Academic

?Michael Jackson Wanted to Buy Octomom?s Babies?

By Kim Krawiec

Via Starpulse Entertainment News.  I kept waiting for this story to make its way into a mainstream media source so that I could blog about it.  It never did.  But I decided that if Dan is going to blog about the purported health benefits of daily orgasms, then I shouldn?t pass up an opportunity to blog about Michael Jackson, baby markets, and the Octomom all in one post, even if the story isn?t true. (Although, as Leiter reminds us, I guess MSM coverage does not guarantee accuracy either).

So, with that disclaimer in mind, the story reports:

Michael Jackson offered to adopt 'Octomom' Nadya Suleman's eight babies in exchange for cash just weeks before he died.  The King of Pop contacted Suleman's publicist Victor Munoz earlier this year and offered to "take care" of her children in return for a payment.  But Munoz considered the proposal "creepy" - and didn't even inform Suleman as he knew she would refuse to give her babies up for adoption. . . .

"He then said he could take care of the children if Nadya couldn't. It was creepy. He was basically offering to buy the children. I was a bit shocked... Michael clearly thought Nadya was unfit and decided he wanted to help those children... But I just blew it off. I knew Nadya would never want to get rid of her kids so it wasn't important."

Similar stories appear in dozens of other tabloids and non-U.S. papers, including The Times of India and The Daily Mirror.  In Why We Should Ignore the Octomom (really short! and available here), I argue ? you guessed it ? that we should ignore the Octomom.  To be precise, never a strong point of blog posts (or catchy law review titles), my argument is that ex ante embryo transfer limits are unlikely to be the best mechanism for regulating multiple births from ARTs.  I suggest instead reliance on ex post liability and state and professional sanctions for doctors and clinics engaged in clearly irresponsible conduct.

Here?s the abstract:

Thanks to the ?Octomom? ? a single, low-income, California mother of six, who recently gave birth to octuplets conceived through IVF -- the American public this year turned its attention to assisted reproductive technology.  In this essay, I take issue with one set of proposals to arise from the controversy: embryo-transfer limits, variations on which have been proposed in Georgia, Missouri, and, most recently, by Naomi Cahn and Jennifer Collins.  Examining national and international multiple-birth rates, as well as similar limits in other countries, I argue that government-mandated embryo-transfer limits would produce fewer benefits and higher costs in the United States than proponents assume.  First, the Octomom is a sad and disturbing, but aberrant, case.  Second, questions of embryo transfer and multiple birth inevitably intersect with other politically contentious issues, including the moral and legal status of embryos and abortion.  These political minefields render it highly unlikely that the United States will implement comprehensive embryo-transfer regulation effectively designed to reduce multiple births anytime soon.

For those wanting even more Octomom reading, try Social Factoring The Numbers With Assisted Reproduction by Feminist Law Prof Bridget Crawford and Lolita Buckner Inniss.  And I will be back with more on baby markets, whether you want it or not . . .

(HT: Mary Anne Case)

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on July 15, 2009 (boomark / email).