I have been pondering all of the recent media attention regarding acccess to IVF and age, remember the “World’s Oldest Mom,” and Michael Jackson’s children created via IVF and surrogacy (and possibly egg donor and/or sperm donor).  Again, I am surprised by the number of people who want to restrict access to IVF, or more importantly access to having a family.  They want age limits, marital status limits, as well as sexual orientation limitations. 

Now, for those of us who have families, we may or may not have walked in the shoes of those that cannot have children on their own without the help of medical intervention or adoption.  But, I will tell you that I am not any more entitled to having my children than Michael Jackson or even Maria del Carmen Brousada.  Why, you may ask? Because having a family is something that is inate in all of us – albeit some stronger than others.  And, when I have stated in the past that it is a biological imperative, I do not mean the need to pass on genes - I mean the inate human desire deep in our DNA to have a family – to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. 

With that in mind, why should gays and lesbians be restricted to having children via IVF or adoption?  In fact, a study recently out of Tufts University School of Medicine stated that they found “overwhelming” that these children of same sex couples do as well as those children of heterosexual parents.   

Now, back to the age issue, do I think that this woman had a right to treatment?  Yes, I do; but, I also think that her age placed her and her children into harm’s way as far as their health during the pregnancy was concerned.  And, should are worry carry over into being concerned for their health and livelihood after her death?  Well, I did not know Maria, nor do I know if she provided for them financially after her death or if she provided them with guardians who will love and take care of them as if they were their own.   But, this is an issue again that all parents must deal with one way or another regardless of age – her risk factors were just higher. 

As for Michael Jackson, we are learning so much more about the life that he too created with these children whom he dearly loved and wanted to protect from the media spotlight.  Let’s take out all of the allegations of child molestation for a minute and only address those children.  Should he have children because he wants them or because he can afford them?  Or, should he be able to have children so long as the allegations were not proven? 

Oh, and by the way, all of those pundits out there claiming he is not the father since he did not adopt them – you are way off base.  Adoptive and foster parents also do not need to worry since surrogacy, egg donation, and sperm donation is a different area of law, specifically here in California.  Whether he used sperm donors, egg donors and/or surrogates, he is the father of these children, with Debbie Rowe being the only possible outsider with a chance at custody.  And, despite reports she did not make Michael the adoptive father by signing away her rights – and no need for an adoption. 

Ultimately, as a country, we do need to take all of this into consideration, but we also need to allow doctors and their patients to make the best decisions for their family, their bodies, and, most of all – the children that we are creating. 

What are your thoughts on today’s ponderings?

Subscribe to my blog here.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post