Reproductive rights
The story of the California woman whose brood suddenly increased from six kids to 14 has prompted all kinds of consternation.
There's plenty of outrage, of course: She's grossly irresponsible! With six kids already, how can she have eight more? Who's going to pay for them? Where's the father(s)? Is she insane? Who allowed her to do this?
There's also serious debate about the propriety of the medical assistance she received to accomplish her extraordinary feat. Why would doctors provide fertility treatment to a woman who already had six children?
I suppose the answer to that is, because she asked them to.
She was exercising her reproductive rights. Why would anyone refuse?
Normally, the term "reproductive rights" is used in a negative context, referring to a woman's right NOT to have children. She's entitled to contraceptive assistance and access to abortion if she accidentally does become pregnant.
At the same time, it's taken for granted that a woman also has the right to have children.
And to seek medical help in her pursuit of pregnancy.
Is it the medical professional's place to apply his or her own judgment to the woman's motives or circumstances? Doing so would place someone else's restraints on the woman's reproductive rights, on her right to choose.
Rights are rights, right?
It's the woman's choice to make.
Once these rights are accepted as legally valid, as they have been in our society, they can't be revoked simply because a particular woman's choice strikes most of us as unwise or even improper.
It's obviously this woman's choice to have a lot of children. She has chosen to take maximum advantage of her reproductive rights.
And she's only 33. Time for many, many more babies ... if she wants.
Anyone want to say she doesn't have the right?
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
There's another party to this episode: the physician who OK'ed the procedure and a wrinkle: who paid for it? It seems (to me) that the physician should have counseled her or referred her to a counselor to give thorough thought to the long-range consequences of another pregnancy and birth(s). Shoot, if a woman wants her tubes tied or a man wants a vasectomy, doctors spend time talking over the consequences and often send the patient home to think it over and talk to his/her family. This is no different; was it done?
One thing I haven't been able to find - who paid for the IV process? It's terribly expensive and the new mother seems to have financial problems.
The fact that she wanted more babies is one thing and natural pregnancy (or the right to choose to carry a pregnancy) isn't to be legislated in my opinion; however, I'd ask questions of the particular physician (what was he thinking and did he recommend counseling?) and, of course, the money trail.
Posted on January 31, 2009 9:41 AM
She's certainly within her rights, but it's kind of a shame. Pretty much every major problem in the world is either caused or made worse by the fact that there are too many people.
On the other hand, it seems doctors would be within their rights to refuse to help her. Maybe the doctor's concerned that the risks to the mother are too great (certainly carrying eight babies is a strain on the body). You mention she'd have the right to an abortion, but no one forces a doctor to perform abortions. If people want to continue with the absurd notion that we should have a market-based health care system then accept that it's the right of the seller to refuse service, especially since refusing to do this procedure does her no physical harm.
Posted on January 31, 2009 10:32 AM
I'll make two assumptions:
1) The woman was counseled but made up her own mind as she had a right to do;
2) No doctor would have agreed to go ahead with these procedures unless she could and did pay for them, out of her own pocket or through medical coverage.
Posted on January 31, 2009 10:35 AM
Regarding the doctor's prerogatives:
Certainly, no one forces a doctor to perform abortions, and should not. However, if one is an abortion doctor, then selectively refusing to perform abortions becomes problematic. There would have to be a very strong medical reason or else he's going to be accused of discrimination and interfering with the woman's right to choose.
The same issues apply in a case like this. I agree a doctor might reasonably say it is medically unsound for a woman to carry eight fetuses. However, I don't believe it was any doctor's intent that this woman carry eight fetuses to term. Normally, once it became apparent that a large number of embryos had been successfully implanted, the mother would be expected to "selectively reduce" them. Here again, though, that is her choice. In this case, the mother made the unfathomable (to us) but clearly deliberate choice to not selectively reduce. She could not be compelled to choose otherwise.
Posted on January 31, 2009 10:49 AM
@Doug (the commenter): Maybe it used to be that physicians worried about refusing to perform abortions, but it's hardly true anymore. In many states, women simply cannot obtain abortions anywhere nearby and often have to travel to other states. Part of being pro-choice is accepting other people's choices (e.g. not to perform abortions). Even though I might disagree, it's the pain of living in a society where choice is and must be free (both ways).
Caveat: if a physician is affiliated with an institution that requires the performance of abortion (or any other legal procedure), then that physician loses his/her right to refuse. Like Reagan said, let your feet be your vote - get another job or open a private practice and make your choices, as long as you don't discriminate.
Similarly, if a pharmacy sells a medication, a pharmacist loses the right to refuse if s/he disagrees. Let the pharmacist find another job in a store whose policies s/he agrees with. I don't believe anyone has the right to refuse to perform the legal work that the employer specifies. Go find another job.
Posted on January 31, 2009 11:44 AM
I agree with all that.
Posted on January 31, 2009 12:56 PM
Andrew Clark says that ALL of the worlds problems are caused, or made worse because we have too many people. If Andrew will send me a (very large) pre-addressed, stamped envelope I will send him with suggestions of where to begin downsizing us!
Posted on January 31, 2009 3:16 PM
Anyone want to say she doesn't have the right?*Doug
Yes! "The Peoples Socialist Republic of China"
And various State America Governments during the turn of the century with it's Eugenics laws. I am sure you know President Obama Mother was a member and Instructor for the Eugenic movement in this country.
Posted on January 31, 2009 4:13 PM