Octuplet mom has 6 other kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if nobody knew she got the money for the IVF through a lawsuit that she won.......the government is just going to be paying for them to eat, go to the Dr. and much MUCH more.

Great. Some of the taxes actually going to babies and small children instead of half a mil $$ wall street executives, purchasing bankrupt banks, instead of the war on iraq.
I am all for it.

To the poster worried about limits on the number ivf embryous transferred. You do not have a good doctor. I do not know under what circumstances transferring 8 is justified

Can someone tell me exactly what kind of government benefits they will be able to get? Sounds like they are pretty well set up with all of the offers for books, tv programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This woman with the octuplets has NO husband or partner, NO JOB....therefore NO income, and since there is no job that means she has MEDICAID.......which is paid for by whom......TAX PAYERS.

Wow, do you know this for a fact? I did not get medicaid when I was unemployed, why do some get it and not everyone?
Is being unemployed such a crime
I do not think she is cabable of working. I heard from some where that she was a student and worked at the clinic and therefore got her treatment cheap
Shouldn't she qualify for disability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman with the octuplets has NO husband or partner, NO JOB....therefore NO income, and since there is no job that means she has MEDICAID.......which is paid for by whom......TAX PAYERS.

Wow, do you know this for a fact? I did not get medicaid when I was unemployed, why do some get it and not everyone?
Is being unemployed such a crime
I do not think she is cabable of working. I heard from some where that she was a student and worked at the clinic and therefore got her treatment cheap
Shouldn't she qualify for disability?

I don't know if stupidity qualifies as a disability.

The story is that she says she used IVF and then just showed up at Kaiser with 8 embryos. There is just some mystery about this and I doubt that she had IVF and think she purchased clomid off the internet, and did this on her own.

Also according to news reports I have read she is a full time student, a single mom and unemployed.

[Anonymous]

Prohiting doctors from implanting 8 embryos at a time is not the same as regulating how many children a woman can have. If the FDA and AMA determined that carrying 8 embryos carries a high risk to the mother, then it would have an interest in limiting or abolishing that practice, just as it has an interest in taking Phen-Phen (sp?) off of the market. This could be called a good thing for women; most people don't have medical training and rely upon their doctors to tell them what is or is not safe. If your doctor tells you that it's safe to implant 8 when in fact it could cause complications such as miscarriage or risk to the woman's life or health, and the woman relies on that, a massive risk both to her and to the public good-- it took 48 doctors to do that delivery-- could ensue.

We regulate all kinds of medical procedures and IVF is no diferent. If there were a method of IVF that was shown to have high risks associated with it, we'd probably need to ban it in favor of safer methods.

There are some risks that we do not permit people to assume-- the risk of heroine overdose, the risk of taking medications that cause heart attacks, even the risk of driving without a seatbelt. If carrying 8 embryos proved to be a similar risk, the government would have a duty to regulate it.

[Anonymous]

"This could be called a good thing for women"

Um, that kind of regulation certainly would NOT be very good for a woman has such as low chance of getting pregnant that her doctor feels that she needs to put in 6-8 embryos just for the chance to get pregnant with one baby. This is really between a physician and woman, not for the government to second guess. As a PP said, why regulate something just because one crazy woman - out of tens of thousands who do IVF each year - does something stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prohiting doctors from implanting 8 embryos at a time is not the same as regulating how many children a woman can have. If the FDA and AMA determined that carrying 8 embryos carries a high risk to the mother, then it would have an interest in limiting or abolishing that practice, just as it has an interest in taking Phen-Phen (sp?) off of the market. This could be called a good thing for women; most people don't have medical training and rely upon their doctors to tell them what is or is not safe. If your doctor tells you that it's safe to implant 8 when in fact it could cause complications such as miscarriage or risk to the woman's life or health, and the woman relies on that, a massive risk both to her and to the public good-- it took 48 doctors to do that delivery-- could ensue.

We regulate all kinds of medical procedures and IVF is no diferent. If there were a method of IVF that was shown to have high risks associated with it, we'd probably need to ban it in favor of safer methods.

There are some risks that we do not permit people to assume-- the risk of heroine overdose, the risk of taking medications that cause heart attacks, even the risk of driving without a seatbelt. If carrying 8 embryos proved to be a similar risk, the government would have a duty to regulate it.

Regulating a fertility procedure because it is unsafe is a different thing from regulating a fertility procedue because a woman could not afford to care for the resulting children, who would then become a tax-payer's liability.

In any case, I would prefer to see this regulation coming from the medical field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prohiting doctors from implanting 8 embryos at a time is not the same as regulating how many children a woman can have. If the FDA and AMA determined that carrying 8 embryos carries a high risk to the mother, then it would have an interest in limiting or abolishing that practice, just as it has an interest in taking Phen-Phen (sp?) off of the market. This could be called a good thing for women; most people don't have medical training and rely upon their doctors to tell them what is or is not safe. If your doctor tells you that it's safe to implant 8 when in fact it could cause complications such as miscarriage or risk to the woman's life or health, and the woman relies on that, a massive risk both to her and to the public good-- it took 48 doctors to do that delivery-- could ensue.

We regulate all kinds of medical procedures and IVF is no diferent. If there were a method of IVF that was shown to have high risks associated with it, we'd probably need to ban it in favor of safer methods.

There are some risks that we do not permit people to assume-- the risk of heroine overdose, the risk of taking medications that cause heart attacks, even the risk of driving without a seatbelt. If carrying 8 embryos proved to be a similar risk, the government would have a duty to regulate it.

Regulating a fertility procedure because it is unsafe is a different thing from regulating a fertility procedue because a woman could not afford to care for the resulting children, who would then become a tax-payer's liability.

In any case, I would prefer to see this regulation coming from the medical field.

The AMA could make it a guideline, or regulate it, but since it's a medical procedure there is no reason for the FDA or HHS to regulate it. Professional experts in government can make these decisions based upon sound science and upon government-funded research, which constitutes a huge proportion of medical research. Federal regulations are also subject to a notice-and-comment period, which allows the public and medical associations to weigh in before the reg becomes final. In that regard-- assumng that you're not dealing with the Bush Administration's proven disdain for scientific evidence-- federal regulation of this procedure is more democratic and has more safeguards for the public built in than if doctors made the decision on their own.

I agree that the government can't tell people how many children they can afford, nor can they refuse, when providing benefits, to punish children for having irretrievably stupid parents. However, I would be quite alarmed if the government actually paid for fertility treatments for this obviously fertile woman. Since most private insurers don't-- or have a requirement that the woman not conceive after one year of vaginal sex-- I doubt that the government does.

But the government or at least teh rest of this woman's risk pool did pay for 48 medical staff to deliver these babies, and then for intensive care for all eight of them. I can't imagine a reasonable regulation that would address that without terrible ancillary effects, but I am nonetheless appalled by this woman's irresponsible behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This could be called a good thing for women"

Um, that kind of regulation certainly would NOT be very good for a woman has such as low chance of getting pregnant that her doctor feels that she needs to put in 6-8 embryos just for the chance to get pregnant with one baby. This is really between a physician and woman, not for the government to second guess. As a PP said, why regulate something just because one crazy woman - out of tens of thousands who do IVF each year - does something stupid?

If the medical evidence indicated that the risk of implanting 8 embryos outweighed its medical benefits, then it would be good for women to insure that they are not exposed to that risk. Such a regulation- if the science clearly supported it-- would impose burdens on some women, but if it also protected more women, and protected babies, then it could be good for women.

It would be impossible to require selective reduction of fetuses in utero, both from an ethical and political standpoint. Nor could a doctor enforce an agreement to reduce if the mother went back on it. If the science shows that eight developing fetuses have a high likelihood of causing huge complications or even dying, especially after the point where they have brainwaves and can feel pain (after 22 weeks, I think), the government or medical associations could rightly conclude that this risk is unacceptable in light of alternatives such as subsequent IVF cycles. I don't know if the science supports these conclusions, but if implanting so many exposed a woman to likely health risks, or exposed fetuses to likely death or profound disability, then it could be a reasonable regulation.

There are some risks that we don't allow patients to take.

As for the question of why to regulate just for the case of one crazy woman, I am not saying that we need to go regulate. The statement that I'm responding to is that the government needs to stay out of it. If there are, in fact, significant health risks involved, that statement is as absurd as keeping the government out of peanut butter factories, meat packing plants, and the regulation of dangerous drugs or medical devices. Whether to implant dangerous chemicals into our breasts is not between us and our doctors. Whether to put ourselves and possibly our babies at risk of dangerous medical procedures isn't either.

I'm firmly pro-choice, and opposed to the late-term ban that the S.Ct. upheld, and parental notification laws. But fertility is also a medical issue, and I expect that any procedure I undergo has been deemed safe by the experts.

[Anonymous]

First of all, I do not believe we know the true story. I find it hard to believe that any RE would implant 8 embryos in a 33 year old woman who already has given birth multiples.

I do believe that the government should NOT regulate how many embryos are transferred.

1) It costs money to regulate. No law comes for free. It would probably cost more to pass and enforce this regulation than to care for these 8 children. If this case is true, then it is one bad IVF cycle out of tens of thousands.
2) There may be cases where it does make sense to transfer 8 embryos -- for example if the woman is well into her 40's and is known to have poor egg quality. I'm not saying I agree with this, but I'm not an RE.
3) IVF is filled with many ethical decisions that I do not believe our society could ever agree upon enmass:
a) what are the rights of the embryos and how do they compare to the mother's? Roe-v-Wade has said that the mother's rights prevail over those of a fetus. However, you are making the argument for this legislation based upon the rights of the potential children. While there are risks to the mother in carrying a high order pregnancy, the fetuses carry the greatest risks.
b) If only x embryos can be transferred, then what happens to those that are not implanted? Must the parents pay for them to be stored even if they wanted all implanted? What happens if they do not pay the storage bills? Are the embryos put up for adoption? Are they destroyed? Are they donated to research?
c) What criteria must be used to select embryos for transfer? Are all embryos granted equal rights? Or do those with abnormalities have less rights? Do we force patients to undergo PGD? Do we allow parents to knowingly transfer embryos that have a high probability of having a genetic abnormality or other disorder?
d) Would the gov't then put age limits on patients and their partners undergoing IVF?

As you see, it is a massive slippery slope and is definitely one that we do not want to go down. Trust me, no RE (unless he is a quack) wants to be associated in any way, shape, or form with this woman. He would lose patients left and right. Let ACOG or whatever board oversees RE's take care of this matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2) There may be cases where it does make sense to transfer 8 embryos -- for example if the woman is well into her 40's and is known to have poor egg quality. I'm not saying I agree with this, but I'm not an RE.

Can't help but think you have a stupid doctor. If there is no there is no hope. I really doubt that doctor is thinking about what is best for the patient vs best for his practice.
How about donor eggs?

[Anonymous]

12:06 poster here. I think the 12:18 poster did an excellent job of making my point. We as a society will never reach consensus on these issues.

FWIW -- I did undergo IVF and never had more than 3 embryos transferred. I am in my 40's and have 4 beautiful children via IVF. From my research and study, I believe it is counter productive to implant more embryos. In fact, for young women the trend is to implant only one embryo. When you have a high order multiple pregnancy, it is more likely that one of those embryos/fetuses miscarrying will cause the others to miscarry. However, since I am not an MD, I am willing to give MD's the benefit of the doubt that in some cases 8 may be the appropriate # in some cases.

[Anonymous]

I did not read this whole thread, so apologize if this was already answered. I read in one article that the woman had only 3 embryos implanted, but that they divided in her uterus. I think her mother or a friend of hers was quoted as saying this. Is that possible? Can IVF embryos divide after they are implanted? Sounds strange to me. The whole thing sounds pretty odd to me. There's much we don't know.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely IVF embryos can divide after they are transferred just like any other embryos can divide. I have a good friend who has IVF triplets---2 are identical and the 3rd is fraternal (and she had 2 embryos transferred).

To answer another poster---the government and state healthcare programs do not under any plans provide for IVF coverage. It is entirely a private enterprise.

To the poster questioning whether or not she is on medicaid. I know that at least a few of the babies are based on their birth weights. Infants born in this country under 1,200 grams (about two pounds, 10 ounces), (regardless of gestational age) automatically qualify for SSI payments which in turn qualifies them for Medicaid. Generally before Medicaid kicks in, any private insurance benefits need to be exhausted but most plans have a cap of 1mil. which was probably overcome during week 1 of these babies' lives (if the mom even had private insurance). There's no doubt that most if not all of these infants are now 100% on medicaid.

and to the poster who posted this:

To the poster worried about limits on the number ivf embryous transferred. You do not have a good doctor. I do not know under what circumstances transferring 8 is justified

You have no idea what you are talking about. The best physicians in the world cannot make the eggs of a woman in premature ovarian failure magically regenerate. In such women, literally 9/10 eggs are genetically flawed. Transferring a large number of embryos in this type of case is standard practice. My dearest friend had an FSH of 22 at age 34. She did IVF 4 times and had crappy embryos each time. IVFs 1-3 she transferred between 2-4 embryos a piece. On IVF 4 they transferred 7 of mediocre quality. ONE stuck and is now her 2 year old son. And this was at Cornell which is considered to be the best infertilty clinic in America. Please tell her that her doctor sucks and she shouldn't have gone to see him. I'm sure she'd be happy to just hand her son back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not read this whole thread, so apologize if this was already answered. I read in one article that the woman had only 3 embryos implanted, but that they divided in her uterus. I think her mother or a friend of hers was quoted as saying this. Is that possible? Can IVF embryos divide after they are implanted? Sounds strange to me. The whole thing sounds pretty odd to me. There's much we don't know.

That has to be a lie. To get 8 babies from three embryos, two of them would have to spontaneously divide into triplets! I don't even know if identical triplets exist... even if it's possible for ONE embryo to split into three (and I doubt that it is) the odds of it happening TWICE, at the same time as a third embryo is splitting in two, are so infinitesimal that we can label that idea impossible. Laughable that the mother or whoever is floating the story thinks the world is so gullible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not read this whole thread, so apologize if this was already answered. I read in one article that the woman had only 3 embryos implanted, but that they divided in her uterus. I think her mother or a friend of hers was quoted as saying this. Is that possible? Can IVF embryos divide after they are implanted? Sounds strange to me. The whole thing sounds pretty odd to me. There's much we don't know.

That has to be a lie. To get 8 babies from three embryos, two of them would have to spontaneously divide into triplets! I don't even know if identical triplets exist... even if it's possible for ONE embryo to split into three (and I doubt that it is) the odds of it happening TWICE, at the same time as a third embryo is splitting in two, are so infinitesimal that we can label that idea impossible. Laughable that the mother or whoever is floating the story thinks the world is so gullible.

identicle triplets do exist, very rarely, but they do exist.