Octuplet mom has 6 other kids!

[Anonymous]

This is the consequence of a society where you can buy whatever treatment you want without any kind of legislation governing this.

the thinking is, if you can pay for it, its OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am solidly pro-choice but it really scares me how so many posters and a few (minority) ethicists are arguing for mandatory selective reduction in these instances. There was one (minority view again) ethicist stating that pregnancy makes women too emotional to make an effective decision regarding selection reduction and doctors should be able to override her choice in the interest of the mother's health. This concept is absoluetly horrifying to me. The right of refusal for medical treatments based on your religion, moral beliefs or just plain choice is one of our most important freedoms.

Selective reduction wouldn't even be an issue if the clinic/doctor refused to implant more than 2 or 3 embryos. Unbelievable that anyone did that when she already has a proven track record of carrying multiple IVF pregnancies to term.

[Anonymous]

"Selective reduction wouldn't even be an issue if the clinic/doctor refused to implant more than 2 or 3 embryos. Unbelievable that anyone did that when she already has a proven track record of carrying multiple IVF pregnancies to term."

I agree. It makes no sense what RE would implant 8? Heck even if some did split and it was only 5, why would the doctor do that many? I thought there was a standard of practice defined at no more than 3 for IVF.

No way to know but maybe this mistake came from a Kaiser cost-cutting approach. HMO's can be awful in trading good medical care for costs. Perhaps Kaiser only wanted to cover one IVF for costs and up their success rates taking the chance that this many would never occur? Many couples whose doctor's do IVF responsibility have to try a few times.

I was suprised to hear IVF but this is only a report not a confirmation. It would be more likely that Kaiser did not want to do a proper referral to a RE for prescription IUI meds and allows general ob/gyns to prescribe without monitoring, again for cost control. Someone should be investigating Kaiser for this if they were involved with the fertility treatments.

[Anonymous]

The babies were born at Kaiser but they didn't transfer the embryos to the mother.

[Anonymous]

I saw a recent report where the grandmother implied that fewer than 8 embryos were implanted and that they were frozen ones left over from a previous cycle. Apparently the woman has always wanted babies ever since she was a teenager, but could not have them naturally sincer her tubes were blocked. The report also said that one of her older children has autism.

[Anonymous]

This is the consequence of a society where you can buy whatever treatment you want without any kind of legislation governing this.

the thinking is, if you can pay for it, its OK.

What happened is horrendous and I think the physician that transferred 8 embryos into a <35 woman with multiple prior IVF successes should be shot. Her past clinical record made this entirely inappropriate and in fact, criminal. However, in SOME women----age 40+ with a history of multiple IVF failures, the transfer of 8 embryos might be very clinically appropriate.

I cringe at the idea of the government legislating any of this. If you legislate the transfer of embryos and limit the number that can be transferred and to who they can be transferred to, you damn well need to be ready to legislate who can have children through "natural" means and how many children they can have. And I think we all agree that will never (thankfully) happen in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is the consequence of a society where you can buy whatever treatment you want without any kind of legislation governing this.

the thinking is, if you can pay for it, its OK.

What happened is horrendous and I think the physician that transferred 8 embryos into a <35 woman with multiple prior IVF successes should be shot. Her past clinical record made this entirely inappropriate and in fact, criminal. However, in SOME women----age 40+ with a history of multiple IVF failures, the transfer of 8 embryos might be very clinically appropriate.

I cringe at the idea of the government legislating any of this. If you legislate the transfer of embryos and limit the number that can be transferred and to who they can be transferred to, you damn well need to be ready to legislate who can have children through "natural" means and how many children they can have. And I think we all agree that will never (thankfully) happen in America.

I cringe too. Reproductive rights are not a cafeteria menu. The government should stay out of ALL reproductive rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cringe at the idea of the government legislating any of this. If you legislate the transfer of embryos and limit the number that can be transferred and to who they can be transferred to, you damn well need to be ready to legislate who can have children through "natural" means and how many children they can have. And I think we all agree that will never (thankfully) happen in America.

I don't understand. Ethics are a big thing. You got 2 patients, the mother and the baby. Legislation is in place in some countries, this legislation does not determine who can have children and who can not. It just legislates the recommended number of embryous for the benefit of both the mother and child.
Mind you, health care is cheaper, so IVF ruond prices are not such a big thing as it is here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the consequence of a society where you can buy whatever treatment you want without any kind of legislation governing this.

the thinking is, if you can pay for it, its OK.

What happened is horrendous and I think the physician that transferred 8 embryos into a <35 woman with multiple prior IVF successes should be shot. Her past clinical record made this entirely inappropriate and in fact, criminal. However, in SOME women----age 40+ with a history of multiple IVF failures, the transfer of 8 embryos might be very clinically appropriate.

I cringe at the idea of the government legislating any of this. If you legislate the transfer of embryos and limit the number that can be transferred and to who they can be transferred to, you damn well need to be ready to legislate who can have children through "natural" means and how many children they can have. And I think we all agree that will never (thankfully) happen in America.

I cringe too. Reproductive rights are not a cafeteria menu. The government should stay out of ALL reproductive rights.

But you know at some point that these 14 kids will need government assistance, whether it's thru healthcare, welfare, juvenile detention, special needs ... Government will get involved sooner or later thru these outlets. There NEEDS to be some legislation to control healthy fertile women using IVF to have 8 babies at a time. What if in a couple years, this same woman gets IVF again and delivers another 8? Who will care for them? Will they become wards of the state, go into foster care, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"They probably decided to implant 8 embryos due to the advanced age of the donor eggs, thinking that only one would take. That's just my guess."

Do doctors really do that? When I struggled to conceive baby #2, I was at the crossroads of going the fertility treatment route or adoption. I was hesitant to go the fertility treatment route b/c I didn't want to end up with a litter of babies. My OB (in Montgomery County) told me that responsible docs wouldn't let that happen and that local clinics typically don't have patients carrying more than twins or triplets. I thought that was reassuring.

In nature, people are not meant to carry & deliver a litter of children at once. If society could have more people like you (thoughtful of your actions), we wouldn't suffer overpopulation that result in increased rates of war.

Oh yes, I'm so worried about octuplets and increased rates of war.

Would you like to cite a source for multiples leading to increased rates of war?

Hysterical.

Your logic is a little off, dumb ass. I said increased population leads to war, not multiples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Mom is from the Mideast?

Middle East, apparently, according to The NY Post. Iraq to be exact.

They might be heading back there too.

Are you sure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I hear about this story, the more it creeps me out. What family would support a single daughter with six kids having fertility treatment so she can have even more? What is this about? It's very odd. Maybe she was a surrogate, but who is the father? And why would you want more than six kids? Natural conception is one thing, but to seek out fertility treatment seems pretty strange. And they don't seem wealthy enough to support all those kids. How do they fit them into that house? Could the grandfather be the father? There's something weird going on in that family.

I too thought the same thing about the grandfather. Something is very weird and not right about this.

Maybe the grandfather is also the father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I cringe too. Reproductive rights are not a cafeteria menu. The government should stay out of ALL reproductive rights.

But you know at some point that these 14 kids will need government assistance, whether it's thru healthcare, welfare, juvenile detention, special needs ... Government will get involved sooner or later thru these outlets. There NEEDS to be some legislation to control healthy fertile women using IVF to have 8 babies at a time. What if in a couple years, this same woman gets IVF again and delivers another 8? Who will care for them? Will they become wards of the state, go into foster care, etc.?

If this kind of thing happened all the time, maybe you'd have an argument that there were a legitimate state interest in how many multiple children attempted to have. However, the reason this particular incidence is so shoking is that it is extremely rare. Very few women deliberately attempt to conceive more children that they could realistically care for, and with assisted reporodction technology improving, the number of "oops" very large littlers of kids is also declining. Yes, moms are choosing to selectively reduce a pregnancy, and doctors are doing the scans before the otehr procedure to be sure that a regular amount of follicles are stimulated. (Sorry, don't know the correct terms).

And it is almost unheard of for a woman with 6 children under the age of 7 to deliberately get pregnant with 8 more children. This just isn't a problem that is goig on a lot of places in the US.

I *could* see someone saying that the use of government funds to pay for IVF and other expensive procedures should be limted, based on having a certain number of living children already, or soemthing like that.

But to involve the government in deciding how many children a woman should be allowed to bear using IVF --= on the grounds that she won't be able to care for them, and thus they will become the problem of the gvernment -- seems a very slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But to involve the government in deciding how many children a woman should be allowed to bear using IVF --= on the grounds that she won't be able to care for them, and thus they will become the problem of the gvernment -- seems a very slippery slope.

Are you talking about the max no of embryos, or the max number of ivf treatments per person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Mom is from the Mideast?

Middle East, apparently, according to The NY Post. Iraq to be exact.

They might be heading back there too.

Are you sure?

One could only HOPE.