|
|
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Jennifer and Scott Spiegel are suing the hospital in which Ms. Spiegel gave birth because she was accidentally brought the wrong baby to breastfeed. I haven't found a copy of the legal Complaint seeking damages in excess of $30,000 for the couple, but in every interview with the Spiegels I can find there is no allegation that their baby was harmed in any way.
Switching babies is a serious matter. If babies are not properly identified, they can be given the wrong medication or sent home with the wrong family (lest we forget Kimberly Mays). All the more reason for babies to be born at home whenever possible and to room-in with their mothers when they are born in hospitals. And I believe that Jennifer Spiegel
was exhausted and worried. She wondered, "Was he with someone else? Where is he?"
If someone brought me the wrong baby, I would wonder whether my baby was with someone else. However it appears that baby Logan Spiegel was not harmed in this mix-up. Jennifer Spiegel was brought a baby other than her own son, breastfed him, the error was discovered, and Logan Spiegel (who was never nursed by anyone other than his own mother) spent the rest of the stay in his mother's room.
So where then is the damage?
Jennifer Spiegel says her obstetrician told her there was only a slim chance of the baby or her passing each other a disease or virus.
Let's examine that sentence for a moment. If we remove the part about her passing disease to the baby, would we still be talking about even a "slim chance"? Isn't the "slim chance" of disease transfer from her to the baby and not from the baby to her? And she is the one suing for damages?
But wait for it. The lawsuit needs to state the damage.
Jennifer Spiegel, a first-time mother, didn't sign up to feed another woman's child, the lawsuit says.
I'm trusting the Chicago Sun-Times for the phrasing. I really hope the Complaint doesn't really refer to breastfeeding as something one "signs up for."
What does seem clear from what is publicly available now is that this is a lawsuit about being damaged by nursing another woman's baby. And I find that offensive and implausible.
There was a mistake made here. One that had the potential to be quite harmful but in fact harmed no one. If there is an Illinois lawyer reading this, I would like to know what the state regulatory scheme does to hospitals that make such potentially harmful mistakes. But was Jennifer Spiegel damaged by having breastfed someone else's child? Or was her husband Scott, who appears to be both plaintiff and plaintiff's lawyer in this case (heads-up on that folks, when we lawyers represent ourselves it is usually because we can't find another lawyer willing to do it)?
I'll be watching this one. I'm afraid this will be a sad display of greed and the mischaracterization of breastfeeding another woman's child as traumatic.
When I was pregnant with my first son, I gave myself permission to eat as much as I wanted. On some level I decided "you're eating for two now" could reasonably be interpreted as "you're eating for twelve now." Having had a long history of binge eating and binge dieting, being pregnant gave me a margin of error I had never allowed myself (if you have ever weighed yourself before getting in the shower because dry hair is lighter than wet hair, you know what I mean). By the time I was ready to give birth, I had justified my way to a 50 pound weight gain. I consoled myself with the prospect of the sudden weight loss giving birth would bring. The average baby weighs about 8 pounds, I figured, and the placenta and assorted fluids had to weigh another 4 or 5 (yes, I looked up the weight of the average placenta) so in just a few hours I would take off at least 12 pounds. Cool. But then I would still be 35 pounds overweight. I panicked. Then I read that breastfeeding burns calories. Yes! I knew I would breastfeed – had never considered not breastfeeding. Now, breastfeeding came with weight loss benefits. Yay and pass the Doritos.
I knew exactly how much I weighed the day I gave birth. I know this because I made a point of weighing myself before leaving the apartment for the hospital. I don't remember the number now – I've had therapy – but even in hard labor, I was thinking about getting thin. I didn't get back on that scale for five days. The birthing center "squat and leave" birth I had planned became a cesarean section, a post-operative infection, and aspiration pneumonia. My new son and I (and my baby daddy who slept on a convertible armchair in my room) were in the hospital for four long days. Even after getting home, my priorities had shifted enough that getting on the scale was not the first thing I thought to do. But I thought of it on the second day home.
I had been through hell. Not only had a baby, placenta and assorted stuff been surgically removed, I had done a great deal of vomiting and no eating. I figured I must have lost a ton of weight. I got on the scale with very high hopes. I got on and off the scale four or five times. I asked baby daddy if something bad had happened to the scale while we were in the hospital. Somehow I weighed four pounds more than I had before giving birth. My weight loss master plan had been foiled by being on an I.V. for four days. I was more than 50 pounds overweight. Oh. My. God.
While I admit I figured out the number of calories I burned each hour I breastfed, I didn't do anything differently in my breastfeeding relationship in order to lose weight. I read lots of stories of women whose weight just fell away. I heard of women who were struggling to keep weight on. I was not one of those women. There was a time I felt betrayed by the breastfeeding weight loss myth. In the end, post-partum, as during every other period of my life, I lost weight through diet and exercise. Okay, truthfully just diet.
There has a been a fresh run of news stories about breastfeeding and weight loss. I don't know why – perhaps yet another tall, thin, actress attributed her rapid return to svelte to her breastfeeding and not her personal trainer. I always wonder why these stories are considered news. Are these stories about breastfeeding and weight loss so popular because it encourages women to breastfeed? Do women really make the decision not to use formula because they think breastfeeding leads to rapid weight loss? Wouldn't that just be sad? Or is there just titillation in reading about Angelina Jolie's breasts?
It makes me angry – no amount of breastfeeding was ever going to turn me into Angelina Jolie. Did I want breastfeeding to help me take off the weight I shouldn't have put on in the first place? Yeah. Would I have made a different infant feeding decision based on whether breastfeeding helped me lose weight? Of course not.
The great Amy Spangler wrote this piece about the scientific evidence concerning breastfeeding and weight loss. It is short and to the point. Breastfeeding can result in an average weight loss of 4.4 pounds. This is a good thing but in the long list of ways in which breastfeeding is superior to formula feeding for both mother and child, it is no big deal. So how about more breastfeeding journalism that matters and less that creates unrealistic expectations for us just plain (chubby) folk.
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.
Most mothers either want or need to both mother their children and work for a wage. It always surprises me that some find that a controversial statement. It is pretty hard (though some try) to dispute the economic necessity of waged labor for mothers in the U.S. (where I live) today. I won't go down the "but what if she doesn't need the money" road – that way lies mommy wars.
In order to mother and earn a wage, mothers must have their children with or near them most of the time. There, I said it. No, I don't mean that women who can't have their children with them are not mothers or that they are bad mothers. I do mean that while they are away from their children, someone else is doing the mothering acts. And most mothers have very little choice in the matter.
I was pleased to see an article in The New York Times about workplaces in which mothers may bring their children every day. It makes me very happy to see workplaces in which children are welcome. I am excited by the work of Carla Moquin and the Parenting in the Workplace Institute. I am thrilled that The New York Times, which so often gives arms to the mommy wars, published an article in which children in the workplace is portrayed as positive and viable. What bothers me is the title of the article: Maternity-Leave Alternative: Bring the Baby to Work. What the title and some of the content suggests is that bringing children to work eliminates the need for maternity leave.
I owned my own solo law practice when I gave birth to my first son. Whatever maternity leave I was getting, I was creating for myself. I don't consider the federal Family and Medical Leave Act a vast improvement over my situation, though if I had had FMLA time (twelve unpaid weeks), covering my court dates would have been someone elses problem. I hired a friend to cover my court appearances for thirty days from my due date, got the phone number of a nanny agency recommended by the local bar association, and set up a portable crib in my office. My plan was to go back to the office thirty days after giving birth bringing my son who would sleep peacefully in the portable crib and I would hire someone per diem to come to the office when I had to go to court. No problem. I had everything under control and had saved up so I could go without income for a month. I filed my last brief three days before I went into labor. During early labor, I took a conference call.
And then life happened.
Four days into my "maternity leave," I was still recovering from thirty hours of back labor, a cesarean section, aspiration pneumonia, and a post-operative infection. My healthy son was in the NICU on antibiotics "just in case." (No, I still don't understand why.) I would have difficulty walking for months because, unbeknownst to me at the time, my broad ligament had been cut during the surgery. I was lucky – my son's father had three weeks of paid vacation time he could spend at home with us (when we finally made it home). Even though my son had been given some formula in the NICU, I started pumping in the hospital and when we could finally be together he latched on without a problem. And he stayed latched on. When his dad tried giving him pumped breastmilk in preparation for my return to court, he would have none of it. Though he had taken a bottle in the NICU, he never would again. I arranged my schedule so I was never away from him longer than three hours. When I took him to my office, every time I lay him in the portable crib, he screamed non-stop. Soon he started to scream whenever I walked into my office. So I started working from home. I signed on with the nanny service which guaranteed that the nanny would show up at the appointed times (initially a few days a week) or the owner would come in her place. And then the nanny was late. And then she was just "FTA." FTA is a court clerk designation for a party who doesn't show up for trial – "failure to appear" which could get you a bench warrant for someone's arrest. No such remedy with a nanny. When my nanny was FTA, I tried reaching the owner of the agency for that guarantee that she would personally come. She didn't answer her pages. I was screwed.
Slowly but surely I cut my practice down to part-time from home. My mother-in-law stepped in as emergency childcare. Yes, I needed a workplace to which I could bring my son but first I needed maternity leave. I needed time for my body to heal. Even if I had had the birth I wanted, I still would have needed peaceful quiet time to be with my new child. He and I needed to nurse and sleep and rest and play and not worry about clients or judges or conference calls or bills. We needed to be mother and son and nothing else. Not necessarily forever. But for a while.
Should every mother have a workplace to which she can bring her child so that they can have access to each other throughout the day, breastfeed, snuggle, play? Absolutely. Children will be happier and healthier and mothers will be more productive. Older kids can spend some days at work with the other parent as well. But first mothers need paid maternity leave. I am not saying maternity leave is more important than children in the workplace – I am saying it is different. Bringing a baby to work is better than forcing a mother to leave an infant for long work days but it should not be used as an excuse to deny women paid maternity leave. A mother's wage-earning work life is likely to be long. There are a lot of years left to bring kids to the office.
|
|
Recent Comments