Nadya Suleman - a Miraculous Woman - Case Study Example

Nadya Suleman, the much reviled Octomom, is a lesson in the way that our society prefers when it comes to nature and mothering. That is, we have a preference that mothering happen in the natural way, and anybody who appears to flout these pre-conceived notions about the natural order of things are vilified. Included in this vilification are the mothers who are post-menopausal. It is not particularly societally and politically incorrect to avail oneself of IVF treatments and surrogacy arrangements, however. Rather, it is seen as somehow deviant and wrong when these alternative treatments are used by women who are seen as not particularly fit to be a parent – single women and older women. Contributing to this bias are religious orgnisations, always an institution in patriarchy, never moreso than when discussing IVF technology and its rightful place in Western Society. Part I of this essay deals with the concept of the ideal mother, as defined as the mother who is part of a family unit, who does not attempt to subvert nature and who decides to have children for purely altruistic reasons, as opposed to selfish reasons, and how society and the media treats women who buck these traditions, especially single women who subvert nature, as this combines two special categories of vilification into one. Part II deals with how British Law replicates the concept of the ideal mother, while at the same time acknowledging that the ideal mother is but one reality. Part I – The Ideal Mother Nadya Suleman is widely reviled worldwide. The California woman effectively gave birth to a litter – eight babies at once. At first, before the details were known about Ms. Suleman, there was cause to celebrate.1 After all, the birth of eight healthy babies at once is literally a once-in-a-lifetime miracle, never achieved before or since. That should have been all the details that were needed for a feel-good story. After all, precedent was set with the McCaughey septuplets that were born in 1997. Although there were whispers of ethical conundrums with these babies – why didnt the parents selectively reduce? - the reception of the parents and the babies were universally hailed, and the naysayers were seemingly in the distinct minority.2 This, despite the fact that the parents did not have clear means to support so many children, as they were small town parents with moderate income and already had three children at home.3 There was no chorus of “why would they want more children when they cant afford the children they have?” or “why would they use IVF, when it is Gods will alone if they are able to have more children”? True, there were voices stating the above, as there always are, but no chorus. Was the rejection of Nadya because she is selfishly perpetuating a brood to devour already diminishing and precious resources, ie., we have a problem with overpopulation as it is, and she is selfishly making this problem worse? Maybe, the fact that the media is, by and large without judgment, so fascinated by the Duggars, defies this explanation. Michelle and Jim Bob just welcomed their 19th child, yet the media has portrayed this couple in a positive light.4 After all, they have a television show on TLC that glorifies their life, and the media salivates over them, offering spots on television talk shows to announce each pregnancy or new birth.5 There is very little questioning of these parents ethics or motives in having so many children, even though they are not ruling out having a twentieth child.6 Where is the outrage with the Duggars? No, the rejection of Nadya occurred only after the details of her life were disclosed. Once it became known that she was not only single, but was the mother of six other children, the focus turned away from the fact that she miraculously gave birth to eight healthy babies to the opinion that she was a selfish woman who gave birth to all those children to appease some sort of emotional void. 7 The media largely demonized her, including Ann Curry to whom Ms. Suleman granted the first interview, as Ms. Curry “went into the interview not as some fawning girlfriend ready to softball her but instead with her Serious Journalist face on...the show the woman sitting across from her was a host of – Today – acts essentially as the official press secretariat of the Duggars. Why shouldnt [Nadya] expect the same sort of opens arms and warm encomia?”8 Why indeed? The answer lies in the medias and societys perception of single mothers, especially single mothers by choice, combined with an undercurrent of distastefulness about the procedure of IVF itself. Nadya attracted scorn for her choices, as the Duggars have not, and neither did the McCaugheys before them, because Nadya is single. Single women are not supposed to purposely have children,9 let alone have them by artificial means. There is a sense that a single womans choice to have a child is a selfish one, even when that choice comes about in the “natural” way.10 This plays into the concept of the ideal mother – an ideal mother has her children within a family unit, so that the child can have a mother and father at home. Whats more, Nadya expressed a desire to continue her education and work outside the home, so that she could care for her brood financially.11 This, in and of itself, is in opposition to “good mothering.”12 In this way, Nadya could not win – if she stayed home to care for her brood, then the public would be outraged that she possibly would be on their dime; if she obtains an education and goes to work full-time, the public will be livid that she is not raising her own children. But scorn is not limited to Suleman. Post-menopausal women who choose to have children are targets of almost as much universal derision. This trend began in 1993, when a 59 year old woman gave birth to twins in London, an event that caused Virginia Bottomley, the British Secretary of Health at the time to state that “Women do not have the right to have a child. The child has a right to a suitable home.”13 Like Suleman, post-menopausal women who have children are subject to scorn because they are “unnatural.” Mothers who were post-menopausal and produced a child for their own sake were the target of special scorn, as opposed to mothers who, like a 53-year-old American woman who bore a child for her daughter.14 She was not a target of derision because her choice was seen as altruistic, not selfish. Post-menopausal women are contrary to the notion of the ideal mother for different reasons. For instance, the entire practice of IVF goes against the concept of the ideal mother, because it “possess[es] the potential to radically destabilize and disrupt the traditional concept of the family.”15 In other words, IVF is a threat to the traditional family, and, since the ideal mother really only exists within the confines of the traditional family, IVF threatens the idea of the ideal mother. Post-menopausal women are subject to greater scorn than younger women who use the IVF procedure, simply because a younger woman can “hide” the fact that she used this procedure, while a post-menopausal woman cannot, as artificial means is the only way for the post-menopausal woman to have a child. In addition to this aspect, post-menopausal mothers also go against the notion of the ideal mother because their choice to have a child late in life is often necessitated by their choice to concentrate on their career earlier in life.16 This, of course, is anathema to the ideal mother, for the ideal mother does not choose a career over children, therefore there is no need for the ideal mother to wait until she is older to have children. She has them at a younger age, like she is supposed to. Despite the fact that post-menopausal women go against the notion of traditional family, both because they “selfishly” put their career ahead of child-bearing, and they are having children in an “unnatural” way that undermines the concept of traditional family, there are reasons why they should be celebrated, not vilified. Research shows that mothers who use assisted reproductive technology, such as IVF, to produce a child “express greater warmth toward their children, are more emotionally involved with them, interact with them more, experience less stress related to parenting and report greater feelings of parental competence...That may be because their children were so desperately wanted.”17 After all, these women actively seek to have a child, and have the means to use IVF, a very expensive procedure. They are not accidental mothers – their children are planned and valued very much, and they are very much committed parents. Part II – British Law Regarding Artificial Reproductive Technology Prior to 1990, there was not a law regarding the use of ART. This changed with the original Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (hereinafter “The 1990 Act”). This law dealt with regulation of fertility clinics, produced guidelines to follow, and handled licencing procedures of these clinics.18 The 1990 Act regarding parentage stated that the mother who carries the child is considered the childs mother, “regardless of whether the child was created using one of her eggs or eggs from a donor.”19 This is generally interpreted to mean that, in a surrogacy situation, the carrier of the child is considered the childs mother, not the biological mother.20 The parentage of the father, however, was more complicated. In the case of a married couple, the husband is considered the father, regardless of whether his sperm created the child. If the couple is unmarried, but seeking treatment together, then the man is considered the childs father, again, regardless of the actual biological parentage. Sperm donated by another man who gives his consent to the sperm being used is not considered to the childs father.21 Moreover, the Act states that fertility treatment clinics must give consideration to the need of the child for a father.22 In 2008, Parliament expanded the 1990 Act, and the result was the “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008” (hereinafter “The 2008 Act”). The largest change that this Act made to the previous Act was a provision that stated that, in the case of civil partnerships, “the partners of the woman undergoing treatment will be classed as a legal parent of the resulting child unless it can be shown that she did not consent to the placing of the embryo or the artificial insemination, ie, equivalent to the current provision regarding a married husband and wife.”23 In other words, if two women are in a civil partnership, then both women are considered to the childs mother, regardless of who actually bore the child. Another change is that, if a couple is unmarried or married, and they are being treated together, then the man must give his consent in writing and not have withdrawn it in order to be treated as the legal father of the child.24 This provision was no doubt a reaction to the celebrated case of Natallie Evans, a woman who unsuccessfully attempted to have her IVF embryos implanted in her after she broke-up with the would-be father of the child.25 As the law at that time of Ms. Evans was not clear as to whether this would be permitted, her case dragged on for years through many courts.26 Parliament, with this Amendment to the 1990 Act, leaves no discretion for women like Ms. Evans to attempt to circumvent the fathers wishes. In analysing whether the Act promotes the notion of the ideal mother, it would seem that it does not. If anything, the Act hews away from the concept of the ideal mother, as it encourages non-traditional families. An ideal mother, unlike Ms. Suleman, would provide a father figure to the child, and raise the child in a traditional household. The 2008 Act subverts this notion with its provision that same-sex partners of women who seek the ART procedures will be treated as a mother to that child. Whats more, there is no longer language that states that the fertility treatment clinics must give consideration to the need of a child for a father, instead inserting language that states that the clinics must give consideration to the need of a child for a “supportive parent.” 27Moreover, there is no age limit built into the 2008 Act. Parliament surely could have instituted an age-limit if this was important, but, as an age limit was neither a part of the original 1990 Act nor the modified 2008 Act, precluding post-menopausal mothers was not a priority. The 1990 Act actually represented much more of an enshrinement of the ideal mother than the 2008 Act, as the 1990 Act did not specifically state that same-sex partners would both be considered equal parents. Therefore the 1990 Act did not actively advocate for non-traditional families, as the 2008 Act does. However, the backlash against the 2008 Act shows that society is not necessarily as advanced as the Act itself, in terms of non-traditional households and the uphold of traditional norms, including that of the ideal mother. For instance, religious organisations have much objection to the 2008 Act. Among these objections is that the 2008 Act obviates the need for a child to have a father, as a lesbian couple are treated as two parents to the child conceived by IVF. In this way, says the Church Society, the 2008 Act refuses to recognise that a child needs both a father and a mother, and that a “fatherless child would be more likely [to] underperform at a school and develop anti-social behavior.”28 Traditional family is further undermined because a person no longer has to have a biological connection to a child, as two women can be considered to be the parents of a child, as can two men.29 In this way, society, especially the religious portion, has shown that, even though Parliament is in step with the times when it comes to the subject of non-traditional families, it is not. There is still a need to try to force women into traditional, two opposite-sex parental households. This admonishment shows that the notion of the ideal mother is very much alive in the minds of society. The Church Societys objections to the 2008 Act would no doubt extend to Nadya Suleman as well, as Ms. Suleman is also raising her children without a father. By extension, since the overall practice of IVF has the potential to destabilise the family, the Church Societys objections would probably also extend to the post-menopausal women who avail themselves to ART procedures to conceive a child. As shown above, these post-menopausal women are not considered within the realm of the ideal mother, so the Church Societys objection to them is grounded in the fact that they, like Suleman, are using un-natural means to propagate, thereby undermining the family structure in society. CONCLUSION Nadya Suleman is really a miraculous woman. She gave birth to eight healthy babies, none of which seem to have any problems, or at least the media has yet to report any problems with these babies. Under ordinary circumstances, like the McCaugheys before her, she would be widely celebrated, if regarded a bit warily by a certain segment of society. And, like the Duggar family, she is raising an enormous brood. Yet she does not get the same treatment as the McCaugheys or the Duggars because she is single, therefore is not an ideal mother, but deviant and somehow not normal. Like Suleman, post-menopausal women who have children are also targets of derision. Like Suleman, they are seen as selfish, which is in direct opposition to the ideal mother, who is seen as selfless. They are also scorned because they openly flout the notion of traditional family in that they obviously used IVF or some other artificial procedure, and often are forced to have children very late in life due to the “selfish” decision to pursue her career earlier in life. Parliament, in its 2008 Act, shows that the traditional family is not necessarily required, and openly acknowledges non-traditional families with their edict that same-sex couples may both be considered to parents to the child conceived by one of the parties. However, societys reaction, especially religious societys reaction, shows that the notion of the ideal mother – who raises her children in a traditional family with a mother and father and conceives her children in the natural way – is still very much desired. Word Count: 3,155 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bell, L. 2009 “Is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 Compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?” Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. [Online] Available at: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2009/issue1/bell1.html. Bock, J. 2000, “Doing the Right Thing? Single Mothers by Choice and the Struggle for Legitimacy,” Gender and Society, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 62-86. Carolyn February 3, 2010, “Duggars Are Not Ruling Out Baby No. 20.” [Online] Available at: http://celebritybabyscoop.com/2010/02/03/duggars-arent-ruling-out-baby-20 “English Law: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.” [Online] Available at:http://www.pollentree.com/surrogacy/legal-section/english-law/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-act-2008.html Golden, M. & Paul, A.E. May 1, 1999, “Making Over Mom and Dad,” Psychology Today, p. 1. Harris, P. Feb. 1 2009, “A Bidding War and a Row Over Ethics: How the Octuplet Story Turned Sour.” The Observer, [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/01/suleman-octuplets-row Jones, B. 2003, “Subversive Legacies: Learning From History/Constructing the Future,” Texas Journal of Women and the Law, vol. 12, pp. 419-445. “McCaughey Septuplets: Success or Failure?” Available at: http://www.fertilitycommunity.com/fertility/mccaughey-septuplets-success-or-failure.html Pazienza, C. February 11, 2009, “Nadya Suleman, the Duggars and the Glorification of Family Freakshow.” The Huffington Post, [Online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/nadia-suleman-the-duggars_b_165890.html Platell, A. April 11, 2007, “The Court Was Right To Stop Natallie Becoming a Mother,” Mail Online. [Online] Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447816/The-court-right-stop-Natallie-mother.html Rao, R. 1996, “Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Threat to the Traditional Family,” Hastings Law Journal, vol. 47, pp. 951-952. Schmidt, W. December 29, 1993, “Birth to 59-year-old Briton Raises Ethical Storm,” New York Times, pp. 1-2. “The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill,” Church Society. [Online] Available at: http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/ethics/iss_ethics_embryology_bill.html Thurer, S. 1994, The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Good Mother. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Wall, A. September-October 1997, “Monstrous Mothers: Media Representations of Post-Menopausal Pregnancy,” Afterimage. Watkins, E. “Parsing the Post-Menopausal Pregnancy: A Case Study in the New Eugenics,” New Formations, p. 28. I Read More