by David Balashinsky
As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. From Scary Mommy comes a story about all three. "Mom's Simple Invention Works Wonders in the NICU" tells the story of Yamile Jackson, whose son, Zachary, was born three months before his due date. Zachary spent 155 days in the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) and, although his mother was able to spend hours with him every day, she could not stay with him over what must have been long, lonely nights for both of them. That's where the necessity came in.
A PhD in both ergonomics and human factors engineering, [Jackson] wondered if there was a way to make her son think she was with him even when she wasn't. Jackson created a bean-filled gardening glove that she tucked against her son every night. She would cuddle the glove during the day so it had her scent, and leave it with him while she was gone, thinking that the glove would mimic the smell, warmth and feel of her being there.
The glove was a great success and, after Zachary was discharged, Jackson received a call from one of the NICU nurses who requested more of the gloves for the other "preemies" on the unit. Jackson made 100 more of her gloves - which she named "the Zaky" - and ultimately founded a company, Nurtured by Design, to produce and market them.
This is obviously a heart-warming story but what made an even bigger impression on me, when I read it, was the glaring moral inconsistency between the purpose of the gloves themselves and the financing of the company created to produce them.
The motivation for Ms. Jackson's invention was clearly to provide comfort for her son in his mother's absence. I don't think there are many among us who don't feel, instinctively, that all infants - those born prematurely or otherwise - should be welcomed into the world with loving kindness, gentleness, and provided with as much comfort as possible. But the Zaky succeeded beyond that. In a study of its effects on preemies in the NICU, it was discovered that the Zaky produced physiological benefits as well, with significantly decreased rates of apnea and bradycardia. It should't come as a surprise that a neonate who is made to feel protected, nurtured, and comforted will do better, by objective measures, than one who is isn't, and this is what the study, comparing preemies with the Zaky to those without it, appears to have confirmed. But if providing comfort for a neonate is better than not providing comfort, doesn't it stand to reason that even withholding comfort is still more beneficial than the infliction of pain and suffering? Shouldn't every neonate be treated in a way that maximizes its sense of well-being? Shouldn't every neonate be treated with a deference to its fragility by respecting that infant's basic human right not to be subjected to an unnecessary and painful genital-alteration surgery?
Along comes the jarring and paradoxical news in this otherwise heartwarming story that Ms. Jackson's enterprise received a start-up grant from none other than Oprah Winfrey. Yes, the same Oprah Winfrey who has shilled for SkinMedica, a company that manufactures anti-wrinkle face cream which is made from the stolen prepuces of infants who have been subjected to nontherapeutic circumcision - a totally unnecessary genital surgery that occurs over 3,000 times per day in our nation's hospitals and that annually takes the lives of over 100 infants and leaves over one million more scarred for life. Oprah Winfrey, it should be noted, is also an outspoken opponent of female genital mutilation. Evidently, male genital mutilation is perfectly okay as far as Oprah is concerned. And if a biotech company can profit from the pain and suffering of infant boys, who are they to stand in the way of someone making money at their expense? The moral inconsistency here is not simply opposing female genital mutilation while supporting male genital mutilation. It is Oprah's underwriting of a product intended to comfort and aid neonates while shilling for a company that exploits them; - a company that produces a "beauty cream," the creation of which depends upon causing infants excruciating pain, needless suffering, and the permanent diminution of function and sensation of their genitals.
I commend Ms. Jackson for inventing this product but I am disappointed that she accepted seed money from a tainted source. There have been a number of notable cases of philanthropic or otherwise beneficent organizations refusing or returning donations from discredited donors and, in my opinion, that is what Ms. Jackson should now do. For example, in 2005, Queens University returned a pledged gift of $1 million from David Radler after he pled guilty to mail fraud. Another notable case is that in which the Harvard Divinity School ultimately rejected a $2.5 million endowment from Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Nahayan. (Zayed was the leader of the United Arab Emirates and one of the world's richest men.)
A cardinal principle of non-profits that rely upon donations, as Paul Dunn writes in Nonprofit Quarterly ("When a Donor Becomes Tainted," March 21, 2010) is the principle of "value incongruence." This refers to "the degree of compatibility between the norms, values, and actions of an external stakeholder with the core values, beliefs, and activities of an organization." Ms. Jackson's company may not be a non-profit but I think it safe to assume that Jackson's aspirations for her company are that it embody core principles that are in line with those of biomedical ethics. Her product, after all, is intended for use in hospital NICUs and was designed specifically to provide comfort to neonates. Accordingly, Jackson's company ought to embody the values and ethics that should guide any healthcare provider or organization. Chief among these, of course, is the dictum, primum non nocere: "first, do no harm." But this core value is morally irreconcilable with the core value of a company that depends upon hospitals' harming infants in order to obtain the source material (fibroblasts from neonatal foreskins) that the company then uses to manufacture its products. And while I have no reason to believe that Oprah herself profits from the sale of SkinMedica's foreskin beauty cream, nor that she has received blood money from this company for her endorsement of its product, the fact remains that even if Oprah Winfrey does not profit directly or even indirectly from the unethical use of stolen body parts, she continues to be associated with a company that does. And her endorsement of SkinMedica contributes to the perpetuation of the circumcision industry. Winfrey's association with the Zaky, therefore, taints the Zaky itself.
I hope that the Zaky finds widespread use in NICUs around the world, bringing comfort and improved health to preemies. Still, as unfortunate as it is, premature delivery is largely a natural phenomenon. If hospitals are willing to take simple measures - such as providing Zakys to preemies - in order to ameliorate distress, pain and suffering when they result from something that, in most cases, cannot be prevented, shouldn't hospitals be at least as willing to refrain from causing these things when they can?
About me: I am originally from New York City and now live near the Finger Lakes region of New York. I am a licensed physical therapist and I write about bodily autonomy and human rights, gender, culture, and politics. I currently serve on the board of directors for the Genital Autonomy Legal Defense & Education Fund, (GALDEF), the board of directors and advisors for Doctors Opposing Circumcision and the leadership team for Bruchim.
