I recently read this article in Boston Magazine, and it really bummed me out. The author, Julie Suratt, a mother of twins herself, notes that Massachusetts has the nation's highest twin birth rate, then says, "I have to wonder if this deluge of doubles is a good thing for their parents—or for our area as a whole. I adore my boys and wouldn't trade them for the world. But I would no more wish multiples on a couple than I would bubonic plague." Yikes!
Now, I realize she's exaggerating for the sake of impact with the bubonic plague thing. Being funny and all that -- I've tried it myself a few times. But the tone of the whole article is decidedly negative, and really rather whiney, in my opinion. Many of Suratt's complaints about the difficulties of raising twins could easily apply to raising any two (or more) children close in age. And to hear her kvetch about the cost of twin supplies and gear -- as someone from my MOT club noted -- you'd think she'd never heard of a yard sale, Craig's list, borrowing from friends or, God forbid, making due with less (I count three double strollers on her list...) And didn't anyone give the poor woman a baby shower?
"Our tally for diapers (at least 20 a day) and formula (16 bottles a day) for the first year was about $5,000. Add to that the clothing, furniture, and gear (to wit: double stroller, double jogger, double snap-n-go stroller, two highchairs, two playpens, two infant car seats, two toddler car seats, two cribs, two swings, two bouncy seats, two baby Bjorns…), and we probably spent $15,000."
(And, man, she must have had crazy-poopy babies to go through 10+ diapers per kid per day! I don't think we ever used that many, even in the earliest months.)
A big part of the article is spent discussing the role that assisted reproductcive technology (ART) plays in the burgeoning Mass. twin population, and the burden that twins pose on the healthcare system, due to premature births, complications, etc. The author makes a reasonable point in suggesting that fertility clinics educate their patients more fully about the chances of multiples with ART, encourage the transfer of only one embryo in IVF when possible, even if it means lower success rates for the clinic. But the fact is, infertile couples want success, too. Many try multiple IVFs to no avail. Implanting multiple embryos is done with the hope that even just ONE will develop into a pregnancy. Is it wrong for a couple to try for that? Has Suratt considered how painful and frustrating it is to face month after month, year after year, of failed attempts to conceive? (She conceived twins "naturally" as they say, without any ART.)
I didn't actually have IVF myself; I got pregnant through a combination of ovulation drugs and an IUI. The chances of multiple pregnancy in this type of procedure are actually higher than with IVF, but the process is much less involved and much less expensive. With my particular issue (polycystic ovaries) my insurance and the clinic I went to wouldn't have let me go straight to IVF -- a much costlier and more involved process -- without trying IUI first. (My fertility doc was, in fact, the one mentioned in the article.)
Would the author have had me lobby to go straight to IVF -- one embryo, of course, to avoid the risk of twins -- and pose a greater burden on the healthcare system? Or would she say, "why don't you just adopt?" -- the phrase that makes anyone who's dealt with infertility feel instantly homicidal toward the sayer? ("Just adopt." Uh huh. Hey, if your spouse dies, why don't you "just remarry"? If your wedding ring is stolen, why don't you "just replace it"? If you lose your job, why don't you "just move somewhere else and get a new one?")
Suratt also complains that twins are taking up too many spots in daycare and preschool, but that's just silly when you consider the fact that the overall birth rate in Massachusetts has actually declined over the past 15 years. (Thank you, Mass Department of Public Health.)
I'm not denying that twins pose unique and often formidable challenges both to parents and to society as a whole. And it sounds like the author had a particularly difficult experience, with the premature birth of her boys, and her struggle with post-partum depression. I sympathize, and I know that everyone has different experiences in becoming a parent. I just worry that articles like this perpetuate a belief that twins are some kind of, well, plague on society. (Would anyone dare say that the pre- and post-natal care that keeps more disabled babies alive today than in the past is a bad thing because it's a burden on parents and taxpayers?)
Anyway, I didn't mean to spend a whole post critiquing an article by a fellow MOT who is most likely a very nice and reasonable person, and whose article was probably sensationalized and negative-ized by her editors for the sake of controversy. But I guess I did. So to end on a bloggier and more positive note: any expectant twin moms who are reading this and freaking out -- or any twin moms who are feeling overwhelmed by the challenges (which certainly exist!) of raising twins -- I hope you'll check out my post from last year on the top five reasons why twins rule. (And add your own items to the list.)
