Law & Order is, always, at its best when you feel the urge to turn to the person beside you and discuss the case that is unfolding onscreen. Back in its hey-day, controversy was the thing the show fed on, and its cases, "ripped from the headlines", always made you wonder about all sides of the argument. Nowadays, the whole thing is a little tamer and not quite so keen to present more than one point of view in a case, but every so often something is thrown in to make you think twice.
This week, on Special Victims Unit, the case itself was not so much one for discussion - stealing embryos is a horrible thing no matter which side of the fence you sit on - it's murder one way, and a horrible thing for those who have invested something (not necessarily money) into the procedure the other way. Equally, and commonly, the episode seemed to be struggling to fill its 42 minutes, having not only the pain plot, but also a tonne of other little stories in the episode as well to give us more suspects and pad that episode to bits. However it is the little stories that actually do provide the most interest in the episode.
We are given a few different stories: a couple who have harvested their child's eggs because she has, at age 8, the mind of a 3 month old; a woman who has become infertile thanks to the chemotherapy she has been having because of her cancer; and a midget who wants to reproduce, but only wants to have a midget child.
The first and last of these stories are the most interesting, the second, of course, being a tragedy for the poor lady who has become infertile. Cancer is a terrible thing and this episode highlights that the victim had to make the horrible choice between her life and her children. But the other two are slightly more controversial in nature.
The midget has harvested her eggs and wants them impregnated, but only wants to have a child that is similarly a little person like herself. When the detectives are dubious about this point, she replies that everyone else gets to have a child in their image, so why can't she? And given that there is nothing inherently wrong with being a little person, what's the problem with a child that turns out that way. Her doctor is refusing to perform the operation because he thinks it is wrong to, but she makes a valid argument. As we go more and more down the path where we can point to what sort of child we want (if we have the money, I might add - no one has remotely suggested anything to me about my forthcoming child in any way, shape or form, so I'm assuming I just have to make do with what comes out; not that there's anything particularly wrong with that, I might add), one can't help but wonder just how far away we are from designer babies. What's the difference, really, between saying "My foetus has Down's Syndrome ? I'd prefer an abortion" and "My child is going to be a little person? I'd prefer not to have that child; abort." Or, in the case of this little person, vice versa. It seems to be that she has every right to want to have a child that will be small, and given she is not aborting anything, rather ensuring the outcome from the very beginning, she is actually on safer grounds than most.
The first story, though, is the really controversial one, and is definitively based on a true incident. A young girl - eight years old - has the mind of a three month old. She can't walk, she can't talk and she can't do anything for herself. Her parent's have put her on a special programme designed to stunt her growth so her mind has the opportunity to catch up with her body, but the side effect of this is menstruation and the parents, unable to have any more kids of their own, harvest their daughter's eggs with the intention of carrying them themselves. They (wisely) don't say who is going to impregnate the eggs. Benson is appalled - she believes what is happening is tantamount to child abuse - but Stabler disagrees. I have to say I'm not sure where I stand on the matter. It does seem harsh to do what they are doing to the girl without her consent, but given she cannot realistically give her consent, the actual procedures obviously make some sense and have some benefit. But harvesting the eggs is a different matter. The parents may be bitter about their line ending with that child, but unfortunately that's the whole point of evolution. It raises an interesting dilemma, and you can see both sides of the argument.
A basic episode, definitely enhanced by some thought-provoking side issues.
"A-"
PS - Channel Ten...is there any reason we skipped two episodes?
No comments:
Post a Comment