The California octuplets – there’s just too much to the story not to address it

February 10, 2009 · Posted in Education, Featured, Health Care, People in the news, Political Issues, Politics, Social Issues, Society, Things to think about, Topic Blogs · 1 Comment 

mom3First, I am a guy and it’s automatically assumed that a guy couldn’t possibly have an opinion on this – not true.   Or better yet, a guy doesn’t have the inherent right to chime in when it comes to issues of fertility, childbirth, and the issues surrounding the practice.  I would beg to differ since men and women are both involved in the miracle of childbirth and all the expense that goes into it.  Expense meaning it is costly to raise kids – diapers, food, shelter, health care, clothing, medication, schooling, etc.

Even more expensive can be the use of fertility treatments and I know a lot of couples who have taken on the process with mixed results.   Some find that adoption is their only recourse due to an underlying medical condition and others experience the miracle of childbirth- and most often – multiples!

Jon and Kate Gosselin, better known as “Jon and Kate Plus 8″ from the hit TV show on TLC, gave birth to six children (six more children!) on May 10th , 2004 after receiving fertility treatments.   We see everyday how challenging and taxing the rearing of this many children can be.   The Gosselin kids are raised in a household with at least one steady wage earner and a part time OB nurse, plus the fact I’m sure they make money from the show.

Now you’re probably starting to wince and you know where I am going with this.  Typically, the introduction of multiple births is greeted with elation, positive press coverage, and support from sponsors (diapers, formula, etc).  Sadly, this hasn’t happened in the case of Nadya Suleman and her babies.  Instead, we are seeing a great debate unfold in front of us:

Should a single mother with limited means be allowed to undergo these treatments and bring this many kids into the world?

The practical, realistic side of me immediately thinks no way.  I say that from the stance of being a father myself – a father who takes financial responsibility for my own child, a father who knows how important my role is in my child’s life, a father who has seen my child spend time in a hospital and has felt the extreme emotion, a father who has witnessed close friends struggle with miscarriage and sorry, a father who has witnessed couples burdened with the fertility process and its frustrations,  and a father who pays into the system which provides the same support services that Miss Suleman currently receives.   I have sympathy for a mother who was wronged by a biological father or might have experienced some other form of economic hardship – but not a woman, who in my view has a mental illness, to be allowed to essentially become a “baby making machine” for the sake of popping out kids.  I don’t think I’m taking the “standard reaction” or jumping on the bandwagon of every other critic out there.  Her case goes from extreme to flat out irresponsibility.

Let me take the side of the opposition and address the possible question- can’t going on disability be considered an economic hardship?  Initially yes- from what I have read she was injured in a mental facility riot (She was an employee not a patient)…but when you already have six kids, three of which are disabled, and make a conscious choice to increase your current economic hardship with the conception of more children – then no, it’s not just a hardship – it’s an abuse.   That’s like the baseball player who severely injures his back and is forced to become a bench coach, only to become a drunk and lose his ability to fulfill his role as coach.   It’s the act of compounding an existing hardship to the point of being rendered helpless – that is what she is doing.

Here are the facts:  Nadya Suleman had embryos inserted for each of her first six children.  It’s also known that she currently receives about $500 in food stamps every month, three of her previous children have a disability and receive state aid, she was put on disability herself in 1999 and saved money from the nearly $165,000 dollars in payments to help pay for the treatments.

Here are the alleged facts:  Her parents tried to force her last doctor not to perform the treatments, so Miss  Suleman changed doctors.  All 14 births have the same biological father (which is good), he is the boyfriend and she refuses to marry him (probably not good).  Suleman’s parents have stated that they were forced to build bunk beds, share in the feeding chores , and have stated that the house is a mess with clothes piled up everywhere.  (sounds like our house)

The obvious here  – there are few or no detailed laws in place that can adequately keep up with the ethical side of this issue.  I tend to think our laws our geared towards honoring the welfare of our children…rather than welfare used to honor our children.   Did this medical staff act with the best interest of the children or was this a jackpot in the bank account of the clinic?  All I care about is seeing that those children are cared for- however it stings me deeply that the mother is relying completely on financial aid to do so.  In my personal opinion, this is a selfish move by her and the part of the clinic.

Frankly, like I mentioned earlier- I think the woman has an emotional problem or mental illness that has turned her into a baby factory and this practice needs to be regulated better.   In her view- these services are designed to support a mother in her situation – but what exactly is her situation?   This is not the typical story of the married couple who have worked hard and spent thousands of dollars to seek treatment for the children they so desperately want.   Hell, even if she was a single mother wanting kids- eight more?  I can’t imagine how many couples see this story and resent the entire system for giving her 14 kids and is unable to provide them with one!  Sadly, she is the poster child example that every outspoken, conservative vocalist thrives off of.

I don’t take that political view- but I still don’t like seeing this.  I see her as a guinea pig for the fertility treatment and its effort to see how far they can go to produce as many babies as possible.  She isn’t a surrogate and she is abusing an apparently flawed fertility system for her own personal gratification (and theirs) – of which I think is wrong.  This issue is a matter of personal values and she thinks that this is an acceptable practice- and she had the cooperation of the medical staff.

Is it acceptable and how much should law come into play?  It gives me a head ache thinking about it.

Tags: <, , , , >

Couples working in the same office…smart move?

February 7, 2009 · Posted in Featured, Social Issues, Society, Things to think about, Topic Blogs · Comment 

It makes for good TV on The Office, but is this a trend that is economically wise right now?  In the new millennium, we are seeing a lot of companies who are loosening the reigns on nepotism guidelines.  It’s never been uncommon for friends to refer friends, brothers, sisters, or former co-workers.

Now there seems to be an even more prevalent trend of couples meeting and hooking up at work, or a husband/wife..girlfriend/boyfriend working for the same company.

I recently worked for a small company where there were many married and unmarried couples working under the same roof.  In fact, I have never seen so many couples in one workplace, almost like the employer encouraged it…which was odd.  It seemed more like a dating service than a workplace.  At times, it caused a little friction (no pun) between people and there was constantly talk that these couples were given preferential treatment because they were “a couple”.

Constantly seen together, hand in hand, eating lunch together, and after a while it became just plain creepy.  I love my wife to death, but if she had to bump into me every 5 minutes in the office, she’d kill me.  Collectively, we’ve both said we’d kill each other if we had to work in the same spot and then come home to each other.    Besides that, we have completely different skill sets and I seriously doubt we’d even end up under the same roof, just not possible.  Anything is possible, but this is rare.

On the other hand, it may not be a wise move for a couple not to implement financial diversification in their relationship.  (In Layman’s terms, one of you seek a job elsewhere)  The same theory holds true for investing, it’s always risky to have all your eggs in one basket (god I hate that term)  but it fits here.

As we skid through this recession, corporations are having a very tough time keeping both partners employed.   There is a huge risk of lawsuits and union violations if a company reviews an employee’s family status prior to laying them off.  The only recourse is to lay both partners off and this can be a horrible financial blow to families.  It would only be at this moment when a couple would truly feel the pain of working together.

It’s a good thing to see couples co-existing in an office place but too often they forget the risks.   The risk of causing co-workers to resent you, the risk of awkward breakups, jealousy over promotions, etc.  The office is teaming with talk and rumors and this makes for great gossip.  It’s not a sin that a couple work in the same place, but often they overlook the perception it casts on their fellow workers.

Watching a couple roam an office together defies all the workplace etiquette that we are taught.  In the age of sexual harassment and unsolicited office advances it doesn’t seem normal that a company allows that intimacy to carry over to the workplace.  I’m not saying married couples are making out in hallways (they could be), for the most part, couples in these situations are tame and respect their co-workers.   At times, it feels unprofessional and often people are obligated to get along with both of the partners in fear of alienating themselves from co-workers.

Too often the office couple has a clique that they hang with because it’s very likely one of these co-workers introduced the couple to each other -  or could be friends with them outside of work.  As you can see, it can become an awkward circle of influence that tarnishes the credibility of an organization- which causes people to resign or those involved to get unfairly labeled by their peers.

My advice to those couples who share office space- be cognizant that the office is not your home and not everyone there is looking at you like your friends do.  As times get tough – sock your money away and hopefully you don’t fall victim to a double whammy.

Tags: <, , , >