As a guy, the father of one toddler, and husband to one loving wife, I can hardly relate to the saga unfolding in Southern California to Nadya Suleman. If you’ve been living anywhere but under a rock, you know that Suleman is the much-trashed mother of new octuplets — oh, and six other kids — who’s now divorced and lives with her parents. The octuplets’ births were celebrated at first, but like layers of an onion the whole thing began to stink quite a bit as the full story was revealed.
Tough as it is, let’s forget her situation for just a minute. Let’s forget the ethics and the doctors involved in her in vitro fertilization. In fact, let’s rewind things completely and flash all the way back to 1997 and the birth of the famous McCaughey septuplets. The babies were then the world’s only set of surviving septuplets. The McCaughey septuplets are as typical as a multiple birth event could ever be in America, despite the fact that the babies were born prematurely, and two of the babies were born with complications and are said to be suffering from cerebral palsy. But the birth event was pretty typical because it was hailed as a miracle and celebrated as an all-around lovely event, even though it was all made possible thanks to IVF.
The family was showered with gifts after they came home from the hospital. They were given a 5,000 square-foot house, a van, a two-year supply of diapers, baby food, a nanny service and lots of other goodies. The McCaugheys even took a congratulatory phone call from then-President Bill Clinton. The media, TV and movie offers came in, and newspapers and television stations all over the world rained fascination and attention on the family.
Now fast-forward to 2009, and the event of a multiple birth is finally being scrutinized by — well, pretty much the entire country. So, I couldn’t help but notice this AP headline in my newspaper yesterday: “Octuplets Not Being Showered With Gifts.” The family has, apparently, been showered with media offers, book and TV deals. But, the Sulemans have presented these companies with quite the PR problem:
“I think it’s a calamity,” said publicist David Brokaw, who has handled crises for celebrities. “I don’t see, the way this is shaped, how you can say much about it in terms of something favorable.” … Makers of diapers, formula and other products would probably want to steer clear of her, Brokaw said. He suggested she lie low for now and concentrate on crafting an image as a responsible parent.
Responsible parenting — there’s a good idea. The story goes on … Gerber isn’t committing anything to the family and neither is Procter & Gamble. No baby food, no diapers, no house, no van, no nothing. In fact, P&G said that the family could apply for coupons and other subsidies that the company offers to any down-on-their-luck families.
Suleman and her doctors sure could have used a big dose of better judgment. If you want to get judgmental (oh, I do!) then let’s talk about the fact that these corporations are suddenly in the business of picking and choosing the families they want to align with and show off how great their supposedly caring brands are. Thanks to modern science they’re probably going to have to start getting more choosy with families they throw free diapers at. They shouldn’t have ever lavished freebies on other families like the McCaughey septuplets. I’m totally for helping needy families, but to me if you’re going to do it for one or some, you’d better do it for all.
Suleman obviously has her work cut out for her. How can these companies turn their noses up to one family while offering praise and products to the others? Can’t at least one company (besides a publisher, movie or TV studio) find it in their hearts to supply this poor family — there are eight infants, after all — with just a little something?