Eight Isn't Enough?

In their roles as harried parents, Dick Van Patten and Betty Buckley illustrated the point that eight is, indeed, enough! But in a “life imitating art” irony, Nadya Suleman, the mother of new octuplets is trying to prove that fourteen is just fine. And a fire storm of controversy has resulted with closer looks at the mother, Dr. Michael Kamrava (her fertility doctor), and the perception of an unalienable right to bear children. Wow! My plate is full on this one, but here goes...

First of all,the doctor: While Dr. Kamrava may have exceeded guidelines, there is no law broken on his part. The fertility doctor and the patient basically come to an agreement on how to proceed and that, basically, is that. Insurance companies have no say because such procedures are not covered.

The mother: Nadya already has six children. Three of them receive disability payments. The family qualifies and receives food stamps. Additionally, she has amassed $50,000 of student loans and hospital bills from the birth and care of her octuplets are running into six-figure amounts.

The ethics: There appears to be little debate over the fact that Ms Suleman has a warped and exaggerated view of motherhood. Her passion has crossed the line into the state of zealotry. Now, if she were zealous over stamp collecting and amassed an unbelievably large collection of same, no one would notice because stamps require little attention and are self-sufficient in that they simply lay upon a page. But kids are something else altogether. They require care, feeding, attention and the associated financial wherewithal. Children should not be amassed to satisfy the needs of the parent. Rather they should be considered an adjunct to the human condition and brought into this world only when and if the means are present to properly support them. In light of her current financial challenges, it is doubtful that Nadya will be able to support her family without additional and continued assistance from social programs.

Dr. Kamrava is under scrutiny for unethical behavior. Tell me what “ethical” would be in this case? Six embryos? Four? Two? One could make the argument that, in light of the six young’uns already in the family, “none” might be the best response.

And that brings us to the “right” bear children. Granted, this right exists much like the right to buy a dog, a cat, a horse, or any other living thing. But with that right comes the responsibility to provide proper care and funding. Animals that are not treated properly become wards of the local SPCA. Children are unique, though, and rightfully so. Our society claims nothing supersedes the mother and child connection. Hence, numerous social programs exist to ensure moms and kidlets stay together.

There are too many unfortunate parents who fall on unforeseen hard times and need society’s help to continue caring for children born during better times. Aid to Dependent Children, food stamps, and such are designed to provide this support. But when a child is introduced to the world in a family already disadvantaged, should similar programs reach out and offer assistance? Doesn’t parental responsibility begin at conception? If I’m unemployed and have no visible means of support, why the hell am I compounding my problems with a newborn? Conversely, if I’ve the means and desire to have an exceedingly large family, more power to me. It is none of society’s business because I’m not asking society to help me raise my brood. And herein lies the rub with Ms Suleman.

I risk public hanging in making the proposal of asking would-be parents to explore their abilities to raise a child before exercising their right to bear that child. Otherwise, should public funding be required, the public should have the ability to raise the baby through adoption, foster homes,or the like. There should be a limited time frame in which the parents are given an opportunity to get back on their feet, but if they are unable (or unwilling) to do so, their children are made available to those more prepared for the rigors of parenthood. And forget about fertility treatments for those receiving benefits of any kind...especially benefits for existing children.