Follow Me on Facebook

 

February 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
BlogWithIntegrity.com

Babies as Commodities: Will the Suleman Octuplets Be the Next Dionnes?

In a dark chapter of Canadian history, the Dionne quintuplets were a more popular tourist attraction than Niagara Falls.  Back in 1934, the first known surviving quintuplets involved no reproductive technology – ethical or unethical.  The Dionne girls were the product of one egg, fertilized during sexual intercourse, splitting into five embryos.  What happened after they were born was a different matter and this is where the parallel to the Suleman octuplets begins.

The Dionnes were poor uneducated farmers who already struggled to support their five living older children (a sixth had died).  The Ontario government made the Dionne girls wards of the state and put a staff in charge of their care, which, in accord with the science of the day, meant isolation from germs, including those which might be carried by the girls' mother with whom they were allowed minimal contact.

Back to the Sulemans. If you want to find criticism of how these children came to be, it is everywhere. I too will watch the investigation of the fertility specialist who implanted all of these fertilized eggs and the medical specialty now scrambling to prove it can police itself.  Nadya Suleman chose to have all of these children while the Dionnes did not.  But the Suleman children did not chose how they were made any more than the Dionne girls did.  And the Suleman children will not be able to control the way they may now be exploited any more than the Dionne girls could.

Looking at The Suleman Family Website [available in the morning of 2/16, by evening this site was down]  and reading about public relations reps. and reality shows, I am reminded of Quintland.  Between 1934 and 1943, an estimated three million tourists visited this Depression-era theme park in northern Ontario where these five little girls lived on display like zoo animals.  The Ontario government and local business made a half billion dollars from this circus, little of which came to the girls.  When, after nine years of litigation, the girls were returned to their family, they were sexually abused by their father who also marketed products with their name and image.  Still the public was more interested in owning a Dionne Quintuplet doll, than protecting the Dionne girls themselves.

The Dionne quintuplets should serve as a cautionary tale but fetishizing multiples continues.  Not lost on the surviving Dionnes themselves, they wrote an "Open Letter" in 1997 to the parents of another set of multiples.  It is a document which should be read by Nadya Suleman, and the Duggers, and Jon & Kate.  It is a plea from three old women whose lives, and those of the two sisters who predeceased them, were destroyed by the greed and prurience of family and community:

Multiple births should not be confused with entertainment, nor should they be an opportunity to sell products.

Now, who should be responsible for taking care of the Suleman children?  We all should, just as we all should be responsible for all children.  But there are people who bear a greater responsibility for these fourteen kids (yes, I mean all of Nadya's children) than I do and I think they should be ahead of me in line when the orthodontia bill needs to be paid. Of course, Nadya herself, who somehow thought money and child care would fall from the heavens to maintain her baby habit. But behind her, let's put the man who provided the sperm if indeed he either supported or did not forbid its use to make all of these children. Let's follow the sperm donor with all the medical personnel who were involved in the implantations.  Why should any of these people be allowed to remain aloof from the consequences of their actions?  If you are going to play a role in creating a baby, you should change diapers, buy food, pay bills, schedule and attend doctors visits (I am guessing a lot of doctors' visits).  Any idea of the time commitment involved in occupational therapy alone?  I do.  Alot. Nadya Suleman has one autistic child.  How many of the newest eight will have special needs?

I don't condemn Nadya Suleman for having children without being married or having a mate.  I don't condemn her for being unemployed.  If she hadn't been unemployed before she had kids, she likely would have been either unemployed or underemployed after she had kids.  In the U.S. there is very little support (economic or other) for mothers. I will condemn her if she exploits her kids.

I condemn both her and the medical professionals who took her money for treating children like just one more thing you can buy.  The Suleman octuplets came into the world as commodities, sold to a compulsive shopper by greedy technicians more concerned with selling the product than the physical or psychological well-being of anyone involved.

How about now we turn our attention to making sure these children, and all children, are well cared for.  One way we can do that is by refusing to watch the reality show or buy the octuplet-endorsed diapers.  Just say no. Let's turn our attention to all mothers who need help supporting their children and discourage parents from supporting large families by selling them.  Babies aren't just more stuff.  And parents have to be something better than pimps.

Divorcing Gay Couples in California

I am not a huge fan of marriage.  Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I am not romantic about it.  It could be my family history – a long line of divorces stretching back to my great-grandparents.  It could be my understanding as a lawyer and an educated feminist that the legal history of marriage has been fraught with sexism – marriage has been a legal mechanism to deny women rights to property, to their children, and even to their bodies.  I was already a lawyer when state criminal laws were changed to allow rape charges to be brought against husbands – it is that recently that a woman was deemed to have consented to sexual intercourse simply by virtue of being married to the man who forced her to have sex.

But then in the late '80′s I began working with The AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania. The sudden death of so many gay men left many long time mates with no rights to the homes they lived in, to the bank accounts they had helped fill, to make critical medical decisions for the people they loved and with whom they had lived their lives.  I saw families that had long disowned their gay children step in and strip grieving survivors of property.  People were barred from the funerals of men who were their husbands in every way but under the law.

Marriage means different things to different people. It has religious significance to many.  It is a public statement of love, commitment, and an intention to be together forever.  Legally, it creates entitlement to property and the right to be "next of kin" with all the power that brings.  Why any two people get married is none of my business.  I get to decide whether I will marry and consider the implication of that decision on me, my property, and my children.  I can't fathom why anyone would think he or she has the right to make that decision for anyone else.

But, on March 5, 2009, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on who gets to make this decision in California. In case you've been napping, at issue is the legality of same-sex marriage in that state and of Proposition 8, an attempt to amend the state constitution to define marriage as only possible between a man and a woman.  More precisely the legal questions are:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

In the worst case outcome, the effect of the California Supreme Court's decision could be to "divorce" the 18,000 same-sex couples who married prior to the passage of Proposition 8 and prevent other same-sex couples from marrying.  The legal briefs and some official summaries of the cases can be found here.

Keeping in mind that I am not romantic about marriage, that I think who people love and have kids with and how people dispose of their property is just plain none of my business, take a look at this video made by the Courage Campaign. It moved me to want to fight even harder to ensure that everyone has the right to marry, and stay married, to the people they love.


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Salma Hayek Puts Another Woman’s Hungry Baby to Breast

I have been seeing offensive headlines about Salma Hayek for a few days. "Salma Hayek Feeds the World!"  It seems every time a celebrity makes a comment about breastfeeding – usually about losing weight – it generates more press than an embassy bombing.  When I realized that this story was about Hayek putting a starving African baby to her breast, it got my attention.

The video is an ABC News Nightline segment on Hayek's trip to Sierra Leone to promote a UNICEF/Proctor & Gamble joint project concerning tetanus vaccination in Africa.  Through much of the story, I have some questions and reservations.

Proctor & Gamble will "contribute" one tetanus vaccination (which, according to this report, costs seven cents) for each package of specially marked Pampers disposable diapers purchased.  Hmm, P & G hard up for cash? Instead of actually contributing, Proctor & Gamble will give a cut of its profits – a really tiny cut – if others buy its high priced brand of one of the primary sources of non-recyclable trash.

I wonder also which pharmaceutical company makes this vaccine and whether there are toxic contents.  I wonder what informed consent the women getting this vaccine receive – particularly given the disturbing bit of this clip in which Hayek herself is giving a women an injection (um … at least "do not try this at home"?).  There is mention also that there is medicine that could save these dying children but it is too expensive.  Hey, P & G, how about paying for the medicine for children who are already sick since vaccinating the mothers won't save these babies?

For the moment let me put aside concerns about how this project might increase disposable diaper use. I used some cloth but I admit I used mostly disposable diapers on my kids. Put aside my concerns about other effects of the vaccination.  Tetanus is a very easy disease to prevent when you have clean running water and disinfectant but, be forewarned, in this video clip you will see an infant die. Sierra Leone is a country in which many people do not have clean running water.  There is discussion of some regional practices which contribute to the transmission of tetanus (packing the umbilical cord with animal dung) that UNICEF is educating people against.

The last third of this video discusses the need for greater breastfeeding education among the people of Sierra Leone.  According to this story, UNICEF is encouraging women to breastfeed their babies for two years (yay!) and the babies' fathers are discouraging breastfeeding because they don't have sex with breastfeeding women.

It is this discussion that leads to a fascinating part of this segment.  Hayek picks up a crying infant (presumably with consent of its mother) and puts him to her breast.  Hayek then talks about sharing her year old daughter's milk with this tiny infant who needs it. The footage of this infant nursing with gusto at Hayek's breast is awe inspiring.

There is a lot wrong with this story. How is vaccinating mothers going to "eradicate" a disease babies are getting from dung and mud?  What lack of moral code leads Procter & Gamble to "promote the brand" before it gives seven frigging cents?  Where is the medicine for the children who actually have tetanus? But Hayek picking up a starving baby and feeding it at her full breast is absolutely right. I would do it in a heartbeat.  I hope every mother would.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=6804291&page=1

Mister Rogers Really Did Show Women Breastfeeding

For years I have been hearing that the late great Fred Rogers had shown breastfeeding on Mister Rogers Neighborhood.  As a life long fan of Mister Rogers, I wasn't surprised but I had doubts when I never saw the clip and was annoyed by years of bottle fed mammals on Sesame Street.  Had this really happened on the network of the formula fed muppet?

Thank you Tanya at Motherwear Breastfeeding Blog for leading me to this wonderful bit of history.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...