Case of disabled surrogate parent

[Mama Mia]

There are some doctors that condone similar situations. A very good friend of mine is a practicing Physician. She tells me of a story regarding a patient of hers, and of a local OBGYN that she finds horrid.

This higher-functioning quadriplegic patient of hers became pregnant, unplanned. She had gone to the emergency room, ill with nausea. And had come to discover she was pregnant. They admitted her, sending her to the Women's Hopsital next door, to be treated overnight with IV antibiotics for a concurrent UTI that had also been discovered.

In the morning, this OBGYN assigned to her case, came in to discuss the pregnancy. The patient stated she was utterly scared, that she did not - could not - have this baby.

The Doctor told her, nonsense. She could have the baby, she would have the baby. Plenty of disabled women, including other quadriplegics, have babies. Of course, her regular Dr. and Physiatrist (Doctor of Physical Rehabilitation) understood her situation and found a more sensitive OBGYN, who helped her, out of concern for her health and well-being. (None of this is verbatim. To be safe, consider it as hearsay.)

In any case...

Usually, there ARE a "revolving door" of nannies/nurses. The job of caring for someone in her situation is VERY strenuous. The longest these nurses/companions stay, at best, are a few years - and that is rare. This is because of the degree of hard-work the job entails. And more often than not, the companion/nurses would be male, because of the heavy lifting required.

In summary, I dont think I can open my mind that much to settle on the premise of this situation being the best for the child, unless the extended family supposedly involved lived with her full-time and essentially cared for the child on their own. But, this is, of course, only my opinion.

ETA: It is very sad, for either party. She must be in pain.

So are you really trying to say that because this one quadrapalegic woman that you heard of wanted to have an abortion because pregnancy and childrearing wasn't she wanted /was physically able --that it's a bad idea all the time ? :?

Based on that theory couldn't you throw ANY category of women who have had abortions into the same group? I know someone with blue eyes who had an abortion - perhaps ALL blue- eyed women should have an abortion. Or maybe just groups who had a physical / financial / emotional barrier of some sort and so had an abortion - so any poor women or depressed women....I just don't see your point of giving the story of one woman who wanted to have an abortion and one doctor tried to dissuade her while others supported her decision.

Also, as I said in my reply to D. Gayle, being a nanny is a different job than being an in- home care provider ofr nurse. I'm not sure what your point is about a caregiver being a man?

[Snarkylark]

Such is the way of snarkylark. That's ALL she does. Ignore her.

Um, ok. So I can't be empathetic to someone else's feelings or wants without agreeing with them? I can't think that maybe the woman thought a whole lot about how she would take care of a baby and possibly that might show some sort of commitment on her part? Whether she could pull it off physically is one thing but we don't really know what her plans were, do we? I can imagine she wanted a baby terribly and that's what drove her to do what she did. I'm sure it wasn't easy for her to do. Just because I can see that doesn't mean I agree with what she did or that it was a good choice. Just like say (your example), the one who robs a bank to feed her kids. I can see why if she felt she didn't have any other options and was desperate why she would do that. It doesn't mean I agree with what she did.

You guys just try to flame me for every.thing.I.say. It's a little ridiculous. Even within this thread people disagree but no one acts like that to each other.

[OkToBeTakei]

Um, ok. So I can't be empathetic to someone else's feelings or wants without agreeing with them? I can't think that maybe the woman thought a whole lot about how she would take care of a baby and possibly that might show some sort of commitment on her part? Whether she could pull it off physically is one thing but we don't really know what her plans were, do we? I can imagine she wanted a baby terribly and that's what drove her to do what she did. I'm sure it wasn't easy for her to do. Just because I can see that doesn't mean I agree with what she did or that it was a good choice. Just like say (your example), the one who robs a bank to feed her kids. I can see why if she felt she didn't have any other options and was desperate why she would do that. It doesn't mean I agree with what she did.

You guys just try to flame me for every.thing.I.say. It's a little ridiculous. Even within this thread people disagree but no one acts like that to each other.

Awe diddums ... Well when you act like a trolling fanny in every thread you partake, in what on earth makes you think anybody is going to take you seriously. You love it really admit it :lol: some folk knit, some folk jog if spouting off your poor intelligence, lack of knowledge or critical thinking skills, ability to reference, general ignorance and bigotry is your thing ..... You just carry on pet, it is quite entertaining. BOOM FLASH another flame for your pity collection :D

[Snarkylark]

Insult away but that doesn't answer the question I just asked. And how is anything I said acting like a trolling fanny? Am I not allowed to answer questions when people ask me what I meant? Because that's all I did here.

[OkToBeTakei]

Insult away but that doesn't answer the question.

That wasn't an insult that was answering the question [emoji3]

[Snarkylark]

What was possibly wrong with what I said? Or are you lacking in comprehension tonight? Please tell me how I'm a trolling fanny for saying that this woman wanted a child so badly that she broke the rules and while I don't agree with what she did, I can empathize with her? You're right, obviously it makes me a pos for you to trample on. So clever. You don't have to agree with anything I say. This is what derails the discussion, not me. I'm guessing you are as much of a bully irl as you are online and that just makes me feel sad for you.

[OkToBeTakei]

So are you really trying to say that because this one quadrapalegic woman that you heard of wanted to have an abortion because pregnancy and childrearing wasn't she wanted /was physically able --that it's a bad idea all the time ? :?

Based on that theory couldn't you throw ANY category of women who have had abortions into the same group? I know someone with blue eyes who had an abortion - perhaps ALL blue- eyed women should have an abortion. Or maybe just groups who had a physical / financial / emotional barrier of some sort and so had an abortion - so any poor women or depressed women....I just don't see your point of giving the story of one woman who wanted to have an abortion and one doctor tried to dissuade her while others supported her decision.

Also, as I said in my reply to D. Gayle, being a nanny is a different job than being an in- home care provider ofr nurse. I'm not sure what your point is about a caregiver being a man?

I think the point about the care giver being male was the OP's suggestion about heavy lifting in a home setting. Not always the case in my experience if moving and handling aids are present.

I'm not sure Mama why you are very focussed on this woman being an example of how 'we' have a long way to go in our attitudes toward disability. I'm not so hung up on the can she be an effective parent if she can't touch angle. I agree with you that bonding occurs in many ways as a parent.

My issue is this particular woman and her story. Also the usual issues we have of reading between the lines etc. I find it interesting the authorities found ( or claimed) that the child was in danger. I also find the comment regarding the Mothers wishes outweighing the best interests of the child .....also interesting.

I feel for any woman having such a strong desire for a child it's such a powerful feeling and so painful if unfulfilled for some women.

It's just this particular woman, again interpretation, she sounds very .......clinical? It's almost like the pursuit of having the child the legalities, the travel and excitement seem more important than the child. Maybe if she 'sounded' differently in the article my feelings would sway more toward disabled rights and the issues surrounding this. I can't see that in this story.

One thing is without doubt and as you know I live in a country with socialised health and social care and it takes a village. Remove the legal and emotional aspects of this and still the logistics are mind blowing. That's just the reality of the situation.

It would be fascinating to example 24 hours of care (just physical activities of daily life) for somebody in this position with an infant and then through the different stages.

There is a TV documentary in the UK which has followed annually a group of children I think they are 18 now!!! I'll try find a link for you. One wee boys Mum was a victim of Thalidomide, she is an amazing lady, I think you would enjoy watching.

[Terrie]

What was possibly wrong with what I said? Or are you lacking in comprehension tonight? Please tell me how I'm a trolling fanny for saying that this woman wanted a child so badly that she broke the rules and while I don't agree with what she did, I can empathize with her? You're right, obviously it makes me a pos for you to trample on. So clever. You don't have to agree with anything I say. This is what derails the discussion, not me. I'm guessing you are as much of a bully irl as you are online and that just makes me feel sad for you.

Except that's not what you said. You said it showed commitment, and implied that breaking the law was a potential sign she'd be a good parent. When asked to explain how the hell that worked, you dodged explaining your logic and said "Oh, i don't agree, but it could...." You're either a troll or an idiot.

[Mama Mia]

I think the point about the care giver being male was the OP's suggestion about heavy lifting in a home setting. Not always the case in my experience if moving and handling aids are present.

I'm not sure Mama why you are very focussed on this woman being an example of how 'we' have a long way to go in our attitudes toward disability. I'm not so hung up on the can she be an effective parent if she can't touch angle. I agree with you that bonding occurs in many ways as a parent.

My issue is this particular woman and her story. Also the usual issues we have of reading between the lines etc. I find it interesting the authorities found ( or claimed) that the child was in danger. I also find the comment regarding the Mothers wishes outweighing the best interests of the child .....also interesting.

I feel for any woman having such a strong desire for a child it's such a powerful feeling and so painful if unfulfilled for some women.

It's just this particular woman, again interpretation, she sounds very .......clinical? It's almost like the pursuit of having the child the legalities, the travel and excitement seem more important than the child. Maybe if she 'sounded' differently in the article my feelings would sway more toward disabled rights and the issues surrounding this. I can't see that in this story.

One thing is without doubt and as you know I live in a country with socialised health and social care and it takes a village. Remove the legal and emotional aspects of this and still the logistics are mind blowing. That's just the reality of the situation.

It would be fascinating to example 24 hours of care (just physical activities of daily life) for somebody in this position with an infant and then through the different stages.

There is a TV documentary in the UK which has followed annually a group of children I think they are 18 now!!! I'll try find a link for you. One wee boys Mum was a victim of Thalidomide, she is an amazing lady, I think you would enjoy watching.

That sounds like a very interesting documentary. You're right I shouldn't have done a general " we" regarding disability awareness. Just kind of thrown off because there really are a fair number of severely disabled parents - not just ones who had an accident after having children - but others who intentionally set out to have children. Obviously not everyone should have a child just because -- but I'm surprised people might describe her desire for children as " a tick on her bucket list" - Or inherently any more selfish than anybody else's mission to purposefully put new inhabitants on the planet. I doubt they would use selfish or a bucket list as a description for their own desires for children, so why would her desire for a child be seen as somehow less " pure" than anyone else's? I mean really, why do ANY of us bring children into the world? Some people have an on- paper ideal world of comfortably upper middle class, two parents, lovely stable community of friends and relatives for support and whatever else the tick boxes are for an ideal life. But most parents are lacking in some way. And some of those perfect on paper parents are hiding a multitude of nasty secrets or follow the Pearls for childrearing tips. Of course at some point there's a line that has to be drawn between good enough / not good enough for children, I guess that's what these sorts of conversations always boil down to - where's that line. The logistics would definitely need to be carefully planned, with back- up contingencies for when plans fall through.

In the article I got the impression that the baby was taken right away, from the hospital, so really social services never even had any basis to determine any danger. The family was all very supportive, and the reason no one had applied to adopt the child before was because, naturally, she couldn't gain guardianship herself if the child was adopted. There is no law saying she couldn't be granted an adoption herself, now that the court case is over, but she is understandably nervous they would reject her. Her sister is applying because she would still be able to have a huge part in her life. I didn't get the clinical vibe you did, but I got the feeling it was an article that was written and then translated, or someone did a lot of translating in the writing, just because it was phrased rather awkwardly.

My question about the caregiver or nanny being a man was more of what difference does it make if the provider is male or female as long as they do a good job.

[jaelh]

The responsibility is firmly on this woman and her niece. Babies are expensive and time-consuming, and become expensive and time-consuming children and then teenagers. It's EXTREMELY unfair to expect other relatives who had literally no say to step up and take on an 18+year major obligation like this. They shouldn't be looked down on. What doesn't set right with MY soul is the expectation that people who don't want or can't afford a child should suck it up and take in a child. Surely that child wouldn't realize that she is only there to meet with the approval of some people on the internet.

I know the niece has no genetic connection to this child, in that she didn't provide the egg and sperm, but why in ducks name is is not on the hook for raising the child? She bought this child into the world. Willingly. She SHOULD be responsible.

I realise this opens up a whole can of worms for [3rd world] surrogate mothers who are treated like incubators, with bio parents who would leave "less than perfect children", so I'd also caveat that with - bio and or incubator requesting parents should be liable for child support. Duck. Even if you just blow into a jar, that action can have consequences. Enormous consequences.

Surrogates, donors and those who want these babies made. Every. One. Of. Them. Should be liable when things like this happen.

[Blahblah]

Just because we CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD do it.

Technology is progressing faster than ethics and the law can keep up with it. We now have a child created from two peoples' donor DNA, incubated in a third person for the purpose of providing a fourth person with a child.

And that fourth person is almost completely dependent on others who are paid to look after her.

This process has left a child in a foster situation while the whole mess is sorted out.

It's all very Brave New World.

Many years ago ethics/philosophy was one of my majors at University. This sort of situation would have kept up going for months, if not years. But back then it would have been all hypothetical. Now it's real and still no one has any answers.

[Snarkylark]

Except that's not what you said. You said it showed commitment, and implied that breaking the law was a potential sign she'd be a good parent. When asked to explain how the hell that worked, you dodged explaining your logic and said "Oh, i don't agree, but it could...." You're either a troll or an idiot.

I NEVER implied that I thought breaking the law was a potential sign she'd be a good parent. Never. What I said was that potentially it showed that she may have been committed to raising the child if she went through all that to bring the child about. Does thinking that mean that I agree with her? Is it not possible to play devil's advocate for a minute? Because that's all it was.

[VelociRapture]

What was possibly wrong with what I said? Or are you lacking in comprehension tonight? Please tell me how I'm a trolling fanny for saying that this woman wanted a child so badly that she broke the rules and while I don't agree with what she did, I can empathize with her? You're right, obviously it makes me a pos for you to trample on. So clever. You don't have to agree with anything I say. This is what derails the discussion, not me. I'm guessing you are as much of a bully irl as you are online and that just makes me feel sad for you.

You say she's a bully - I say she has a low tolerance for bullshit. And that's why I love her posts! :lol:

Just because we CAN do something doesn't necessarily mean we SHOULD do it.

Technology is progressing faster than ethics and the law can keep up with it. We now have a child created from two peoples' donor DNA, incubated in a third person for the purpose of providing a fourth person with a child.

And that fourth person is almost completely dependent on others who are paid to look after her.

This process has left a child in a foster situation while the whole mess is sorted out.

It's all very Brave New World.

Many years ago ethics/philosophy was one of my majors at University. This sort of situation would have kept up going for months, if not years. But back then it would have been all hypothetical. Now it's real and still no one has any answers.

!

This is how I feel as well. The ethics and legalities haven't caught up to the science yet. I sympathize with this woman deeply - there are few things more difficult than yearning to be a parent and being denied. But I do think she was wrong to skirt the laws the way she did. I hope that little girl is doing ok.

[happy atheist]

Except that's not what you said. You said it showed commitment, and implied that breaking the law was a potential sign she'd be a good parent. When asked to explain how the hell that worked, you dodged explaining your logic and said "Oh, i don't agree, but it could...." You're either a troll or an idiot.

This is what snarkylark always does, and why I suggested ignoring her. She wants to get into this argument, wants to play the victim. This is what she enjoys. And now I'm going to stop talking about her because I do not enjoy licking trolls.

[Snarkylark]

This is what snarkylark always does, and why I suggested ignoring her. She wants to get into this argument, wants to play the victim. This is what she enjoys. And now I'm going to stop talking about her because I do not enjoy licking trolls.

Then, please. Hit the ignore button. Do us all a favor. The problem is I didn't say anything "wrong" but you are in attack mode over anything I try to say. There was no "argument." It was a discussion going along quite nicely.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Then, please. Hit the ignore button. Do us all a favor. The problem is I didn't say anything "wrong" but you are in attack mode over anything I try to say. There was no "argument." It was a discussion going along quite nicely.

Your immediately defensive responses don't help your case. Nor your habit to make a statement and, when someone responds, claiming that wasn't what you said.

Seriously, this is Internet Etiquette 101.

[Snarkylark]

I understand that. But it really wasn't what I said or implied.

[happy atheist]

Then, please. Hit the ignore button. Do us all a favor. The problem is I didn't say anything "wrong" but you are in attack mode over anything I try to say. There was no "argument." It was a discussion going along quite nicely.

If only I could, but as an admin I need to see what people are posting.

[Terrie]

This is what snarkylark always does, and why I suggested ignoring her. She wants to get into this argument, wants to play the victim. This is what she enjoys. And now I'm going to stop talking about her because I do not enjoy licking trolls.

At least when you lick some toads, instead of trolls, you can get high. I'm not 100% sure she's a troll. I maintain that it's possible she's just an idiot with a spine made out of dishrags.

[Mama Mia]

I know the niece has no genetic connection to this child, in that she didn't provide the egg and sperm, but why in ducks name is is not on the hook for raising the child? She bought this child into the world. Willingly. She SHOULD be responsible.

I realise this opens up a whole can of worms for [3rd world] surrogate mothers who are treated like incubators, with bio parents who would leave "less than perfect children", so I'd also caveat that with - bio and or incubator requesting parents should be liable for child support. Duck. Even if you just blow into a jar, that action can have consequences. Enormous consequences.

Surrogates, donors and those who want these babies made. Every. One. Of. Them. Should be liable when things like this happen.

I have no idea why you, and D. Gayle, are assuming that this woman's family including her niece, haven't been supportive or are trying to either duck responsibility, or being put on the hook with no concern for if they were interested in caring for a child.

In the article she states she met with all her family ahead of time and they were supportive and helpful. The neice went to extreme lengths to do her part. If the mother wanted to be acknowledged legally as the mother she is the one who had to go through all the court process.

A family raising a child can be put together, intentionally, through all sorts of arrangements other than the typical married mother and father having their own biological children conceived without artificial assistance and still be healthy, stable families raising healthy, loving, independent children.

Really go back a few decades and put in the desires of a parents who require IVF or an intentionally single parent, or same sex parents for a severely disabled parent - ......you would find similar arguments for how selfish and wrong it all is.

[VelociRapture]

I have no idea why you, and D. Gayle, are assuming that this woman's family including her niece, haven't been supportive or are trying to either duck responsibility, or being put on the hook with no concern for if they were interested in caring for a child.

In the article she states she met with all her family ahead of time and they were supportive and helpful. The neice went to extreme lengths to do her part. If the mother wanted to be acknowledged legally as the mother she is the one who had to go through all the court process.

A family raising a child can be put together, intentionally, through all sorts of arrangements other than the typical married mother and father having their own biological children conceived without artificial assistance and still be healthy, stable families raising healthy, loving, independent children.

Really go back a few decades and put in the desires of a parents who require IVF or an intentionally single parent, or same sex parents for a severely disabled parent - ......you would find similar arguments for how selfish and wrong it all is.

In regards to the niece: according to Israeli law I believe she (as the birth mother) would be considered the mother legally. I don't know if she was given the option of caring for the child or not because the child was taken into custody upon birth. I am curious to know whether the niece attempted to gain custody or if she decided not to pursue it further.

[OkToBeTakei]

I have no idea why you, and D. Gayle, are assuming that this woman's family including her niece, haven't been supportive or are trying to either duck responsibility, or being put on the hook with no concern for if they were interested in caring for a child.

In the article she states she met with all her family ahead of time and they were supportive and helpful. The neice went to extreme lengths to do her part. If the mother wanted to be acknowledged legally as the mother she is the one who had to go through all the court process.

A family raising a child can be put together, intentionally, through all sorts of arrangements other than the typical married mother and father having their own biological children conceived without artificial assistance and still be healthy, stable families raising healthy, loving, independent children.

Really go back a few decades and put in the desires of a parents who require IVF or an intentionally single parent, or same sex parents for a severely disabled parent - ......you would find similar arguments for how selfish and wrong it all is.

I think D Gayle and GG are just a foil to your fixation that this family IS supportive/involved. After all we are all reading the same article, your take home is very involved supportive, mine was she met her family told them what she wanted to do and they were ok with it. It's all open to interpretation, I just do not think this woman is all she may appear, again interpretive.

The niece, that's quite an invasive procedure so yup maybe she's just a lovely girl who loves her Aunt or maybe the Aunt paid her.

I get the impression that money does not appear to be an issue.

I think my main take home has nothing to do with her disability or what constitutes loving stable families. Through her own actions in breaking the law of which she was aware the child is not in a stable long term family is she? The child is lost in all the 'rights' of the Mother. The child's best interests have not been a priority, the priority was her existence. I am not condoning the fact she was removed at birth, the Mother though, she knew this was a possibility.

Something does not sit right with this story.

[roddma]

This is completely different than the issue people have with Michelle putting her daughters to work as surrogate parents. Michelle ( AND JIM BOB ! - it irks me sooooo much that people leave him out and focus on only Michelle when discussing parenting! So incredibly sexist!) -- THEY are able to provide primary care for THEIR children - they choose not to. And not only do they seem to schlep off the majority of the more demanding, tedious, gross physical labor of child rearing - but, more importantly, they palm off all the psychological, emotional, bonding, educational aspects as well. To other children.

Yes that irks me, too, like when Josiah fell intot he orchestra pit, where was the Jim Bob bashing? But in Fundie land, anything that goes wrong in child rearing is blamed on the mothers.

As far as breaking laws to fulfill desires, isn't Israel a culture that places strong emphasis on having children?

[CaptainFunderpants]

Yes that irks me, too, like when Josiah fell intot he orchestra pit, where was the Jim Bob bashing? But in Fundie land, anything that goes wrong in child rearing is blamed on the mothers.

As far as breaking laws to fulfill desires, isn't Israel a culture that places strong emphasis on having children?

Israel is actually really diverse, so I don't know that anyone would be able to answer that question.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Israel is actually really diverse, so I don't know that anyone would be able to answer that question.

Well, it's not such a strong emphasis that the government would allow just any surrogacy arrangement.