The octuplets: difficult situation. Bad law?

Well, if you’ve been vacationing on Mars, you may have missed the story about the octuplets, or more specifically the mother of the octuplets. A lot of interesting information has been revealed and good questions are being raised.

Last week, Nadya Suleman, the mother of the octuplets, gave interviews to NBC’s Today Show. As people find out more and more about the situation, it seems like something should be done. But what?
Some facts to keep in mind:

• Ms. Suleman has had all 14 children as a single parent; she has repeatedly referred to these children in terms that suggest that they are therapy for her. She has no visible means of supporting them and is already receiving government assistance for her first six children.
• While some are scandalized by the number of children in one multiple pregnancy, there’s really no ground for surprise. After all, assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are not self regulating or regulated by the government. So, while it’s unwise to implant numerous embryos, there’s nothing to prevent someone from doing it (aside from moral reprehension at IVF, but that’s a different conversation for another time).
• For good reasons, we don’t have laws regulating who can conceive children and how many children they can have.

China, however, does and we’ve seen what’s happened there: one couple, one baby.

Now, pundits are raising questions as to the suitability of Ms. Suleman as a parent. O’Reilly had this segment with Laura Ingraham and, more recently this one with other guests. There are many reasons to doubt Ms. Suleman’s suitability as a parent, but I think we have to be extremely careful. People make claims to the effect that she has “too many” children, that she only has a three-bedroom house, that she has no money. These are all valid concerns, but they’re not grounds for removing a child from her home and we wouldn’t want them to be. Do we really want the government deciding how many children we can have or who’s wealthy enough to afford them?

As it stands, in the US the state cannot intervene unless there is a substantial risk to a child in the home. And this has to be determined by qualified experts, not us pundits and commentators. Ms. Suleman has made statements on national television that suggest she might be inbalanced and, given that she has an extraordinary medical situation, a social worker should already be assigned to her case.

Yes, it’s frustrating. Most of us probably think that the children should have been born under better circumstances – say, oh, as a result of the loving embrace of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other. But the children are here. Their existence is a fact. At this point, the question should be: “What’s best for the children?”

Ironically, in many cases a not-so-great parent is better than no parent at all. If the children are in no immediate danger, then the best thing we can do is to support them in a loving home with their mother.

Sure, question the IVF industry. Think about why IVF may not be such a good thing. (Our Sunday Visitor’s editor John Norton has this piece.) Question the doctor and even whether he should have some fiscal responsibility for the children. Question Ms. Suleman’s intentions. Reflect upon the sense of entitlement that her actions represent.

It may be that she’s not suited to be a mother, but the question now has to be whether or not she presents a substantial danger to the children and I don’t think any of us outsiders have enough information to weigh in on it.

This is a difficult case. Although we can’t undo what’s been done, we can work to bring about the changes so that things like this won’t happen again. But we should keep in in mind: difficult cases make bad law.