It is an interesting point you raise, Eeky. Why do we seem to have one standard for a woman like this, clearly a difficult child, who is enjoying her 15 minutes of fame (and yes, probably at the expense of her kids) and yet we get upset at the imposition of others (or well-meaning interference by others) into the lives of our own difficult children?
Forcible sterilisation, removing her children for adoption, forcing her to hve treatment - it's all moot. She has had these kids, they now exist, they are now needing to be loved andcared for. Somehow. THIS case is in the news. How many othes are not, simply because the babies are born in fewer numbers at a time?
We can dreeam, and want to fix it and make it better for those children. After all, so many of us are fixers. But if we really did waltz in and try to fix it all, it would be almost impossible to make any of this right, now. And to try to do so would be to remove her freedom of choice, one of the hallmarks of what we value in western society. If she is not cpaable of making her own sensible choices, perhaps tat is anothermatter. But we all know - whatever is achieved by imposing it on someone from "on high" is not achieved at all, not in the heart of the person who needs to learn to make change in their lives.
The doctor - I think some changes need to be made, perhaps tightening up regulations. If those regulations were not already in existence, you can't punish him retrospectively. Ufortunately. But perhaps society and the various surgical fraternities can learn from this and perhaps set up some necessary checks and balances in order to ensure that applicants for IVF are screened psychologically (in the same way adopting families are screened, at least in our neck of the woods); that there are strict, enforceable limits on how many embryos can be implanted at the one time; and some sort of effective deterrent can be put in place that will actually be able to be implemented, to make sure that regulations are enforced and will work.
THis is a complex situation. If we're going to lay blame, it must be laid at more than just the feet of Octo-Mum. The more I read about tihs, the more she seems to be to be unwell. And we all know, that is not a bar to having children. Unfortunately.
Every so often the debae is riased - do we have the right to sterilise the mentally infirm, or the retarded, or the handicapped? It's not a black-and-white issue. Some parents generally worry about what will happen to their very incapable child when puberty hits. It wasn't very long ago that it was perfectly acceptable for parents to request their mentally handicapped daughters be given hysterectomies, to spare them the risk of pregnancy and the trauma of shedding blood every month. But now - it's seen as a major violation of human rights. We all are given the right to reproduce ourselves.
Whichever way society chooses to go - we all have to wear the outcome. It's never going to be perfect. But surely, whichever way it goes, we should value personal choice? Perhaps we need a more effective, more appropriately-placed system of checks and balances, to preseve people's rights but also protect them from themselves, as well as from unscrupulous opportunitism. And maybe while we're talking checks and balances, we could include the media in our scrutiny and make them more accountable for the outcomes of their over-zealous attention.
The situation of the very young father in Britain has been at least partly dealt with by court order insisting the media back off.
It would perhaps be a really good thing for the many children of Octo-Mum also. As things stand at the moment, all the publicity is only making her worse, it seems. Perhaps out of the intense glare of the public spotlight, some common sense could prevail.
We can only hope.
Marg