(This post is for the benefit of those medical school hopefuls or those that just love medical ethics.)
About a week or so ago, a 60-year old woman gave birth to twins in Calgary.
Many people seem to immediately jump up to say how wrong and silly this is. Before doing so however, I think you need to question your more fundamental beliefs about childrearing and society.
Quick Summary of Story
For an extremely brief summary of the story: Indian couple tried hard to get pregnant for long time. It didn’t work. Saves money for IVF in India. After one person runs off with their money, they save more and success: Twins are born.
Arguments against
It seems the main arguments against this situation are the following:
- Too old, therefore will die early. Therefore: children will not be raised properly.
- Will not have enough energy for her kids. Therefore: children will not be raised properly.
- Will put burden on taxpayers once parents die. Therefore: taxpayers suffer for sins of one family
Let’s look at each of these arguments one at a time.
Too old, Parents will die early
Is there a minimum number of years that parents need to live to do their children justice? Maybe it’s just that these parents just need to try maximize the number of years they live?
How about others in risk of dying more quickly than “average”? Some may say that it is an easy call for people with terminal diseases not to have children. How many years more should they live though to make it worthwhile?
Further, what about people who engage in high risk behaviour? Skydivers, racecar drivers, SWAT team members. Should they be prohibited from having children because they may die early?
To push things even further, what about those who engage in unhealthy behaviour? Should those with severe obesity or severe smoking additions be allow to have children? Initially you may say the answer is yes, but if they will live less long, why is this just?
Parents will not have enough energy
Similar arguments hold true here. What about those with mild depression? What about those who merely have poor energy levels naturally?
What would this energy be used for? Playing with children? What about parents who are working too hard to play with their children.
Children will burden taxpayers once parents die
Because only those with socialized medicine would say this, it seems kind of funny to me. This is what socialized medicine is all about, taxpayers pay for medical expenses of others. We uplift the downtrodden with collective money.
The main objection people seem to have is that the procedure was done in India and the family is living here. What about immigrants that have pre-existing conditions that move here? Shall we deport them?
Join the discussion
If you are preparing for medical interviews, responding with pro and/or con arguments will help you exercise your mind. If you just love or hate what I’ve said, I’d love to hear from you as well. Just comment, it’s that easy.
Subscribe via RSS
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m willing to guess that the mortality tables for SWAT team members and racecar drivers are different from 60-year-olds. If not, the health problems you are likely to experience in your 70s put you in a situation where you need care yourself, not one where you take care of someone else.
Yes, it’s true that many people with unhealthy lifestyles have children, or those who are not in a position to have kids. If there is a chance of significantly diminished capacity in 10-15 years, you should not have kids. Smokers or fat people in their 30s are not there barring serious, exigent health problems, in which case they should not have children either.
All that said, far more vexing than this case is the case of the poor woman in California who gave birth to octuplets, despite already having six children.
Many of my family members are soon-to-be MDs and are all in some way part of the Health Care community. I’m not a med student, nor do I intend to be, but by being around them I’ve heard and thought a bit about the relevant ethical/moral/social issues. So I’ll give it a shot.
It should first be noted that, “Should a 60 year old woman have children?”, is different from, “Should a 60 year old woman be allowed to have children?”… Of course, by saying NO to the latter, there is infringement on the personal freedoms of the mother - a slippery slope no one really wants to follow. So the answer to that is YES, and we are left to deal with the first question. All 3 of of the arguments-against have some merit and the matter is predominantly social. Most of respondents to the question will have a view exemplified by the quote from Dr. Birch. “I couldn’t imagine if I was 65 having two five-year-olds running around crazily. The energy to do that is incredible,”… This addresses argument-against #2. Many couples struggle raising ONE child in their 20s and 30s, so naturally raising TWO in your 60s is near inconceivable. However, even though it might be inconceivable, it is certainly NOT impossible. ‘Not enough energy’ should only be an issue if it interferes with the parents ability to provide basic care for their children (e.g. feeding, changing etc). The other concern is not as vital, but is nevertheless an image which burns in the minds of many. It may suck if you’re a dad and you can’t play catch with your son, but that doesn’t mean you can’t do other activities to promote proper socialization & familial bonding.
Argument-against #1 is the strongest, in my opinion. Consider Palin/McCain & the recent American election. Sarah Palin IF elected would have been just a, quote, “72-year-old man’s heartbeat away from the Presidency”. Our case is the same, the parents under consideration are OLD. That alone is a big risk factor. Let’s assume that they are otherwise well-adjusted with no bad habits. If one passes away, the workload will double on the other, who is already disadvantaged by old age. If both pass away while the kids are young, then there may be consequences, emotionally speaking, if the state has to take them away into foster care…The same applies for non-elderly couples with high-risk/unhealthy behavior. Their RISK is different (not risk due to AGE) but could ultimately bring about the same scenarios as the elderly couple… It should be noted that couples who seek to adopt from China will be discriminated against if they are too old/have high risk/have unhealthy behavior. They are an example of a society that has strictly defined, in policy, the norms of who is (and is not) ideally fit to be a parent. This tangent is just meant to show the equalization of negatives…old age..obesity..drugs..drinking..it is ALL bad.
Argument-against #3 is an implication of #1…and for most people (in places with socialized medicine) will either be the most important issue, or the least important issue. Here I agree with you Josh, I think it isn’t the BIG issue.
In summary, although it may be uncommon and a bit disturbing, it shouldn’t be dismissed. That’s my $0.02.
@Adeel and Linus: Thanks for the extremely well thoughtful responses. All I can say, in line with Adeel’s comment, thank goodness there aren’t more people like the octuplet woman.
In my opinion, there is a larger problem here. If I am not mistaken (and if I am the comment is not applicable) but this mother received in vitro fertilization in this case. When this occurs, often times, more than one baby is born. In such occurrences, the babies are often born prematurely and must spend considerable time in neo-natal care facilities. The cost of this care is very high.
Now multiple births occur because more than one embryo is usually implanted in an attempt to secure a high probability of a woman becoming pregnant.
One proposed solution is to publicly fund in vitro fertilization. The stipulation would be that only one embryo be implanted at a time, thus drastically reducing the number multi baby births and presumably curbing the excessive costs of neo-natal care. I believe a few countries in western Europe have adopted this model. (Sweden and Scotland I think).