Octuplet mom has 6 other kids!

[Anonymous]

This is ONE case of an insane woman and an idiot doctor who transferred 8+ embryos. This woman had previous and recent IVF success----she should have had a max of 2 embryos transferred (and preferably 1). Contrast that to the 60,000 IVF cycles that were done responsibilty last year. Lets not let one insane woman and quack of a doctor change the course of IVF for all patients.
For some women a large number of their eggs (90% or more) are defective because of premature ovarian failure or age. For these women, the transfer of 4, 5, or even 8 embryos may be done (and is completley clinically appropriate) especially if they have had multiple failed cycles in the past. Is it fair to say that a woman who just happens to be in premature menopause at age 35 can only transfer 2 embryos at a time (at 15K a pop) because some nut job wanted to have 8 babies? The whole rational in transferring more in patients like these is the hope that one is a "good egg" and will stick around and in many cases is 100% the right decision.

Hey, if this (higher order multiples) was happening frequently I'd say let's investigate ways of changing IVF practice. However, it's not the case. (and fyi J&K+8 and the McCaughey septuplets and the previous octuplets born in Texas were NOT IVF babies). Tens of thousands of IVF cycles are done in this country every year by resonsible infertility doctors who make the correct decision on the number of embryos to transfer.

Lets not let the actions of one IDIOT doctor and patient ruin the ability of physicians in this country to appropriately treat infertile woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Is it fair to say that a woman who just happens to be in premature menopause at age 35 can only transfer 2 embryos at a time (at 15K a pop) because some nut job wanted to have 8 babies?

15K for one treatment of IVF?
That it crazy. Seems like they charge what they want. I know it is much cheaper outside the US. The healthcare is organized differently. So they can justify limiting the number. And this is done for the best interests of the patient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Personally, I don't want the government involved in any aspect of the decision as to how many children a woman can attempt to bear, on the grounds that she won't be able to care for a certain number of them.

If the federal government is going to actually be PAYING for the IVF treatments, then I don't have any problem with it making rules about which IVF treatments it will pay for, how many times, how many embryos, etc. If the federal government requires health insurers to cover IVF treatment, then I don't have problems with those companies having rules as to how many treatments they will cover and so on.

But if a woman can come up with the money on her own, then the decisions are between her, and what medical ethics her own physician decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if a woman can come up with the money on her own, then the decisions are between her, and what medical ethics her own physician decide.

That is the problem. A doctor who want a claim to fame and a chance to further his career.

ps. A friend was encouraged by a doctor to have a fifth child because she had already had 4 c-sections and he did not know another doctor who had done a fifth c-section

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But if a woman can come up with the money on her own, then the decisions are between her, and what medical ethics her own physician decide.

What if she can come up with the money to get inseminated but doesn't have the funds to take care of her litter? Who will pay for their care for the rest of their lives?

[Anonymous]

Interesting commentary on cnn.com about this today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/04/murray.octuplets/index.html

[Anonymous]

Part of me does not understand the fuss. We agree that IVF should remain unregulated. It is nearly impossible to avoid creating lives that will be destroyed (creating unused embryos, reduction, etc.) in order to conceive one's biological child. Octumom took it further than most but the difference is one of scale.

[Anonymous]

My theory is that she didn't do IVF like she said she did. She probably joined one of the online infertility support groups and illegally obtained some one's leftover fertility drugs. Then she used a turkey baster or had an incestuous affair with her father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But if a woman can come up with the money on her own, then the decisions are between her, and what medical ethics her own physician decide.

What if she can come up with the money to get inseminated but doesn't have the funds to take care of her litter? Who will pay for their care for the rest of their lives?

See, I just don't think that kind of thing happens very much. As someone else posted, the VAST MAJORITY of women who use fertility treatment to get pregnant do so responsibly and are able to care for the children who result. Most women so NOT want to have a "litter" of children that they cannot afford. And very very few doctors are willing to go along with multiple implantations now that there are better options. These types of cases are so shoking because they are so rare.

I am simply not willing to let the federal government decide how many children a woman can bear, based on its interpretation (or yours) of how she is going to be able to afford them. Because if the government tells Mrs. Saleh she can't have xx children because that's just too many and she'll never be able to afford it... what's to stop the government from telling me, I have to stop at 2, because I don't earn over $XX,000 in annual salary? Or because I'm unmarried? Or because I'm the wrong race, and people of my race can't get jobs as easily as people of a different race? Or -- insert whatever argument someone will come up with....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Because if the government tells Mrs. Saleh she can't have xx children because that's just too many and she'll never be able to afford it... what's to stop the government from telling me, I have to stop at 2, because I don't earn over $XX,000 in annual salary? Or because I'm unmarried? Or because I'm the wrong race, and people of my race can't get jobs as easily as people of a different race? Or -- insert whatever argument someone will come up with....

No, government saying only max xxx number of embryos per ivf cycle.
Keep coming back as often as you like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Because if the government tells Mrs. Saleh she can't have xx children because that's just too many and she'll never be able to afford it... what's to stop the government from telling me, I have to stop at 2, because I don't earn over $XX,000 in annual salary? Or because I'm unmarried? Or because I'm the wrong race, and people of my race can't get jobs as easily as people of a different race? Or -- insert whatever argument someone will come up with....

No, government saying only max xxx number of embryos per ivf cycle.
Keep coming back as often as you like

hypothetically -- What's the government's rationale for saying so? Based on the fact that no one can afford xxx children at one time?

[Anonymous]

" No, government saying only max xxx number of embryos per ivf cycle.
Keep coming back as often as you like"

You've obviously never gone through the hell of infertility treatments. This is why policy, or our constitutional rights, shouldn't be decided by the masses.

[Anonymous]

" No, government saying only max xxx number of embryos per ivf cycle.
Keep coming back as often as you like"

You've obviously never gone through the hell of infertility treatments. This is why policy, or our constitutional rights, shouldn't be decided by the masses.

Yes, agree, the top poster has no clue what it's like to be out 10-15k a month just for a half decent chance at conceiving and all because my husband for some UNKNOWN reason was born without a decent sperm count.
I think perhaps that poster should move to China ASAP. Her thoughts on government regulation of reproduction would fit right in there.

[Anonymous]

Zumbamama, you might be thinking of the Duggars, referenced in the post before yours. They have a reality show. They're extremely religious, dress all the girls in identical prairie dresses, homeschool all the kids, etc.

Each one of them a victim of their mothers sense of fashion
family lives on tin food
each one has a fake smile
girls dream of girly motherhood type careers, boys manly professions



OK Hold on a sec.....I DISAGREE with this woman being in any way like the Duggar family, Yes, the have 18 children BUT there IS a father in the picture, he HAS a job, they own rental propertys to help with the food and clothing costs etc, THEY HAVE NO DEBT (The house is paid in full (was before each piece was built BY THEM), no car loans, no credit cards etc)........and DONT depend on the government to help them get by.........and since they are home schooled they DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO HIGHER SCHOOL TAXES!! 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.

[Anonymous]

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.