I Don't Support Carolyn Savage Carrying the Wrong Baby to Term
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 39
Call me egotistical, but I’m not lining up behind the well-wishers cheering on Carolyn Savage, the Ohio woman who, in the process of undergoing IVF, was mistakenly implanted with another couple's embryo. She decided to carry the baby to term and just passed the 35-week mark.
Her predicament is clearly wrenching from a zillion standpoints, not to mention fraught with thorny ethical dilemmas. But I’m interested in why she decided to continue the pregnancy once she learned very early on—in the same conversation, no less—that yes, she was pregnant, but no, the baby was not hers.
Various articles about Savage and her husband, Sean, have cited their religious beliefs. Can’t argue with that. But I can wonder at what point self-interest should trump altruism. Sure, some women claim to sail through pregnancy, but I think (hope?) they’re lying. It’s hard work growing a baby, and it can tear up a woman’s body. My sister-in-law had surgery last month to restore bladder control after the births of her two girls. I’ve racked up thousands of dollars in medical charges trying to treat a painful varicose vein caused by the weight of my growing uterus, times three pregnancies. Savage herself delivered her second child 10 weeks premature after being diagnosed with HELLP, a life-threatening pregnancy complication related to preeclampsia. It took her 10 years to get pregnant with her third, who also arrived early when HELLP resurfaced.
Her current pregnancy has got to be her last, her doctor has counseled her, out of concern for her health. So Savage, an unwitting surrogate, has now signed a contract with a surrogate of her own—someone who will do exactly what she is doing, albeit wittingly.
It’s fraught enough to sign up to be a surrogate with your eyes wide open (as XXers discussed at length this summer). But being forced into it? I can’t imagine the rawness of birthing a baby, then giving it away, all the while mourning what should have been.
There’s not much data out there about surrogates’ experiences, but a study of 34 surrogates published in 2003 in the journal Human Reproduction revealed that 32 percent reported some difficulties after they relinquished the babies they’d carried. A few months later, 15 percent still were having trouble coping. And these are women who made an intentional decision to pursue surrogacy.
In my eyes, Carolyn Savage wasted her last chance at pregnancy carrying a baby that wasn’t hers. She suffered all the pain for none of the gains. What she did get is a lot of heartbreak. Sometimes, I guess, that’s what parenthood is all about.
Comments
On Carolyn's Decision
By: Michael Labeit | Thu, 10/01/2009 - 19:08
In the midst of the almost uncritical support for Carolyn Savage's decision, in the face of a fantastically disastrous error, to nurture the wrong fetus to term, I'm pleased to find someone - Bonnie Rochman - who has the gumption to take an unapologetically contrarian position in her blunt, doublex blog post entitled "I Don't Support Carolyn Savage Carrying the Wrong Baby to Term." My only complaint derives from the few concessions she makes, concessions I believe are unnecessary.
Ms. Rochman very briefly refers to how various articles have made references to the Savages' religious beliefs, convictions that have undoubtedly persuaded Carolyn to agree to keep the baby. In response to Carolyn's faith, Ms. Rochman briskly replies "Can't argue with that." Why is that?
Is Carolyn's decision exempt from critical scrutiny simply because is was motivated by mysticism? I would argue that not only are motivations always and everywhere vulnerable to examination, but that faith-based motives are the worst motives to succumb to. Unlike what many clever theologians and religious scholars would have us believe, faith is simply belief without evidence - its the appeal to claims, declarative statements, propositions, etc., in the absence of factual support. If only most people were aware of the massive implications of such a definition, they would certainly think twice before showing faith any argumentative mercy. Christopher Hitchens succinctly echoed and captured this sentiment recently in yet another brilliant speech made before the Commonweath Club on his experiences in the "Axis of Evil" nations. In response to a question from someone within the audience, Hitchens argued something to the effect that "If I could change one thing about the discourse in this country, it would be the approbation people lend to those who consider themselves 'men or women of faith'...it amounts to saying that 'look, I'm willing to take a tremendous amount of information on pure trust.'"
When we put the epistemology of faith in perspective, it no longer seems (to the honest inquirer) so worthy of respect. How do we know that faith-based claims are true? After all they are, by definition, arbitrary. It was Carl Sagan who wrote, "I don't want to believe, I want to know." Faith allows us to believe, of course, but it does not enable us whatsoever to know and its knowing thats essential because knowledge is awareness. Knowledge can be used productively - it is a commodity. Unfounded belief is, by contrast, a liability that people end up having to pay for. By allowing her religion to guide her choices, Carolyn tacitly confesses her unwillingness to appeal to reason, to logic, when it comes to decisions regarding her welfare. Rochman herself recognizes the potential health hazards associated with pregnancy, not to mention the financial costs. If Carolyn's conclusion that "she ought to assume these risks" is indeed erroneous as Rochman argues, isn't the method Carolyn employed to form such a conclusion equally mistaken, that method being faith?
Lastly, Rochman makes an important point but fails to develop it (I realize her blog post was a blog post, not intended as a lengthy commentary but blog posts unfortunately leave many questions unanswered). Rochman states, after pondering Savage's impetus to keep the fetus, "But I can wonder at what point self-interest should trump altruism." Take it from an army reservist, altruism will not make you happy. Selfishness as concern for one's own interests is necessary if one wants to live, let alone live blissfully. It is not wrong to treat oneself as the primary beneficiary of one's decisions since one's survival and one's happiness is contingent primarily upon one's initiative. Press the issue. Why shouldn't Savage be concerned about her own interests? Its her life that she is meddling with. Altruism, selfless sacrifice for the sake of others, will only stunt her pursuit of her happiness. A Carolyn sympathizer might rebut, asking, "Well, an abortion would end the life of an innocent, potential child?" My response is that the moral responsibility for this falls upon the brains who sowed the wrong seeds in her in the first place. She cannot be asked to pay the price of ineptitude expressed by others. What's unfortunate is that she's willing nevertheless.
Mrs. Savage
By: Azalea | Wed, 09/30/2009 - 22:49
Should be cheered on in exercising her right to continue the pregnancy and then give the baby to his/her biological and very eager parents. No one should be shunned for choosing to abort or give life. How could you be feminist and clam to be pro-choice yet be against this decision?
Blogging
By: lagne | Tue, 09/29/2009 - 11:44
I fully agree with what you've said about blog entries versus articles, Athenos. And this is all just my opinion.
.
As far as "more stringently written/edited," I think you've misunderstood me; I'm speaking less of writing mechanics and more of the PURPOSE of the piece. Since blog entries are more casual expressions of POV/opinion, this piece might have been worthy of a widely-published blog post if the author had shared WHY the subject is important to her - for example, her personal experience with infertility, IVF, fertility clinic mishaps, switched embryos, and the like.
.
Since the author has shared none of these, she establishes no personal connection with the subject (and a parenting blog doesn't establish infertility cred); it sounds like she's just venting, which is perfectly appropriate for a PERSONAL blog. Certainly people don't HAVE to have personal experiences with issues before writing about them, but there's always some reason that the subject resonates with the author. I just think we needed to know why this piece was so important to the author in order to understand (and perhaps temper) her inappropriately-critical, judgmental tone.
.
For what it's worth, I think by asking "I guess I just don't see the difference: if it's junk one would post on one's personal blog, why not post it in XX?" you've hit on why this piece bothered so many people - it's not only the content, but also the author's somewhat smug assumption that her personal venting is meaningful cultural commentary and important enough to show up on a stranger's computer screen.
.
Bottom line: Why should we care what she thinks? She never told us why her opinion in this matter is important. Which is why she should have kept her opinion to herself (or to her own personal blog, if she just HAD to share it with an audience). For me, that's the point of why this entry is pointless (haha) - give a counterargument to WHAT? and for what purpose?
Blogs
By: Athenos | Tue, 09/29/2009 - 03:29
I guess I just don't see the difference: if it's junk one would post on one's personal blog, why not post it in XX? You seem to be claiming that publishing one's thoughts on a broader scale means they need to be be more stringently written/edited? I just don't see it. Blogs are marketed as such because they are more casual. Official articles are a different beast. With blogs posts, readers expect a more immediate and casual response to events. They aren't the same as fully written articles. The most important aspect is point of view, which is what we have here. If you don't like it, that's fine. Give a counter-argument. But the idea that this isn't worthy of a blog-post seems silly.
@Athenos
By: lagne | Mon, 09/28/2009 - 21:29
Sometimes people call a blog post "pointless" because it's pointless. By the number of commenters saying just that, I'd say we're not the ones missing the point. I happen to love blogs, but if the author's going to share her perspective in a forum like this, it's reasonable to expect that her thoughts either provoke or contribute to some kind of meaningful commentary. This, however, was just a blanket personal condemnation. So really.. not trying for snark, but what IS the point? This is the kind of crap one posts on one's own personal blog, where one can post any meaningless stream-of-consciousness drivel one desires.
Hey choisygirl
By: Athenos | Mon, 09/28/2009 - 19:46
Where do you blog-haters come from, and why do you insist on commenting? I see people like you commenting on blogs from print publications all the time. You don't like blogs (or don't understand their purpose) and insist on trying to treat them like a newspaper article.
They aren't.
If you don't like the blog, you don't have to read it, but calling a blog post pointless means you are the one missing the point. Someone is writing about their point of view. Feel free to discuss it or not, but stop trying to complain that the blog is acting like a blog.
Poorly written article with no point
By: choisygirl | Sun, 09/27/2009 - 18:22
Adding to the criticism that the author clearly invited, the main problem is that this poorly-written article has no point. Really, I mean, who cares? While it is certainly different to hear someone whining about this story instead of admiring the people involved, that doesn't make it interesting. The author has no viewpoint except perhaps to suggest feminism through pessimism, which is disappointing. I'd like to think that Carolyn Savage made a choice many people in a similar situation would ultimately make - to choose risk or self-sacrifice when put in a situation where you have the opportunity to help someone or even, dare I suggest, save a life. What is offensive is the revealingly privileged argument that there are "no gains" to Savage from doing so. The last paragraph is tenuous drivel targeted at the impossible task of devising a point for this story. And apparently to direct the reader to the author's parenting blog. Umm, no thanks.
I must still be living in a media hole.
By: Kapt Z | Sat, 09/26/2009 - 08:26
I always laugh at myself when I read stuff like this. Who the blazes is Carolyn Savage? Why are we even talking about her pregnancy? Why should she care what we think? Oh, I'm going back to bed.
clarification
By: suzannesmith | Fri, 09/25/2009 - 19:40
Carolyn and Sean never said they did this because of their religious beliefs - they only indicated that they are people of faith. Carolyn and Sean chose life. There is no anti-choice rhetoric coming from these people...why the ridicule?
As for why they went before the media - it is widely known what happened 10 years ago when a similar story went public. It became a tabloid media circus. Carolyn and Sean were wise to tell their story before it got in the hands of the rags. Very smart. They do a great justice to the infertile world by handling this in such a fashion.
Both families are handling this with incredible care and thoughtfulness. I wish them and the unborn baby boy a wonderful life.
I hope that this serves as a lesson to all clinics that they must tighten their procedures to ensure this type of thing never, ever happens again.
life is good
By: J | Fri, 09/25/2009 - 13:07
Which would be harder -- relinguishing the baby or killing the baby?
Actually, it shouldn't matter in the decision making which would be harder. Which would be morally right and which would be evil?