The Ethics of Reporting on Baby Storm

The media may have made a mistake by identifying the child being raised without a gender.

Last week, I participated in a five-person panel, representing a broad range of relevant professional expertise, called “Bringing Up (Genderless) Baby” on TVOntario’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin. The panel addressed the case of Baby Storm, a child whose sex is known to only seven people, including the baby’s parents. The parents say they consider Storm’s sex to be “private” information and do not want the child to be treated as a boy or a girl by others. Instead, they want Storm – and their other two children – to be free of stereotypical gender influences in choosing their own gender, in order to allow them to be what they call “gender creative.” I’ve already engaged in the debate on the acceptability of Storm’s parents’ approach in this regard, and will not add to that; rather, I want to address the ethics of the media in this scenario.

Jayme Poisson, the reporter from the Toronto Star, who wrote the initial story, was a member of the panel. She explained that the case came to the attention of the Star through a friend of her editor. The friend told the editor that Storm’s father taught at an alternative school, which the newspaper identified. Poisson was assigned to the story and easily tracked down the father, David Stocker, as the school had only four teachers. She contacted him and asked if he would agree to her writing a story about his family. He said he would have “to take it home” and discuss it with the rest of the family before he could give her an answer. The next day, he agreed to her spending two days with the family and bringing in a photographer.

The story appeared as front-page news with a photo of Storm. Storm’s mother, Kathy Witterick, told Poisson she was “surprised to see the picture on the front page” and had not anticipated all the public attention and debate.

When I asked Poisson if she had thought about how Baby Storm might feel about the story she wrote when 20 years old, she seemed surprised by the question. The question is ethically relevant because of the doctrine of anticipated consent. When a person cannot consent to an intervention for themselves, it is only ethical to proceed if we can reasonably anticipate they would consent if able to do so.

I also questioned Poisson about whether she or her editor or anyone else at the Toronto Star had considered the ethics of the reporting. I pointed out that I was not accusing her or them of being unethical, but that I thought the ethics of researching this story (her presence as a journalist in the children’s home for two days to observe the children and report on them, and a photographer taking pictures) and writing and publishing it merited exploration.

Poisson’s first response was that the parents had consented, and she described them in very positive terms, saying they were “open and honest” in their interactions with her. (Whether they gave an informed consent, and whether that is ethically and legally required, is a further question.) I agreed that was correct, but the children had not consented – they are too young to do so validly. (Note, however, that the parents believe their children are capable of making valid choices and decisions, and Stocker’s consultation with his family about agreeing to Poisson doing the story probably included them.)