Ethics of reproduction

In a vein related to the story of the single mom of 14, whose fertility doctor transferred more than the generally accepted two embryos even though she'd already given birth to six children before her octuplets were born, this recent story came out of Canada about a 60-year-old woman who went to India in order to conceive her twins.

Obviously, apart from the sensationalistic quality of the media stories, and the debates about whether this is or is not acceptable, will come the discussions about regulating the fertility industry (overseas treatments notwithstanding) so that doctors are held responsible for "over-fertilizing" certain patients.

And, of course, this discussion will beg the question of who is acceptable and who is not? Who decides? Should there be uniform laws, or clinic-by-clinic policies? Should psychiatric evaluations be required of all candidates? Just single ones? Non-heterosexual ones? Candidates over the age of 40? 50? Should one counselor, or one doctor, be the arbiter?

In my view, the octuplets story focus has been skewed by the fact that she is a single woman. Regardless, implanting six embryos in an IVF procedure for a 33-year-old woman who has successfully delivered six children already, should certainly have raised red flags by the fertility doctor -- even if she was married. That she could pay for the expensive treatment does not mean that she could also pay for the caretaking of that many children, with the potential health issues of multiple births. And even though she requested it, any fertility doctor knows that a woman (or couple) willing to have that many children at once is not thinking clearly about long-term ramifications.

In the donor industry in general, I know that there have been concerns raised in other countries that if parents are required to use an open-identity donor, as they now are in the U.K., for example, it would restrict the number of donors available and curtail the ability of people requiring insemination to build a family.

While there are different recruitment practices that can keep donors coming through the door, my strong view is that yes, it might be harder to create children if there is a restriction placed on what donated gametes can be used, but if there is a strong reason that compels that restriction, then it should be employed. In the case of the U.K., and several other countries, government did decide that it is IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD to have the ability to know something of their biological "other half" should they desire it, based on research with adopted and donor-conceived adults.

In the U.S., I do not see open-identity as becoming a requirement, since we are a country too vast and too wedded in choice to require it.

Nor, octuplet publicity aside, do I see being a single parent as becoming a deterrent. Even if we were to move toward greater regulation of the industry, the case is quite strong that single parents can and do raise great children (the isolated statistics in troubled non-Choice families notwithstanding).

Now it is a matter of more people in policy-making power of certain states, adoption agencies and clinics to recognize as well that non-heterosexual parents also do a great job of raising kids.

On the other hand, there is to my mind NO compelling reason for anyone to potentially have six or more children at once. The desire of someone to "increase the odds" of a successful (costly) IVF procedure by implanting more than two at once is uncalled for and should, indeed, become a regulation based on common sense.

What is your opinion? Are regulations uncalled for? Or warranted?

Here is one of the earliest reactions to the octuplets story, taking root in Georgia.

McCain and two-parent adoption

Let's talk about this here. It's not just gays and lesbians that should be outraged by this. It is, of course, a fact of life that roughly half of the country agree with him. Let's vent here about it....

Mikki

By DAVID CRARY, AP National WriterTue Jul 15, 3:44 PM ET

Advocates for gay and lesbian families are denouncing Sen. John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify Tuesday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice. Only one state, Florida, outlaws gay adoptions, which have become commonplace in much of the nation.

The Republican nominee-in-waiting was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times.

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain replied.

McCain then remarked that he and his wife, Cindy, were proud to be adoptive parents of a daughter born in Bangladesh, and he encouraged others to adopt. Asked if those adopting should be a "traditional couple," McCain answered, "Yes."

The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.

"He's completely out of touch," said Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council. "There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."

Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.

"Sen. McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," Huckaby said.

On Tuesday, as criticism of McCain's comments spread, his campaign elaborated on the candidate's views.

...

An estimated 65,000 children have been adopted by gays and lesbians, according to advocacy groups. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, among other groups, have expressed support for gay adoptions.

"It is an insult to these professionals and the children whom they represent to suggest that the door should be closed to people other than a 'traditional' married couple," said Ellen Kahn, who coordinates family-related projects for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said McCain "needs to read the research and rethink his comments."

"His implication is that every adopted child should have a mother and father," Pertman added. "That may be the ideal, but if we stick to it, we would have far fewer homes for kids. Single people — gay and straight — represent a significant number of adoptive parents."

States have widely varying laws regarding adoption by same-sex couples, but only Florida has a law explicitly banning gays and lesbians from adopting as individuals.

Conservative activists in Arkansas have been working to get a similar ban on the ballot in November, but have struggled to generate public support. Earlier this month, they turned in a petition with 65,899 signatures — only slightly more than the required number and well under the initial goal of 100,000 signatures.

Recent national polls suggest that support for the concept of gay adoption is growing. A 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center found a near-even split on the issue; a 2007 poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. said 57 percent of respondents felt gays should have the right to adopt, while 40 percent said they shouldn't.

A gay adoptive father in Atlanta, Ken Manford, said he and his partner have felt strong support and acceptance from neighbors and acquaintances since they adopted a son from Guatemala nearly seven years ago.

"If Sen. McCain came and sat down with us, I'd tell him we've proven that both parents are important in our family," Manford said. "It doesn't matter that both those parents are men."

McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians.