 2009 @ 10:46 a.m.
Here’s a simple solution that does not impede on anyone ELSE’S right — it’s called CONSERVATORSHIP. What a Conservatorship does is appoint a court selected Guardian Ad Litem to take control of all financial assets that this woman is receiving currently (disability, welfare, tabloids) and administer those funds through the courts in the best interest of the children. This woman does not appear to be thinking of them in this whole brouhaha since she’s turned down trained nurses for 24-hour specialized healthcare and housing until these children are medically strong enough to survive (why? Because they would deny the media access to the babies while they are under the care of trained medical specialists [i.e., the best interest of the children… but alas, no money for momma]). This would not impede on anyone else’s rights… only Nadya’s until she can demonstrate to the courts that she is mentally sound, stable, and looking out for the best interest of her children (which it does not appear is the current situation for a number of reasons). For this woman to even use $1 to get her nails done or to inseminate herself with a litter of embryos while receiving government money should be criminal and is a clear abuse of the system that was set up to assist the poor (not provide a means of income). I truly hope her story becomes one that places her squarely at the center of the poster board for Welfare Reform! This is a clear example of this country’s need to clean it up!
Comment by TRo — March 3, 2009 @ 12:12 p.m.