5.6: Preliminary Draft and Tracked Changes

The Exploitation of Multiple Birth Children

Two weeks ago, On January 26, 2009, Nadya
Suleman gave birth to octuplets in a California hospital. To
date, all eight babies are alive, but they weighed only
between 1 pound, 8 ounces and 3 pounds, 4 ounces at
birth, which means that they will be in the neonatal unit of
the hospital for weeks to come. Suleman now has fourteen
children—six between the ages of 2 and 7—all of them
conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF), but she also has no
job, no husband or significant other, and no home of her
own. She lives with her mother, who publicly has
expressed disgust with her daughter’s obsessive desire for
multiple children (“Grandma,” 2009). ). Although in the
past she has subsisted with disability payments for a jobrelated
injury, Suleman said she refuses Welfare money to
support herself and her children (Celizic 2009). However,
she has retained a publicist, who mentioned that she’s
looking at seven‐figure offers for her “story” (Celizic 2009;
Rochman 2009). Suleman’s babies and her own life
circumstances are being discussed ad nauseam by the
media, medical and mental health professionals, and
everyday citizens alike. The flurry of interest in Suleman’s
situation is just a recent example of the excitement people
tend to experience when multiple births occur. However,
as fertility treatments increase the rate of multiple births,
the potential for both parents and society to exploit these
children also increases. Even though it might be
understandable given the financial challenges of raising
multiple children, such exploitation is unacceptable
because it skews the children’s experiences of family at
best and it is emotionally harmful to the children at worst.

Comment [BLH1]: Studen
t 1: …future readers need a
specific date to reference.

Comment [BLH2]: Studen
t 2: I did find it difficult to
establish the thesis
statement. Increase IVF &
multiple births, health risks,
publicity, family structure,
single mother and time
dedication were all
mentioned as part of what I
found to be the thesis.

The first revision change I made was in response to Student 1’s comment, which was a good catch on his part. It’s surprising that such a small change as adding a date to an event can contextualize an entire argument. In this case, I substituted the actual date of the octuplets’ birth, which makes the piece understandable in the future.

Student 2’s feedback clearly indicated that there was a potential misunderstanding of the thesis, or argumentative assertion. This argument opens with an anecdote about a mother of octuplets, which doesn’t mean that this mother is necessarily its subject. The assertion appears in the last sentence of the opening paragraph, a common place for a thesis in a short essay. This essay’s goal is to support the position that exploiting multiple children harms them by skewing their experience of family and emotionally harming them. Notice that the goal is broader than just Suleman’s case, as indicated by the word “example” in the third from the last sentence. In order to further help readers to
understand that Suleman isn’t the topic, I deleted detailed information about her that might have caused some readers to think the argument is all about her. I moved that information to later in the essay when I talk about Suleman as an example of an exploitative parent.

How frequent are In order to understand the
problems surrounding multiple births, it is useful to
consider the general frequency of multiple births.?
Because of fertility treatments that were not available
more than twenty‐five years ago, the rates have increased
considerably. In 1980, the number of human spontaneous
twin births, for example, was only 68,339 out of all the
births in the United States that year (Fierro, 2008 & n.d.).
In 2005, however, the twin birth rate was 133,325, nearly
twice the number from 25 years previous (NOMOTC,
2009). The increase in multiple births in the past 29 years
is due in part to fertilization treatments like IVF. 1980
marks a period when fertility methods and procedures
became more readily available, if still costly. According to
Fierro (2008 & n.d.) of About.com, the odds for having
twins when pregnancy results from fertility treatments
have increased nearly 60% since 1980. Triplets, which once
occurred spontaneously in every 1 of 8,100 births, have
increased in frequency by 400% since 1980, while
quadruplets, which once occurred spontaneously in every
1 of 729,000 births, also have increased by orders of
magnitude. Indeed, she estimates: “that 60% of the
triplets are the result of fertility enhancing treatments;
while 90% of quadruplets … are due to reproductive
technology” (2008). Although the author noted that these
statistics are estimates gathered from several sources, the
numbers seem reasonable given the increasing popularity
of fertilization treatments among women in the later
period of child‐bearing years.

Comment [BLH3]: Studen
t 3: At times the language
seems too colloquial,
beginning paragraphs with
“Ah” or a question, and using
phrases such as “the norm.”

Comment [BLH4]: Studen
t 4: I think that the part about
the biology of the human
towards having multiples is
informative but too extensive.

Student 3 found my uses of language to be somewhat informal on various occasions. I didn’t always agree with this reader’s advice; for example, there’s nothing wrong with beginning a paragraph with a question, but she was right that I was being informal in a way that she wasn’t being taught to be informal in most of her college writing. To that end, I eliminated the initial paragraph question and created a sentence that was somewhat more precise.

I had to agree with Student 1’s remark that about.com wasn’t a strong source. I knew that fact when I first used the source, and I searched the Internet and the library search engines for something more authoritative. I wasn’t able to find a better source, but I think that if I had talked to a librarian about these statistics, I probably would have done better. My way of trying to mitigate possible problems from using this source was to make sure that I used the available statistics well from the preliminary draft onward; the rest of the paragraph demonstrates how I used this source.

On the whole, this paragraph seems out of place in the sense that it doesn’t directly deal with the assertion. To some degree, I think that is what Student 4 was indicating. Yet, the information also seems necessary as context. In a longer essay, this paragraph (and even more contextual material) might come in a section called “Background.” I
thought a lot about the student’s advice; I tried moving this material to another place in the argument, and I also tried deleting it altogether. Finally, I decided it was needed information and I left it where it was.

Despite advances in reproductive medicine,
however, women’s bodies have not evolved to give birth
to spontaneous multiples, as evidenced by the rarity of
natural multiple births. Thus, both the mothers’ health and
that of the babies are at risk in these pregnancies (Carroll,
2009). Infant early births, which are common in multiple
births, give rise to dangerously low birth weights along
with insufficiently developed lungs and other organs. It is
not uncommon for such infants to have developmental
problems and chronic illnesses like cerebral palsy and
others that reveal themselves later in life. Pregnant
mothers of multiples also experience challenges as they
may be required to spend months in bed to reduce their
physical risks and to avoid preterm births. The mother
may experience increased risks of gestational diabetes,
preeclampsia, and the need for a Cesarean section, which
carries its own dangers. Implanting only two or three
fertilized eggs are one medically accepted way to avoid
higher levels of multiple births particularly among
women in their thirties and forties (“Octuplet’s Mom,”
2009). Where more than three fetuses are involved, many
doctors advocate “selective reduction” of the fetuses so
that the living ones have more uterine space and nutrition
to be carried to full term and to have healthy birth
weights. Such selection can be a difficult choice dependent
on the parents’ moral values. Given the frequency of

multiple births from IVF and other fertility treatments,
beyond these obvious health issues involved, we have the
responsibility to consider how multiple births potentially
affect the children and their relationships to their parents
and society as a whole.

It certainly is not the norm for a woman to give birth
to more than one child at a time. While many mammals
give birth to litters, humans typically give birth to only one
child. Spontaneous multiple human births do occasionally
occur in nature, just as rarely a cow will birth twin calves
or a horse twin foals. That is why people delight in seeing
twins, whether fraternal or identical. The relative rarity of

twins may cause typically respectful, yet curious people to
become intrusive, asking questions about the twins’ sizes,
hair and eye coloring, emotional dispositions, personality
traits, and even bathroom habits. Not only is this intrusion
off‐putting, but it also can make the children feel
abnormal when children usually want nothing more than
to be considered normal. Indeed, both the parents and the
twins themselves experience their lives as more public
than parents of singles and their children typically do.
Naturally, our interest levels increase when triplets and
quadruplets are born, and they go sky high when higher
numbers of multiple birth children arrive. But our interests
can be dangerous to the emotional well being of the
children.

Comment [BLH8]: Studen
t 5: The essay goes on to
speculate as to why people
pay close attention to
multiple births, but does not
provide evidence that the
public actually does pay
attention or why this is the
case.

These two paragraphs are fairly intimately connected in terms of content, so let’s look at them together. I added the information about the challenges of multiple births here and in paragraphs found below to satisfy readers like Students 1 and 4, who needed more information and wanted better transitions. Throughout the revised essay, I used
their advice and added more detailed material wherever it seemed useful. Pointing me to the need for strong transitions was especially good advice. When I write early drafts, I don’t worry much about transitions because I know that my organization of certain material will change and that I’ll insert appropriate transitional later. I like it when students
notice that the “glue” that holds an essay together is missing.

Student 5 really wanted some statistics and other evidence of my argument’s main points. I agreed that I needed to find more statistical proof to support a point about the unnatural nature of multiple births. Doing so would have helped to show why people are so interested in them. This paragraph also has background material that I used to
get to the heart of my thesis: that there’s disruptiveness about multiple birth children’s and parents’ lives. It provides a reason for why people respond so intrusively to multiple births. But the feedback is well-taken. This material needed authoritative support—not statistics necessarily—but pertinent thoughts about human behavior around multiple birth children.

The final sentence of the second paragraph takes the background information and links it to the assertion. Unfortunately, this technique didn’t work for some of my student readers who were already confused about the thesis—wrongly believing it was about Suleman alone. I left this sentence intact because I believed that the other changes to the
essay would make this thesis link more obvious in the presentation draft.

For those who are curious about methods for arguing an assertion like this one, at the end of this second paragraph, I reasoned from the lesser to the greater: if something is true at a smaller number (twins, triplets), it also will be true at a higher number (sextuplets, octuplets). I’ll say more about such reasoning later in this chapter.

Although Student 6 believed that opening the next paragraph with the words “an historical example” was unnecessary, I thought the idea of history was quite important because I also used two contemporary examples. Instead of deleting the sentence as advised, I added material to help make that connection: “because it demonstrates that multiple births can be problematic even when they arise from natural causes.”

It’s helpful to remember that “positive” criticism like that from Student 5 can be useful to writers by reinforcing what they are doing well. In this case, the example of the Dionne children is reasoning from past fact to future fact: what happened in the past will happen in the future. Some student readers, like Student 7, were unconvinced
because the situation was a little different in the 1930s. Yet, the quintuplets from natural birth were just as much a curiosity in the 1930s as octuplets or sextuplets from IVF birth are in the twenty-first century. Additionally, the financial issues that the Dionne parents experienced are similar to the two main cases I cited. Finally, the “zoo” atmosphere of the Dionne quintuplets certainly can be compared to the television screen that gives the world a peek into the Gosselin sextuplets (discussed later in the essay) and the Suleman octuplets. For these reasons, I left the historical example intact and developed it even more.

In the second paragraph of this set, I restated the assertion. This paragraph and the following one directly support the thesis, which, as you recall, isn’t about Suleman, but about the potential exploitation of all multiple birth children. These causes of death for the Dionne adults are suggestive evidence of the health problems I noted earlier in
the essay about multiple birth children, for example.

This third paragraph particularly makes a transition from the past to the present. I made changes to address level of formality appropriate to what my students also were writing. But I also added material

An historical example will be useful here because it
demonstrates that multiple births can be problematic
even when they arise from natural causes. In 1934, in a
small farming town in Ontario, Canada, quintuplet
daughters were born to Olivia and Elzire Dionne, who
already had six children and were economically quite poor.
The world was fascinated and, even as the astounded
parents began to absorb the shock of having five babies
who each weighed less than 2 pounds at birth, their family
doctor moved in, created a nursery out of the first floor of
the family’s farmhouse, and barred the parents from even
holding their children (Kehoe, 1998). In short order, the
parents were deprived of custody of the little girls, in part
because the unlucky father had contracted to move the
children to Chicago as an exhibit for the Chicago Century
of Progress Exposition, which was a small world’s fair. The
Ontario government intervened and suspended the
parents’ parental rights, stating: “’The lives of children are
a bigger concern in Canada than profits of an exploitation
or promotional undertaking.’” Ironically, they the
government proceeded to build a small theme park,
Quintland, around the children across from the family
farmhouse. Between 1935 and 1943, they were exhibited
“two to three shows a day, seven days a week” and were
viewed as they played by “more than three million
people”; as many as “6000 people a day” walked through
their observation galleries. By the age of five, the girls
knew that they were being observed, just as they knew
that they were unhappy when their parents had to leave
them each day (Kehoe, 1998; see also Leroux, 2000).
According to Kehoe (1998), the quintuplets were further
exploited through commercial endorsements for food,
soap, and likeness dolls, as well as movies and a song.
They had an official photographer and biographer
appointed by the State and even their parents were not
allowed to take photographs of them. Interestingly,
Ontario—but not the family—made money on this
venture; the take was more than 11.5 million dollars in
current dollars. The girls received a much smaller amount
of money in a trust fund that was mismanaged and quickly
depleted.

Comment [BLH9]: Studen
t 6: …it was unnecessary to
include the part about it being
“a historical example”
because the reader may
naturally be able to come to
the conclusion based on the
data you provide.

Comment [BLH10]: Stud
ent 5: Another strength your
essay had was telling the
story of the Dionne
sisters….They grew up and
noticed they were other
people’s entertainment and
not actually living a “normal”
life.

Comment [BLH11]: Stude
nt 7: However I’m not sure
I’m convinced that the same
exploitation will happen to
the Gosselin’s or the
Suleman’s because as a
society we have evolved in
ways that would not
showcase multiple births as if
the kids were like animals at
the zoo to be observed. . . .
I’m sure there is much to be
learned from the Dionne’s
sisters, especially after the
letter they wrote explaining
how their parents desire for
money and fame destroyed
their livelihood during the
childhood and adult years,
which really does convince
me that constant exploitation
of multiple births can really
hinder the lives of children.
However who’s to say that
the Gosselin or Suleman
children will even be affected
by their parents exploiting
them to the public.

This exploitation took its toll on the Dionne sisters.
Even after they were returned to their parents, there was
emotional and physical discord. They left home as soon as
they turned eighteen. In their adult lives, they entered
(and exited) a convent school, refused all contact with
their parents who they deemed as having abandoned
them, married, divorced, and—began to now live together
again on a single small monthly income under $800.00
total. In recent years, three of the surviving quintuplets
(one died from epilepsy and another of chronic ill health
and alcoholism) accused their deceased father of sexual
abuse. In 1995, they sued the government of Ontario for
the mismanagement of their trust fund and their public life
of emotional pain (Kehoe, 1998; Webb, 2008). In 1998,
they won a settlement between two and four million
dollars—the amount was determined after the
government established that the children had earned
more than $500 million dollars in current dollars for
Ontario (Fennell, 1998).

Ah, but this would not happen today, some will
assert. That was then—d It may be difficult to relate an
historically distant example like the Dionne children to
what can occur in the twenty‐first century. Yet, as
multiple births become more common because of
assisted pregnancies, the exploitation of the Dionne
quintuplets can be seen as foreshadowing what can
happen as mass media removes the need to drive
hundreds of miles to see such “oddities.” Human nature
has not changed much in less than one hundred years.
During the Great Depression years and prior to World War
II, people needed the excitement of a miraculous birth to
distract them from their problems. People still are excited
by the advent of multiple births—as evidenced by the
exuberant coverage of the first born set of octuplets in
1998 and the expressed sorrow at the death of one of the
eight. The Chukwu octuplets are now ten years old and,
by all accounts, seem to be living relatively normal lives
with their parents and grandparents (Inbar, 2009). Their
stability might make us think that nNow, in 2009, such an
exploitative situation as the Dionne quintuplets
experienced could not happen.

Comment [BLH12]: Stud
ent 3: This sentence is too
colloquial.

about another set of multiple birth children that may not be as famous because they are not always in the public eye. Despite the major excitement of their birth as the first set of octuplets ever recorded (one died shortly after birth), the Chukwu octuplets appear to be living fairly normal lives. It is here that I use an argumentative strategy of providing a counterargument. A counterargument is an acknowledgment that there are valid points of view other than the one I argue; acknowledging (and sometimes refuting) counterarguments can increase my ethos, or believability, as a writer. I needed to provide evidence that I’ve considered assertions other than my own and that my position still is the most reasonable. This brief material about the Chukwu family (and later the McCaughey septuplets) counterargues that multiple birth children don’t have to be exploited. After admitting this fact, however, I return to my argument in the next paragraph and reveal yet another example of exploited famous multiples: the Gosselins.

But, it exploitation does happen daily for eight
children born to Jon and Kate Gosselin. Their television
show reveals the day‐to‐day lives of their twin eight‐year
old daughters and sextuplet four‐year olds. Their program
“Jon & Kate Plus Eight” is in its fourth season on TLC and it
its most popular show (Bane, 2008). The family plays
together on the show, the parents bicker in friendly (and
occasionally angry) ways, and the world sees a “real‐life”
family of multiples make it on their own. That is, they are
on their own if we consider the fact that the reality show
enabled Jon to leave his job and become a consultant and
that it funds their existence. They also make money from
sales of “DVDs, a book, speaking engagements and
endorsements”; it is a “lucrative” job (Bane, 2008). When
asked what the children think of being followed by
cameras for about five hours a day, Kate responds: “’We
call it the family job,’ explains Kate. She has asked her kids
if they would rather be a ‘normal family’ with parents who
worked while their kids were in day care. ‘Unanimously,
they all say they would rather have the family job’” (Bane,
2008).

We must ask whether it really is possible that six
toddlers who have been raised on camera and eight‐year
old twins can make a thoughtful decision about whether
to be exposed to television cameras daily. Apparently they
do not Clearly they cannot understand the potential
ramifications of being offered up as entertainment to
millions of gaping viewers. Indeed, when given the choice
of a “normal” family at daycare and an exciting “family
job” where the parents are home with them, what little
child would choose day care? The question is rhetorical at
best with the response the children offered being the one
the parents could have expected. Nonetheless, Yet, the
parents do admit that while the sextuplets have been
raised on camera and are used to it, the twin girls may be
finding fame a little more difficult: “’Sometimes their
classmates make comments,’ reveals Kate. ‘Cara doesn’t
care, but Mady doesn’t like to talk about it’” (Bane, 2008).
If this is not exploitation, what is?

Comment [BLH13]: Stud
ent 8: If there is any more
data on multiple birth
exploitation in the past,
where the children are now
adults, I think it would help
prove the argument….We are
just unsure if the exploitation
of the Gosselins will have a
positive or negative effect
because the children are still
children.

The evidence provided in the next two paragraphs might be called arguing from anecdote (story), but really it’s a continuation of argument from past (to present) to future fact. It can be a very convincing technique because people tend to believe that what was possible in the past is possible again in the present or future. Part of reasoning from
past fact to future fact is bringing in recent and current examples. It’s impossible to accurately predict the future, but it’s possible to suggest how the future might develop based on current events.

When I was writing this essay in early 2009, for example, the parents of the Gosselin children (Jon and Kate) appeared to be happily married. In the short months between writing my essay and using it to write this chapter for you, the Gosselin adults have become common faces in print and TV media tabloids as Jon has admitted to adultery
and has taken on a playboy persona, and Kate has aired their problems publically and filed for divorce. Their children are sometimes photographed looking confused and sad. For all of that, the network has continued the television show for some time, suggesting that this divorce is just a normal part of the children’s lives. Anecdotally, I think
readers who are children of divorce would not have wanted television cameras filming their experiences and emotions as they adjusted to the new family situation. Similarly, in early 2010, Suleman contracted to begin a reality show with her currently-one year-old octuplets. If I were revising this essay today, I’d certainly be adding this material as
proof of exploitation of the Gosselin children’s painful home life and the Suleman children’s lack of privacy.

Student 8 still wasn’t convinced that the argument was reasonable. Fair enough. We can’t convince everyone to take our position in an argument although we can present reasonable evidence. One student suggested that I use the case of child celebrities to show how innocent children can be ruined by exploitation and publicity. In a longer revised essay, I would seriously consider that argument from analogy.

Students 6 expressed a need for more direct connections among the past, present, and future. That was the difficulty of my argument from the outset because I was writing it only weeks after the Suleman octuplets were born. All I could do at this point was to predict, but my prediction wasn’t a far stretch given that the infants already were on
camera as a way to exonerate the mother’s choice and to make money for her. Multiple sources revealed that she had received money to buy a much larger house and that she had daily outside assistance with

Returning full circle to Nadya Suleman’s octuplets, it
seems possible to predict the some of the ramifications for
the children—both the octuplets and the six youngsters
born previously. In the past, she has subsisted with
disability payments for a job‐related injury and she
currently receives $490 per month in food stamps and
federal disability assistance for three of her first six
children (“Octuplets’ Mom,” 2009); yet, Suleman has said
that she refuses welfare money to support herself and
her children (Celizic, 2009). Asked how she will afford the
children with no job and no other adult family member to
help her pay her bills, she claims: “I know I’ll be able to
afford them when I’m done with my schooling” (Celizic,
2009). Shortly after the birth, she retained a publicist,
who offered her services pro‐bono and mentioned that
Suleman is looking at seven‐figure offers for her “story,”
as well as offers for photographs, interviews, books, and
other commercial enterprises (Celizic, 2009; Rochman,
2009). If she were to get them, those offers would come in
handy. Her hospital delivery bill for eight premies alone
may cost upwards of one million dollars; forty six
physicians and staff attended the births (“Grandma,”
2009). Further, she will need to feed, diaper, clothe, and
provide appropriate medical care for children who likely
will have significant medical conditions. Additionally, it is
important not to forget the six children that she has at
home; each of them has similar needs. While such offers
of commercial assistance have not yet been revealed
(perhaps because of recent negative press surrounding
Suleman’s situation), Suleman has set up a website
where she will accept donations payable by PayPal,
MasterCard, Visa, and other credit card options
(“Welcome to,” 2009). Undoubtedly, Hence, while
Suleman will need both commercial those offers and
private donations, they represent the kind of exploitation
suffered by the Dionne and Gosselin children.

Beyond those physical needs are emotional ones, as
well. The Suleman children are not likely to be met by a
mother with sufficient time to spend. She recently proudly
stated that “she holds each child 45 minutes a day”

Celizic, 2009); while it is unclear whether by “each child”
she meant the six at home or the eight premature infants,
it seems unlikely certain that she will not have upwards of
eight free hours a day to hold one child at a time. Her life
will be as hectic as the Gosselins’ but without the
advantage of two parents. In fact, since Suleman, who has
a degree in childhood and adolescent development
(“Grandma,” 2009), claimed that she will return to
graduate school in the fall for a master’s degree in
counseling, one has to wonder how she will take care of
the children and still complete her school work.

Comment [BLH14]: Stud
ent 6: Common sense drives
me toward your argument
that any exploitation is
grounds for an unstable
upbringing, but facts can’t be
drawn on these two families
(the Gosselin’s and
Suleman’s) until the kids are
able to draw their own
conclusions.

Comment [BLH15]: Stud
ent 1: The only apparent
weakness is the lack of an
expert opinion on the long
term potential damage to the
children.

While it is true that The first of Suleman’s interviews
has not yet aired and information about her is becoming
more available. It is true that she gives an appearance of
sincerity, calm thoughtfulness, and tender love for her
children. However, there remain signs about her is
sketchy, there are signs of trouble in the future for the
octuplets and their siblings. First, their grandmother is not
supportive of her daughter’s actions and does not express
confidence in her emotional balance (“Grandma,” 2009).
Hers is a case where a family member’s help would be
extraordinarily helpful and it is unclear whether the
grandmother actually will be available to the family.
Second, financial offers may yet pour in, and they would
be enticing to a woman with fourteen children and no
other income besides government subsidies. The odds of
not exploiting the children are low. Sadly, one
psychoanalyst interviewed about this situation found
nothing wrong with such exploitation: “’And even if she
was looking ahead to financial gain: What is so wrong with
that? She’s got a commodity that grabs the attention of
the world and she’s going to get rewarded. Why are we so
morally outraged?’” (Carroll, 2009). With that kind of such
public support that would accept her children as an
economic bargaining chip, it seems unlikely that Suleman
will seek enough reasons to avoid exploiting her children
for the money that they will engender. Finally, Suleman
herself may be far less prepared to raise her fourteen
children than she realizes. In an interview with the TODAY
Show’s Ann Curry, she indicated that she believed her
childhood as an only child was “dysfunctional” and that
she lacked a “feeling of self and identity”: “I just didn’t feel

as though, when I was a child, I had much control of my
environment. I felt powerless. And that gave me a sense of
predictability” (Celizic, 2009). It seems odd—and a little
frightening—that someone with her an undergraduate
degree in childhood development would not understand
that it is the nature of childhood to be somewhat
powerless and not in control of one’s environment;
parents are supposed to support children in these areas. In
fact, the predictability that she complained of can be very
positive for children. Her lack of understanding of these
basic childhood needs suggests that Suleman selfishly may
try to correct her own childhood issues by giving her own
children too much power, which can lead to an unhealthy
and an unpredictable environment. Sadly, in all ways
possible, the Suleman octuplets and their siblings are at
risk of parental and public exploitation, which can twist
their sense of family life and harm them emotionally.

Comment [BLH16]: Stud
ent 9: We are finally
presented with some
'authorities' on the subject: A
psychologist, who is external
to the situation, has
believable scholarly authority,
and out and out refutes your
point.

the children. Contemporary sources confirm those facts and certainly much more evidence could be provided now that the babies are more than one-year old.

Recall that my major thesis regards the emotional well-being of multiple birth children, of which the Suleman octuplets were an example. According to Student 1, this argument would have benefited from psychological predictions from experts or authorities. I didn’t find any such psychological predictions in my initial research, but my readers
have convinced me that I would need to do that research for any future revisions of this argument. They simply need more evidence that my reasoning is sound and probable.

In the third paragraph of this set, I used a psychologist’s statement about Suleman’s likely exploitation of the children for money as a way of showing irony. To me, it was clear that calling the octuplets a “commodity that grabs the attention of the world” and stating that “she’s going to get rewarded” for it, was disturbing in that the psychologist
herself wasn’t showing appropriate concern for the babies’ welfare. In the preliminary draft, I assumed that all readers would understand the import of this psychologist’s statement. But as I thought about the feedback I was getting—Student 9, for example—I realized this point needed sharper language in the presentation draft to indicate the
bargaining power of children viewed as a “commodity” to be bought and sold.

In a cautionary letter to parents of newly born
septuplets McCaughey septuplets born in 1997, Annette,
Cecile, and Yvonne Dionne—the surviving quintuplets—
urged thoughtfulness and respect toward the children.
They said:

We hope your children receive more respect
than we did. Their fate should be no different
from that of other children. Multiple births
should not be confused with entertainment, nor
should they be an opportunity to sell products.

Our lives have been ruined by the exploitation
we suffered at the hands of the government of
Ontario, our place of birth. We were displayed as
a curiosity three times a day for millions of
tourists. To this day we receive letters from all
over the world. To all those who have expressed
their support in light of the abuse we have
endured, we thank you. And to those who would
seek to exploit the growing fame of these
children, we say beware.

Comment [BLH17]: Stud
ent 10: The letter from the
Dionne’s sisters was a
powerful statement and
supported your position
perfectly. The paper did
convince me that you had a
reasonable position.

I used this cautionary letter from the Dionne adults to the Mc-Caughey family as a way to prove that the quintuplets were sufficiently damaged by their exploitative upbringing that they felt a need to help other multiple birth children. Although my research did not reveal specifically how the letter affected the parents of the septuplets, it seemed possible to speculate in the essay’s final paragraph that they took these words to heart. Student 10 commented that she found this letter to be convincing evidence of my assertion.

The second to last sentence of the argument restates the assertion. Why did I choose this kind of assertion instead of talking about Suleman alone? I did so because there was no way I could prove convincingly what has not yet happened in the babies’ lives. But I could build on past and present fact and published anecdotes to strongly suggest
that the futures of these infants’ and others like them are in danger. Overall, I think I accomplished this goal. In the process, my students and I had a good opportunity to study one writer’s processes in depth.