Columnists debate ethics of octuplets
By Danielle Ohlemacher
Feb. 2, 2009 10:38 p.m.
The lives of Nadya Suleman and her family have become a public spectacle since Suleman gave birth to octuplets on Jan. 26.
Public concern about the mother’s and the octuplets’ health would potentially be touching; interest in the medical or scientific issues, and their wider implications, would be reasonable.
Instead, the public scrutiny has only fueled hateful and judgmental gossip by a mass of anonymous, uninformed strangers.
The octuplets were born after an in vitro fertilization process in which Suleman was implanted with eight embryos. Medical guidelines ““ not legal requirements, just guidelines ““ suggest that only one or two embryos should be implanted in women under 35; Suleman is 33. She is also the mother of six other children, who were also conceived through in vitro fertilization, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Curiosity about the babies, their siblings and their mother is understandable. Malicious judgment and anger toward the family and their choices is not.
Comments on news articles and blogs decry the woman as fame-seeking, psychotic or the ultimate “welfare queen.”
One comment on CNN.com said, “This woman is living at home with mommy. … How’s she planning on supporting 14 kids and herself? Or she planning on the rest of us doing it?”
Another wrote, “This couple should be spayed and neutered.”
These comments are typical of the criticism raining down on Suleman. The biggest outrage seems to be about money: Who’s going to pay for these kids? Often, the question isn’t followed up by concern for the children’s welfare, but rather concern for the criticizer’s own wallet.
Perhaps the anonymous comments are right about our tax dollars going to social services that the Suleman family may someday benefit from. But, does that really make it morally acceptable for us to condemn and shame this woman, a complete stranger whom we have never met?
Suleman’s single status also seems to tempt anonymous strangers to see her as a more than fair target for derision and contempt. It’s not surprising that criticizers rely on sexist stereotypes to judge the woman. After all, they don’t actually know her, so they can’t very well rely on facts.
Even supposedly unbiased news reporters have referred to the family as a “litter” or a “brood” ““ both words more appropriate for referring to animals, not human beings. The word choice is either careless or cruel.
These children will be gawked at for at least the next few years; that is just one of the inevitabilities of being different. So why do so many strangers feel compelled to add negative attention through Internet gawking?
We see the same viciousness in the tabloids, as celebrities’ weight, fashion and relationships are picked apart ““ ridicule and praise doled out without consideration of privacy. But at least these celebrities asked for it, to a degree, and even benefit from it in some ways.
Nadya Suleman, however, as her mother told the Los Angeles Times, “just (wanted) one more girl.” She, and her family, deserve a break from our judgment.
E-mail Ohlemacher at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].
