Artificial Insemination vs. Adoption, rights, etc.
As far as I know*, there are no requirements or interviews of hopeful parents to be artificially inseminated. However, here's what I found about California adoption:
http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c08.html
Who May Adopt?
Any adult in California may file a petition to adopt a child who is at least ten years younger than the petitioner. Commonly, married couples apply to become adoptive parents, although single and divorced people are not prohibited from adopting in California. California law as administered by agencies is quite flexible with regard to other qualifications. There is no particular age, housing situation, social background, or income level that makes certain people more qualified than others to be adoptive parents. Some people may be required to provide additional information to an agency considering their application. For instance, working parents would be required to demonstrate how child care will be provided.
Qualification
Adoption agencies conduct a rather extensive examination of people who wish to adopt, to ensure that they are fit to do so. The agency assesses the child's needs and creates a record that includes a history and verification that the child is free for adoption. Agency workers perform a "home study," going into the potential parents' home to investigate that it is an appropriate place for a child. The adoptive parents are subject to an investigation of criminal, marital, medical, and employment backgrounds. The home study also includes an interview, the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the potential parents are ready for the responsibilities of parenting. Some of the issues covered in the home study include:
• Is the house clean and safe?
• Is there room for the child?
• How long have the applicants been married?
• Are both people eager to adopt?
• Do the applicants have any experience with children?
• Can they afford to have the child?
• Will one parent stay home with the child or will they use day care?
Now then, here's why the topic came up.
I read an article today (which is probably in every newspaper) about Guadalupe Benitez, a Southern California resident who happens to be lesbian and in 1999 wished to be artificially inseminated so that she and her partner could be parents. The doctor allegedly (allegedly because from what I read, there is contention between whether it was based on sexual orientation or marital status) stated that due to religious beliefs concerning the fact that Benitez was/is gay, she would not perform the procedure; but, another would when the time came. However, when the time did come, she found that no one in the clinic would perform the procedure, stating the alleged same reason. This was a problem because the clinic was the only one in her health plan. She did finally receive treatment from a clinic outside her health plan, and the article states that the difference was covered by the original clinic.
Now, here's what sparked this thread: toward the end of the article, it says that, "fertility doctors often feel responsible for the children they help bring into the world and do not want to introduce children to an unhealthy situation." This statement made me wonder about adoption, also, and whose right it is to decide who is fit and who is unfit. As far as I know, there is no regulation on who can and cannot be a parent based on artificial insemination. Similarly, the state of California doesn't limit who can adopt, whether they be single, married, or otherwise, BUT there are typically extensive interviews and home studies are conducted.
Now then, to the crux of the issue: any idiot can be a parent, given the right timing and fertility. There are no interviews for naturally conceiving parents. One could argue that Benitez could have just gone out and had sex with a random guy (although she probably has no desire to do so). But, for non-naturally conceiving/adoptive parents, should the procedures be similar? If the doctors are concerned with the home life of the child, should their concerns be alleviated in a basic sense (by showing that the prospective parent(s) provide basic needs) by conducting interviews and home studies? Is that in itself a violation of rights to conceive? Are the rights to be a parent different for parents that carry versus parents who may adopt? All of it concerns parenting.
And, if a doctor doesn't agree with a lifestyle chosen by a patient, do they have the right to refuse treatment? As cited in the article, it would be akin to a Muslim store owner barring women who did not wear a head covering or an Orthodox Jewish restaurant owner not allowing men and women to sit together. While it's not a direct comparison, I think it is a reasonable one.
Anyway, food for thought...I may revise this later on since I am at work and can't proofread. I have to hurry and submit the post before I get in trouble :p
*I've never heard of any, and didn't see anything come up regarding the topic in my very brief internet search.
http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c08.html
Who May Adopt?
Any adult in California may file a petition to adopt a child who is at least ten years younger than the petitioner. Commonly, married couples apply to become adoptive parents, although single and divorced people are not prohibited from adopting in California. California law as administered by agencies is quite flexible with regard to other qualifications. There is no particular age, housing situation, social background, or income level that makes certain people more qualified than others to be adoptive parents. Some people may be required to provide additional information to an agency considering their application. For instance, working parents would be required to demonstrate how child care will be provided.
Qualification
Adoption agencies conduct a rather extensive examination of people who wish to adopt, to ensure that they are fit to do so. The agency assesses the child's needs and creates a record that includes a history and verification that the child is free for adoption. Agency workers perform a "home study," going into the potential parents' home to investigate that it is an appropriate place for a child. The adoptive parents are subject to an investigation of criminal, marital, medical, and employment backgrounds. The home study also includes an interview, the purpose of which is to ascertain whether the potential parents are ready for the responsibilities of parenting. Some of the issues covered in the home study include:
• Is the house clean and safe?
• Is there room for the child?
• How long have the applicants been married?
• Are both people eager to adopt?
• Do the applicants have any experience with children?
• Can they afford to have the child?
• Will one parent stay home with the child or will they use day care?
Now then, here's why the topic came up.
I read an article today (which is probably in every newspaper) about Guadalupe Benitez, a Southern California resident who happens to be lesbian and in 1999 wished to be artificially inseminated so that she and her partner could be parents. The doctor allegedly (allegedly because from what I read, there is contention between whether it was based on sexual orientation or marital status) stated that due to religious beliefs concerning the fact that Benitez was/is gay, she would not perform the procedure; but, another would when the time came. However, when the time did come, she found that no one in the clinic would perform the procedure, stating the alleged same reason. This was a problem because the clinic was the only one in her health plan. She did finally receive treatment from a clinic outside her health plan, and the article states that the difference was covered by the original clinic.
Now, here's what sparked this thread: toward the end of the article, it says that, "fertility doctors often feel responsible for the children they help bring into the world and do not want to introduce children to an unhealthy situation." This statement made me wonder about adoption, also, and whose right it is to decide who is fit and who is unfit. As far as I know, there is no regulation on who can and cannot be a parent based on artificial insemination. Similarly, the state of California doesn't limit who can adopt, whether they be single, married, or otherwise, BUT there are typically extensive interviews and home studies are conducted.
Now then, to the crux of the issue: any idiot can be a parent, given the right timing and fertility. There are no interviews for naturally conceiving parents. One could argue that Benitez could have just gone out and had sex with a random guy (although she probably has no desire to do so). But, for non-naturally conceiving/adoptive parents, should the procedures be similar? If the doctors are concerned with the home life of the child, should their concerns be alleviated in a basic sense (by showing that the prospective parent(s) provide basic needs) by conducting interviews and home studies? Is that in itself a violation of rights to conceive? Are the rights to be a parent different for parents that carry versus parents who may adopt? All of it concerns parenting.
And, if a doctor doesn't agree with a lifestyle chosen by a patient, do they have the right to refuse treatment? As cited in the article, it would be akin to a Muslim store owner barring women who did not wear a head covering or an Orthodox Jewish restaurant owner not allowing men and women to sit together. While it's not a direct comparison, I think it is a reasonable one.
Anyway, food for thought...I may revise this later on since I am at work and can't proofread. I have to hurry and submit the post before I get in trouble :p
*I've never heard of any, and didn't see anything come up regarding the topic in my very brief internet search.
posted by Angie at Friday, July 29, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home