posted
I have already said that those people who act on their anger or who actively hate this woman have something very wrong with them.
There is also a difference between not recognizing the possibility of an impact you (and a lot of other people collectively) may have on strangers and driving your parents into bankruptcy. And no small part of my resentment toward this woman is that she has little hostages. We have to give her what she wants lest her children suffer. And reasonable people (I am not including the people who make nasty phone calls and so forth) wish good things for her children.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: Perhaps, I just wanted to make it clear that that was a possibility and its hard to say whether they "haven't fully considered how it will impact these innocent children" or have.
Also, I wanted to shed some light on:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is an even bigger leap between speculating about her motives and getting angry enough to organize boycotts or make death threats. I really can't even begin to speculate about why people would behave that way but think I have enough data to conclude the people doing those things are behaving in a way that is irresponsible, irrational, unethical, and outright mean if not criminal.
The death threats are obviously right out. However, for the boycotts that you couldn't speculate about, I can, and I think I've shed some light on why people may want to organize a boycott without it being necessarily irresponsible, irrational, or unethical.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate, From what I have read, I know that her parents bought her a house several years ago and then last year they went bankrupt and had to move in with her. Based on the very limited information I've seen, it seems very presumptuous to say she drove her parents into bankruptcy. The fact that her parents helped her and her parents went bankrupt does not necessarily imply they went bankrupt because they helped her. They may have made bad business decisions, lost a huge amount of money by speculating in real estate, been compulsive gamblers or had huge medical bills.
There are many reasons they might have gone bankrupt that have nothing to do with the assistance they've given their daughter. Do you have some additional information to suggest this was the cause of their bankruptcy? I really haven't followed this story that closely so maybe you do in which case I apologize.
Otherwise, I think you are jumping to conclusions that fuel your anger and are not actually supported by the data available to you.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree with you, kmboots. And like Christine, I'm uncomfortable (to say the least) at the level of very visceral emotion directed against this woman in the general media.
I'd also carefully distinguish amongst people who advocate direct harm to the woman (or those that know her), people who advocate against her receiving the standard assistance per child regulated by state and federal authorities, and people who would choose not to purchase from companies that provide free or discounted goods and services to her in a public way.
Certainly any company or person would be free to donate anonymously. Just mail something anonymously to her contact address, if known, or contact her through a third party that preserves anonymity. Nobody else need know if you were a company donating your product, or a wealthy person wanting to help out, or a charitable organization, or what have you. Or even have the mother sign a waiver of nondisclosure, if the charitable act is to be kept out of the public eye.
However. However. Generally these donations of goods and services don't happen this way -- part of the bargain is the publicity that the company gets by making the donation. It isn't just out of the goodness of their hearts, although the benefit to families of multiples is clear, too. Yet it's the prospect of continued commercialization of these children and this situation that I find troubling about the companies who might donate. I might well choose to express my dislike of that process by not buying from such companies.
Of course, I don't think the woman should be threatened. Of course! And I think the children should receive assistance as needed, just as the many many many other children in need in our communities should receive assistance, and they should be guaranteed that through the same venues. I also would have no objection to fully (and I mean completely) private donations But insofar as there is a commercial aspect to the situation over and above caring for the children, that makes me increasingly uneasy. I was uneasy when the mother declared a desire to have a television program about her parenting (a program? that's a full time job in itself!), and I felt the same unease at the prospect of making these children a springboard for further corporate advertising.***
I don't know if I would refrain from buying products from these companies. I certainly wouldn't blame people who continued to buy from them, but I don't think I'd find fault with those who didn't, either.
And I'd have no truck at all with those who threaten direct harm or wish to see essential and appropriate community-wide services denied the family.
As to her state of mental health -- I have no idea, but I hope all involved come through this as happy and healthy and safe as can be.
---
***Edited to add: Mucus touched on one of the reasons this makes me uncomfortable: namely, that it can serve as a draw for more of the same. There are also other reasons I am uncomfortable at the directed commercialization of multiples, not the least of which is the set of consistent objections raised by the Dionne quintuplets (link is to Wikipedia) about how their childhood was a commercial and corporatized affair in the midpart of last century.
quote:In 1997, the three surviving sisters wrote an open letter to the parents of the McCaughey septuplets, warning against allowing too much publicity for the children.[7][8] In 1998, the sisters, living together in the Montreal suburb of Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville reached a monetary settlement with the Ontario government as compensation for what was perceived to be their exploitation.[9][10]
Mind you, what the Dionne children went through became far more than free diapers. However, the commercialization of childhood in general, especially for children already in such markedly unusual and eye-attracting circumstances, makes me uneasy about how far things will go. Not uneasy enough to outlaw subsidization for publicity, but enough that a simple boycott to discourage it does not seem beyond the pale.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: kate, From what I have read, I know that her parents bought her a house several years ago and then last year they went bankrupt and had to move in with her. Based on the very limited information I've seen, it seems very presumptuous to say she drove her parents into bankruptcy. The fact that her parents helped her and her parents went bankrupt does not necessarily imply they went bankrupt because they helped her. They may have made bad business decisions, lost a huge amount of money by speculating in real estate, been compulsive gamblers or had huge medical bills.
Even if it is from helping her, I would blame the doctor, who had a much better idea of the risks involved in implanting 6 embryos than she did. She expected one or two additional children. Not 8, with months of hospitalization and skyrocketing medical costs.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It looks like the physician involved is currently under some very strenuous scrutiny, as he should be. I have the hardest time of all making sense of how his actions in this could be defended as appropriate.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The grandmother, Angela Suleman, has called her daughter's decision "unconscionable." She has said that "She really has no idea what she is doing to her children... and to me." Which supports the theory that she just doesn't think about the impact her actions have. All her statements in interviews are about what she wants. "All I wanted was children. I wanted to be a mom. That's all I ever wanted in my life." “That was always a dream of mine, to have a large family, a huge family, and I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up.”
At least a couple of the children she already had are disabled. One has autism. How is this being responsible to them?
Perhaps she has mental or emotional issues, but when selfishness reaches insanity does it stop being selfishness?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I don't understand is how she qualified for $490/month in food stamps, if she had enough money for in vitro. That's really expensive. Why was the government paying for her and her children to eat?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. I would have phrased that the other way -- if she qualified for food stamps, where did she get the money for IVF?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have too, but her mother actually answered that question in an interview. I believe that she had money from a disability settlement from an accident at her work.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly. When she was at work, before children, she was saving every penny she could for fertility treatments -- working extra shifts etc. She made the comment that friends would ask if she was saving for a car or a house and she told them no, children. Then there was an accident at work and she started receiving disability checks. I don't know how all the accounting worked out, but it sounded as if she had saved quite a lot of money before she became disabled.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been through fertility treatments and caring for a micropreemie. As someone who has only ever gotten pregnant with multiples, I would never, ever implant more than 1 embryo during IVF (which, to clarify, I've never done - I just used clomid, hCg, and follistem). Every doctor I've been to, including my OB and perinatologist, has been very clear about the risks of having multiples. When you choose to implant 4 embryos, you know that you might have 4 or more babies. You know that they will be premature and will likely spend significant time in the NICU. I have a hard time believing that this woman was unaware of the risks involved in her choice. Her choice bothers me because I know firsthand what micropreemies go through and she chose to risk having at least four.
In the past few days, she has been photographed buying a Nintendo Wii and makeup at the MAC counter at Nordstrom. Now, I had one baby in the NICU and you do need to take downtime for yourself or you'll go crazy. However, this woman has publicly stated that she plans to rely on handouts and/or publicity to support her 14 children. She is also on government assistance. There is no way that she should be buying frivolous things like makeup and video games. I find that outrageous.
I also wonder why she wouldn't use her savings to support the children she had before the octuplets. How can you qualify for aid if you have significant savings? To me, that's fraud and theft. That assistance money could have been going to a family that didn't have thousands and thousands of dollars saved. Isn't there any oversight?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that this is part of why this bothers me so much. I am a liberal. As a liberal, I generally think that most people are usually responsible but sometimes need a little help. That people sometimes have some bad luck or make a mistake but are generally deserving of help from society. That most people want to do the right thing.
When someone abuses the system like this - not just being stupid and getting knocked up, but deliberately spending huge amounts of money and going through IVF when the 6 kids she already has are on food stamps - it undermines all that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that this is part of why this bothers me so much. I am a liberal. As a liberal, I generally think that most people are usually responsible but sometimes need a little help. That people sometimes have some bad luck or make a mistake but are generally deserving of help from society. That most people want to do the right thing.
When someone abuses the system like this - not just being stupid and getting knocked up, but deliberately spending huge amounts of money and going through IVF when the 6 kids she already has are on food stamps - it undermines all that.
posted
The Wii thing just totally blew my mind. I mean, I know she has other kids, and I'm sure they have needs too - but at this point I think a Wii is a bit excessive. I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy just to have mom at home!
As for the food stamp thing, I do believe they ask about savings. I know that when I needed medicaid for my son they asked for the exact balance of my bank account and the values of automobiles and the whole nine-yards.
I would be interested to know if she recorded her cash savings on her applications. I think that really ought to be investigated! Of course, even if she did lie about it, what can we do. As people have already said, she's got us held hostage. Those children have needs and we can't just ignore them.
On the other hand, there are ALOT of other needy children in the country these days that ALSO need services. I certainly hope her decision hasn't taken resources away from other children as well.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume that if they investigate and find that she did indeed lie about the amount of money she had in savings, then she could lose her benefits. Of course, now that she's spent the money on IVF there may be a legitimate need. So if they do revoke her benefits it could lead to her being financially incapable of supporting her children, leading to investigations by social services, etc.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LA times is reporting that Kaiser won't release the octuplets to her until she can prove she is capable of taking care of them.
Also, her father expressed concerns about Nadya's mental health on Oprah and someone has offered her 1 million dollars to make a porno movie.
That last one is the strangest one. Its sort of a double edged sword. If she makes the movie, making the film might be the only way for her to secure the resources she needs to prove to CPS she can take care of the children but some would certainly consider it as evidence that she is an unfit mother. It does beg the question of the mothers out there, how far are you willing to go to support your children? Where would you draw the line?
I recognize its a pretty big hypothetical leap but IF you were convinced that making a porno film was the only way for you to keep someone from taking your kids, or to provide them with food and shelter or medical care -- would you do it?
On a more serious note, I feel really sad for these 14 children. I don't see that their mother has the emotional, mental or financial resources to care for them but I also don't see that there is justification to permanently remove them from her custody with out her consent, which she seems highly unlikely to give. That means that adoption is out of the question and a lifetime in the foster care system is rarely a positive outcome. I wish there were some better alternatives.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would be interested to know if she recorded her cash savings on her applications. I think that really ought to be investigated! Of course, even if she did lie about it, what can we do. As people have already said, she's got us held hostage. Those children have needs and we can't just ignore them.
On the other hand, there are ALOT of other needy children in the country these days that ALSO need services. I certainly hope her decision hasn't taken resources away from other children as well.
Even with the current economic down turn, we are still the wealthiest civilization the world has ever known. If we can't come up with the resources to take care of 8 more kids, the problem doesn't lie with Ms. Suleman alone
I keep trying to a imagine a way this could turn out well for the kids and this is the best fantasy I can come up with.
Ms. Suleman is evaluated by a psychiatrist and is found to have an easily treatable/curable mental disorder (remember I said fantasy here). A wealthy kind generous middle aged man with a large extended family network who loves children but has been unable to have them, falls madly in love with Nadya, marries her and legally adopts all 14 children. The 16 of them along with 4 grandparents move to a community where they are surrounded by a supportive community and extended family and top of the line paid help.
Does anyone have any more realistic scenarios that would end up turn out well for these 14 kids?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way I'd adjust that is skip her parents, specifically her mother. She is not going to be a helpful caring person to the children.
I saw an interview with Nadya that she had had five embryos implanted at least once before (possibly every time) so six was what they thought would work.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I recognize its a pretty big hypothetical leap but IF you were convinced that making a porno film was the only way for you to keep someone from taking your kids, or to provide them with food and shelter or medical care -- would you do it?
To keep someone from taking my kids, well, it depends on who's taking them and why. (For the sake of discussion I'm treating "making a porno" as a placeholder for some action I would find repugnant.) To keep them from being abducted into slavery, yes, of course. To prevent them from going into foster care while I get my life together? Actually a tough decision. I'm leaning toward "yes", though.
It's not even a dilemma if you stipulate that it's the only way to make sure the kids get food and shelter. Thus defined, luckily, it's one of those dilemmas that just doesn't happen in our society. Certainly not for Ms. Suleman, or really anyone in this country. There are always alternatives (foster care being one of them). That being said, I'd do a lot worse if it was the only way to provide my children with food and shelter. Just about any risk or personal cost would be acceptable if it was the only way to keep my children alive. It only becomes a dilemma again when you must balance against direct and significant harm to others.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only way I'd adjust that is skip her parents, specifically her mother. She is not going to be a helpful caring person to the children.
That's definitely worth consideration but I'm also willing to grant that grandma is undoubtedly under a great deal of stress right now. It is often unfair to judge people on few statements made under such circumstances, particularly considering the media sensationalism.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If she makes the movie, making the film might be the only way for her to secure the resources she needs to prove to CPS she can take care of the children but some would certainly consider it as evidence that she is an unfit mother.
In this case, there appear to be other options on the table, thankfully. Upthread someone mentioned an offer to the mother and kids to come live and work on a farm in exchange for roam & board. That would need to be investigated, but it could well be the better option.
Interestingly, there was a Law & Order SUV episode with a plot similar to the situation set up here. The child had cystic fibrosis and required a lot of specialized treatment (chest physiotherapy at regular intervals during the day, etc.). The parents were worried that the child couldn't be guaranteed the care he needed in the foster system, and work was scarce, so they worked in the pornography industry.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to this article Angels in Waiting has made the offer to help her provide and care for, not just the octuplets, but all of her children, including a property that is set up to let her care for the children and she hasn't called them back!
Seriously?! They are offering to give her care and housing worth about $130,00 per month and she's not responding to their offer?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that you really shouldn't judge someone for things like that, but this grandmother has gone beyond. She is confronting her daughter in arguments on tv, she's answering that they should put the babies up for adoption.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by andi330: According to this article Angels in Waiting has made the offer to help her provide and care for, not just the octuplets, but all of her children, including a property that is set up to let her care for the children and she hasn't called them back!
Seriously?! They are offering to give her care and housing worth about $130,00 per month and she's not responding to their offer?
Maybe, maybe not.
I make it a rule not to believe a single thing Gloria Alred says without verification from at least 3 other unrelated sources. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the organization was founded, is run and the offer was made by Linda West Conforti, who operates Angels in Waiting, the non-profit group. Gloria Alred is simply their legal counsel. Linda West Conforti has been quoted as having made the offer in multiple articles and it is she who estimated what it is worth.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
andi330, Could you please provide us with some references? Like rivka, I distrust Gloria Alred and her motivations. I would like to confirm that the other sources you refer are truly independent of her.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I can see, the founder of Angels in Waiting in 2005 (Linda West Conforti, an NP and certified foster parent for medically fragile children) appeared with Gloria Alred on the Good Morning America show. There is a 4.5 minute clip and more information here.
I don't really know anything about the details of the offer other than what was presented on the show. According to the clip, Angels in Waiting "provides for the care of high-risk premature medically fragile infants, and they would be able to provide 24 hour care to these babies when they come out of the hospital -- in fact to the siblings as well -- with nurses and educational specialists such as Linda." OT, PT, and developmental specialists are also mentioned.
According to Alred, after there was no response to the offer when made privately (I suppose that means they didn't have confirmation of receipt), the offer was made publicly via a press conference. The founder (Linda) went on to explain how their system works. She calculates it would cost $130,000/mo to care for all the children, including therapy for the mother.
Alred said that the mother would be able to be in the home with all 14 children, but it isn't clear to me whether this would be a form of a foster situation, with the legal control over medical decisions in another person's hands. From a quick skim of the AIW site, it looks to me like it is usually run as a foster site. The founder and one of the other nurses there (see here) refer to themselves as "Mommies," although it seems that as certified foster parents for medically fragile children and registered nurse practitioners, they are also each able to bill 12 hrs daily as medical providers. On the clip, they also requested donations from the public if the children stay with them.
That's all I know. The story gets more interesting as it is unfolding. I worked at a foster site for medically fragile infants when I was in undergraduate. That site had a foster mother but not any nurses or medical providers, and it was much less organized than this place appears to be. I'd still want to know about the extent of formal oversight, especially given the particulars of this case.
posted
Thanks, CT. If going there actually would mean giving up her kids to foster care, even if she were initially able to stay with them, I can certainly understand why she would find that concerning.
Especially given that it is not being represented that way at all. Gloria Alred lives up to her rep once again. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Especially given that it is not being represented that way at all. Gloria Alred lives up to her rep once again.
[Just to be perfectly clear here,] I don't know that is the case, though, rivka. It just isn't clear to me that it isn't.
Given that AIW gave out a press release and had representation on GMA, I'm surprised that I don't see mention of this on their website. (I might be missing it, but I looked pretty hard.) I'd expect a link to the formal press release, if nothing else -- that is, given that they are seeking media coverage, it would seem obvious that making sure the details weren't misrepresented should be a priority. I don't know what, if anything, to make of that.
Like rivka, I can certainly see why fostering (if a part of the bargain) might make the mother hesitant to entertain the offer. I have further concerns myself about what level of oversight this project would have, as my own experience made me leery of the lack of outside oversight in sites for such care. Only one experience, but not one I'd care to see repeated the same way.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Interestingly, merely searching for "Angels in Waiting" gives a fair number of matches and at least two have explicit warnings that they are not in fact involved.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The site I linked above does have LWC as both contact person and founder. It is the same site you linked to, Mucus, just the "nurses needed" page of that site because it contained the backstory.
I still cannot find a press release on that site, for whatever it's worth.
Also FWIW, there is more backstory on AIW and LWC at Nurse.com, a site that pulls together job opportunities and resources for nurses, such as the periodicals Nursing Spectrum and NurseWeek.
---
PS: Thanks for the heads-up about multiple sites under that general name, nonetheless. It's a good caveat.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am at this point hoping that the children are not released into her care at all.
What do you suggest as an alternative?
Foster care. Adoption. The mom's crazy and untrustworthy and realistically cannot be trusted to care for these children properly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone who has not met her can evaluate whether she is "crazy". Particularly unless you have professional credentials I am unaware of.
She definitely cannot do it without support, and I think Kaiser's stance is exactly right.
I also think something like AIW's apparent plan is the most reasonable option. However, how about one that is clear on what they are suggesting, and not deliberately misleading?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The money to pay for all of this would come from donations to the organization. The taxpayers would not be charged. Even better is the fact that any money that is donated to Angels In Waiting will go directly to the care of the infants and children. Nadya Suleman wouldn't receive a penny.
However, registered Nurse Linda West-Conforti, the founder of Angels In Waiting, told ABC Los Angeles that is taking care of the children, would involve 12 providers a day, at a cost of $135,000 a month. She is unsure if they could raise that much money before the infants left the hospital.
...
Allred stated that the offer is only on the table until February 26th, due to the fact that the organization needs enough time to make plans to take care of the children.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I also think something like AIW's apparent plan is the most reasonable option. However, how about one that is clear on what they are suggesting, and not deliberately misleading?
Without knowing what the details of the offer were, how do we know the media spots have been deliberately misleading?
We don't know that AIW didn't offer to set aside space with access to facilities without requiring the mother to assent to fostering -- at least, nothing that I've seen laid out anywhere rules this out. Just as I'd argue against ascribing unsubstantiated qualities to the mother, I'd argue against doing so to this agency, unless substantiation can be found. Or have I missed something you saw? (Honest question.)
[edited for grammar, etc]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think anyone who has not met her can evaluate whether she is "crazy". Particularly unless you have professional credentials I am unaware of.
I have a degree in 'allowed to think she's nuts' (BA minor) but seriously, she's crazy. There's ultimately plenty of information available that lends me to make that statement.
I find her condition unambiguous. She's mentally ill.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The news articles I can find (like here at Pasadena Star News) seem to suggest that at the news conference, Alred presented the AIW offer as an alternative to foster care.
quote:LOS ANGELES - An offer to provide free, comprehensive medical and emotional services to the recently born octuplets and their older siblings has been put on the table for Whittier resident Nadya Suleman's consideration -- but she's only got a week to accept it.
Otherwise, famed lawyer Gloria Allred said at a news conference Thursday in her office, Suleman will likely have her 14 children taken away from her and placed into foster care.
I don't see exact quotes, so that is the reporters' interpretations of what is said. But I certainly can't find anything even that solid to suggest that Suleman would have to put her kids into the foster care system in order to accept the assistance from AIW.
I'm not willing to call the publicity deliberately misleading until I see something that indicates it is so. But I certainly can agree that it makes sense for Suleman to be very careful about the details, as should anybody be in such circumstances.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think anyone who has not met her can evaluate whether she is "crazy". Particularly unless you have professional credentials I am unaware of.
I have a degree in 'allowed to think she's nuts' (BA minor) but seriously, she's crazy. There's ultimately plenty of information available that lends me to make that statement.
I find her condition unambiguous. She's mentally ill.
BA minor is not in this case professional credentials and I'm quite confident that anyone with both professional credentials and professional ethics would be unwilling to make any diagnosis without ever meeting a patient let alone based on sensational media reports.
That said, I agree that all the available data points toward mental illness. I'm also confident that the available data has not been collected in an objective and unbiased manner and have serious questions about the accuracy of what has been reported. Based on the available data, I think there is legitimate concern about the mothers mental health. I would like to see Kaiser hospital and CPS demand the mother receive a thorough psychiatric evaluation before the children are released to her care. If that evaluation confirms a genuine mental illness, I think CPS should make proper treatment of the mental illness a minimum precondition for the mother to have continued responsibility for and possibly even contact with the children. If a proper professional evaluation determines that her mental state raises legitimate concerns for the safety and well being of the children, I would hope appropriate actions are taken to protect the children including if necessary placing the children in foster care.
In many ways, the offer made by AIW sound like it might be a genuinely positive alternative for this family. Like CT, I'd like to see all the details before passing judgement but the basic concept of keeping all the children and mother together in an environment where there is adequate help to properly care for the children and the potential for the mother to remain in contact with her children while she receives mental health care (if she actually needs it). It's probably not a perfect solution and doesn't answer any of the long term concerns, but as a start it looks like potentially a better option than either traditional foster care or sending the kids home with mommy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wondered about why AIW went public with the offer, but then it occurred to me that they might not have had any way of knowing whether their [initial, earlier] private offer actually reached Suleman's eyes.
Suleman had official publicity agents at one time, but not any more. She has received death threats and is likely deliberately difficult to reach at this point. [I sure would be.] I can well imagine that tracking her down would be problematic, even with a legitimate offer, and if no response was received, I myself would wonder if she ever got it. Turning it down would mean she got it, but no response would be ambiguous. Who knows?
On the one hand, if I were in their shoes, I'd prefer to respect the woman's privacy. On the other hand, her voluntary appearances on more than one talk show would make me less worried about bridging that public-private gap, even though I'd still try to keep it as private as possible.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:BA minor is not in this case professional credentials and I'm quite confident that anyone with both professional credentials and professional ethics would be unwilling to make any diagnosis without ever meeting a patient let alone based on sensational media reports.
Actually if you check out the American Association of Calling People Nuts, a BA minor professionally permits you to call people nuts in workplace or forum settings.
Calling someone nuts in talk radio takes a masters' degree tho.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if any of the people calling her crazy would think she was if she had just had twins (with the six others at home already and all other details as they are now) instead of octuplets? Remember: that was not her intent or expectation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I wonder if any of the people calling her crazy would think she was if she had just had twins (with the six others at home already and all other details as they are now) instead of octuplets? Remember: that was not her intent or expectation.
By IVF, with no way to support them, no father, six young kids (a couple of whom have disabilities) already, you bet I would. If I were feeling generous.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
