Is It Really Legal/Ethical For Someone To Have IVF If They Already Have 6 Kids?

Is it really legal/ethical to have IVF if the parent(s) can't support the kids?

Is it really legal/ethical to implant eight embryos?

I thought there were standards applied for those electing to go for IVF.

Doesn't the clinic and its doctor's have standards?

Is limiting IVF to a parent(s) who can support the resulting children a slippery slope? It's an expensive procedure, so I'd always just figured it'd be self-limiting in that regard.

Suppose you had a "Pro-Life" Fundie couple with left-over embryos from their treatments... is it legal or ethical to take the whole left-over batch and implant them all at once into someone else so they aren't disposed of or used for research? Even if that means implanting... say 8... at a time? Would it then be legal or ethical to require the person receiving those many embryos to carry ALL of them to term?

some screwed-up reason, and found a doctor willing to go along with it (hey, it's money). She obviously couldn't provide for the six she already had (otherwise, why live with mommy and daddy as a 33-year-old woman?), so the answer is to scrape up the money for very expensive IVF (or somehow wangle insurance for it), rather than spend it on your already-existing children, to have at least a seventh child, if not eight more. Totally, totally fucked up situation, and she's clearly an unfit mother to ANY of them.

We probably have to respect it on both ends of the spectrum. I may disagree with someone's reason for having an abortion, but that is a choice for the person to make. And I may disagree with someone's pattern of childbirth, but it's not my choice to make.

...it damned well is our business. I have to agree about the respect part, but ought the choice to have a dozen kids be absolutely free? Don't the rest of us get even a tiny bit of say in the matter?

So you're "Pro-Your Choice" and "Anti-Her Choice"?

the octuplets' birth. "How dare she?"

I think most agree that someone can be against abortion, but if they're not trying to influence legislation to take choice away from someone else, they're free to criticize the idea of abortion.

Same thing here, no?

I think it fair to criticize this woman for her choices without suggesting we should legislate against such choice.
GAC

of abstaining from sex or using birth control, as long as I'm not trying to block them from having abortions. I can criticize this woman for having shitloads of babies irresponsibly, as long as I'm not tackling her and tying her tubes.

.

I'm saying, for the 2nd time, that agreeing with the right to choose does not mean one cannot criticize the choice after it's made. As long as the criticism does not attempt to extend to a subrogation of the right.
GAC

"we" should "have a say" in the matter.

I criticize her decision as well as the doctor's.

Perhaps there are legitimate differences between the choice to have over a dozen children and the choice not to have one child. If so, the analogy you're trying to make with abortion would be a poor one.

The Clown Car choice? Not quite so fine--and mine would hardly be the only opinion that might be considered.

What happened to "it's my body"?

To what extent are taxpayers obligated to fund a woman's choice to have a dozen or more kids that she can't support on her own?

But "Pro-Choice" means just that; A woman's choice to do what she will with her body, without fear of recrimination.

How about we appoint a commission of men that will decide which woman gets to have children and how many?

this choice isn't made in a vacuum

Posted by Bill McBlueState

To what extent are taxpayers obligated to fund a woman's choice to have a dozen or more kids that she can't support on her own?





But isn't that the same argument that fundies use regarding welfare?

It would be ironic, since it's often "fundies" that have a huge number of children and then seek government benefits to help with the resulting expenses.

that neither argument is valid.

:shrug:

And should I be obligated as a taxpayer (one who could never conceive, being a man and all) to participate in said funding by way of my tax contribution?

Should bicyclists pay taxes to fund interstate highway construction? Should blind taxpayers be forced to contribute tax dollars to visual arts via the NEA?

that the only logical choices are federal funding for everything or federal funding for nothing.

My question arose from your statement "...taxpayers obligated to fund a woman's choice...". You seem to imply that federal funding for abortion is okay, because it dovetails with your ideals, but funding for things that do not, isn't.

We began to realize that some choices are greed in disguise, and are ultimately unsustainable.

And that yes, our opinions matter.

are really looked down on here. It's not just this mother of octuplets, who's being criticized for being poor and for having IVF when she already had six kids, but the Duggars, who can afford their 17-and-counting kids and have a large home in which to care for them. "Choice" only means "abortion" to many, not choosing to have a large family. I guess everyone has forgotten that JFK, RFK, and Teddy were three children in a family of nine, with Teddy being the last born.

IMO, the doctor should be criticized for implanting eight embryos; four would have been safer for mother and babies, and we wouldn't be talking about this case at all.

Yes, I tend to frown on people who opt to have a lot of children.

I feel that it is important for young children to receive a great deal of nurturing and attention from their parent or parents, and I refuse to believe that children in families with double digit siblings get enough attention from their mother and father, not to mention the financial implications that would hamper most situations. In today's world, I know many parents with as few as two children who have a difficult time meeting the emotional needs of only two children.

In the Duggars' case, having to make an appointment for one-on-one time with Mom or Dad, to me, is certainly not an ideal situation for a child. I believe that attention and love from their older siblings can supplement mom and dad's love and attention, but sibling attention should not take the place of parental involvement.

To me, it's not merely a question of "choice" but rather a question of "why".

If she wanted to and found a doctor to do so? It is her body after all.

Yay or Nay?

Holding an individual responsible for her uterus is all well and good, but until sex education and contraception are easily available, it seems hypocritical to mandate pregnancy and delivery. And in the case of rape or health risks, I'm inclined to side with the owner of the uterus in question.

World population has already grown too fast. I don't mind federal spending to support a decision to abort.

The OP asked whether having IVF was ethical or legal. That's one question.

The issue of who pays for it is another issue altogether and has nothing to do with choice.

It's no different than deciding whether a woman should have a boob job. If she wants one, I don't see a problem with it. However, having made the decision, she should be able to pay for it.

Let's not confuse freedom of choice with how it gets paid for. They are two different issues.

If the breast implants also had enormous carbon and waste footprints, and would strain the local education system, we might be even more careful about subsidizing them.

with Universal health care.

I don't want YOUR opinion muddling MY health.

If we ensure that every child has some adequate level of health care, education and protection from abuse, could we not also penalize serial child-bearers who selfishly (or otherwise) hog resources?

Is there something wrong with diminishing dependent credits for the Duggars? I don't want to contribute as much to their hobby, and we can build a better world by encouraging parents to control the urge for more, more, more.

We wouldn't have to monkey with anyone's health.

Pro-choice means just that - I support the choice of a woman, whether or not it would be the same choice I would make.
Peace.

medical ethics of physicians who would knowingly help a 33-year-old apparently unmarried mother of 6 get pregnant with octuplets. IMO the fertility clinic doctors should have sent her for a psychiatric evaluation.

Pure speculation, but there are currently a few tv shows that convey the idea that lots of kids can bring riches. Jon and Kate of Jon and Kate Plus 8 fame have both quit their day jobs to shill their kids full time. They recently moved into a million dollar home. This has to be at least in the back of this woman's mind. She is clearly in no position to provide for that many kids on her own.

It's called free choice.

Sorry, but in freakin China they tell the people not to breed. This is the USA.

But she has the right to choose for herself and her family.

while wondering about her ability to support them and the impact of her decision on the rest of us.

We complain loudly that it is the Republicans and right-to-lifers who stick their noses into telling women they should never have an abortion, so why should we stick our noses into trying to tell people how many children they should have? It does make me wonder sometimes about Democrats, that if we had absolute dictatorial power that it would be the steel claw in the velvet glove as we forced people to do our bidding "for their own good" because we know what is best for everyone and in every situation. There are people who I see post here that have more than a hint of that kind of philosophy--the all knowing, paternalistic and godlike Democrats who have all the answers and can flawlessly run others lives again, "for their own good". I don't want to be that kind of Democrat.

Thank you

They will have untold medical/developmental issues, probably for life. Now add six other children to that mix. That this woman chose to do this (not accidentally "knocked up", mind you--she deliberately undertook great expense and effort to do this while at the same time was unable to provide for the children she already had) means she's mentally unfit to be a mother at all. So while it's "her choice", legally, it's an absolutely awful choice. She deserves the heaps of criticism she will rightly get, and I hope no one rewards her with a dime of charity for her actions.

to go to this woman who has no husband (the slut!) and fourteen children. Punish the kids because you disagree with the mother's choices about her body. Very Republican.

Sorry, I am not going there.

If they need to go on public assistance, fine--they shouldn't starve or go barefoot. If they're hoping for a new mini-van and a free house like the McCaugheys, I hope they don't get it. We don't need to reward this behavior as a society. This woman sounds truly sick.

From what we've learned so far, this mother is young (~32 last I heard), homeless (living with her parents), already has SIX kids (hopefully healthy and well themselves), and likely has no gainful employment at the moment. They see TV shows like "Jon and Kate Plus 8" and the Duggar family (sorry, can't remember the show name right now) and think that having a high order multiple birth is their ticket to financial solvency.

Sadly, all signs seem to point towards a desperate family who illegally or unethically obtained fertility drugs and treatments in order to gain monetary advantage. And it will be those babies who suffer...

Frankly, I doubt that in this current economic state companies like Proctor & Gamble, etc. will be fronting free goods like diapers and bottles, or even big networks giving them a "reality" show. Especially considering how tight-lipped the doctors are and how family/friends "in the know" have remained relatively silent in the media fervor over the octuplets birth, which is what really gives me cause to be suspicious here...

So many details are being kept hush-hush -- Why in hell would a single mother with six kids go for artificial insemination?
It is beyond belief - and the enmeshment with her parents as well -- a very creepy story...

but I haven't paid enough attention to this story to know which she had.

Docs who use IVF generally implant three or fewer fertilized ova at a time in order to prevent multiple births that are a danger to the woman as well as her offspring.

Docs who use fertility drugs usually require a signed agreement to terminate more than two fetuses.

The doc in this case was unethical unless it can be proven that it's the woman, herself, who reneged on the agreement.

Other than that, it's really none of my business. She's the one who's going to have to cope with 8 screaming, incontinent babies at a time.

People have a right to be odd. I'm just glad it's not me.

They seem to be the caretakers of this bizarre story...

have to.. *sigh*.. go back to Iraq to support them. Sounds like an appeal for pity and charity. I think they think they just hit the jackpot. Normal parents would have kicked this daughter's sorry ass out a long time ago (or at the very least talked her out of having yet more children as an unmarried woman).

:puke:

And her husband is a contractor in Iraq. She probably lives with her parents because she's got too many kids for one person to handle.

Her father is going back to Iraq to make money to help care for these children, his grandchildren.

I've never heard of any doctor transferring 8 embryos. Generally they put back 2 or 3 at the most. I wonder how this woman with 6 kids under the age of 7 and living with her parents could afford IVF? It's not cheap and somehow I doubt she has insurance.

And several reproductive specialists are quoted as being outraged by this case.

I would guess that the board of the AMA is the governing body.

What I find distressing is that there is a reasonable supposition that some sort of medical intervention took place to cause the eight babies. Whether it's IVF or fertility drugs, there are ethical issues involved in using extraneous medical care to produce that result in a person who already had plenty of children, regardless of her ability to care for them.

I remember having to jump through a lot of hoops when I got my vasectomy at age 27, but one of the key determining factors was that I had already fathered three children.

I'm not a Kaiser-Permanente subscriber, but they also have interests here. This one case will cost the Kaiser system megabucks, severely premature children have incredible medical expenses throughout life, in many cases. My sister used IVF to have her twins, and they have learning disabilities that still persist at age seventeen. HMO's are always trying to hold expenses down to (theoretically) keep premiums lower than they would be otherwise, the doctor who aided and abetted this pregnancy at its inception did not do Kaiser ratepayers any favors.

It's a legitimate concern for society as a whole, and as we face the only possible solution to our healthcare crisis being single payer, it necessarily becomes the concern of all of us.

They already had 6 kids.

As for those desperately wanting children, I see no problem with IVF....regardless of income.

Legally, a doctor can do pretty much anything they want, all that is required is to find a doctor willing.

But, what is the justification for IVR in the first place. BTW, multiple blastula (blastulae, blastulas?) are always implanted because most of them do not take.

to be able to have your own offspring. Children are not fungible commodities.

And I'm an infant adoptee.

while expending huge resources to create more?

to give a woman with six children even ONE more, let alone eight!

I was adopted from a foreign country (Canada) if most poor nations in this world did not treat children as something for sale, more of these needy kids would have good homes with parents who would love them and be able to give them decent lives.

and any clinic ought to keep that in mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/earlyshow/health/main4764432.shtml

On The Early Show Friday, Michael Tucker, scientific director of Georgia Reproductive Specialists, says all these developments leave him "stunned. As the story's unfolded and it's gone from the potential use of just fertility drugs, or misuse thereof, to actual, apparently, IVF (in-vitro fertilization) with transfer of embryos, this is just remarkable to me that any practitioner in our field of reproductive medicine would undertake such a practice."

Tucker, who has a doctorate in reproductive physiology, says it's "absolutely" possible the octuplets' mother got pregnant with them by taking fertility drugs on her own without the help of a clinic, "and that seemed the most plausible scenario, simply because the profession, we're policed by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, has focused so minutely on the fact that we need to reduce the number of embryos that we transfer. We really are all about seeking the one, the one embryo that's going to make the healthy, single-born baby.

"And this kind of multiple plethora excess of babies is too much of a good thing. And it's rather a slap in the face of the whole profession, simply because it's going in the wrong direction.

"And it's unfortunate, because the media pick up on this and seem to go, I think, Arthur Kaplan from UPenn (University of Pennsylvania) said the media tend to go goo-goo gaga over this and, in fact, it's really a bit of a medical disaster."

"Had she walked into a fertility clinic and said, 'Listen, I've got other children, the oldest seven, the youngest two,' co-anchor Julie Chen asked Tucker, "is there any ethical responsibility on the clinic's part to say, 'I'm not going to treat you,' or, 'You know what? This is not a good idea?" '

"Suffice to say," Tucker responded, "I've been in this business for 25 years now. And it's pretty much standard practice in all clinics to have some form of psychological evaluation of the patient. Also, their sociological circumstances. And I'm stunned, actually, that a clinic would proceed to treat a patient in this circumstance and then even to get to perhaps the transfer of embryos and ponder the transfer in, I believe, the lady's mid-30s, a 35-year-old -- she should be receiving two embryos, maximum, as a transfer into her uterus to have had eight transferred is somewhat -- is extremely irresponsible."

and goes counter to all standard procedures.

IMO, the physician who helped the Mother do this needs to go in front of a medical board and explain his rationale.

:nuke:

and for the unnecessary sucking down of yet more finite resources.
People are already fighting over water shortages in parts of the world, and that problem is not going to get any better. The planet is overpopulated. People are desperate for help with bills and mortgages, and are losing their homes. Should our charitable donations be funneled off to help the sideshow freaks and their "choice"?

Exercise your free choice to screw over everybody else on the planet. Because me, me, me is all that matters.

So what's the limit then? It's okay to have one kid you can't afford but not ____!

to care for, including food, clothing, education, health care, and everything else it takes, including love and attention, to end up with productive members of society. I personally disagree with the "right" to reproduce when one cannot even take care of oneself, let alone a little one or two or three.

And afford at what standard? This could not be enforced. We just have to deal with women's choices and hope most of them are sensible. Which they are. This size family is an aberration.

cannot afford them and expect a handout for their "miracle."

be discrimination against the poor - constitutionally that could be very very troublesome.

Only a very few people do this kind of thing, anyway.

tolerance, the love for other people is overwhelming. :sarcasm: You forgot to call the mom a "welfare queen in a Cadillac."

apparently you don't care that the this irresponsibly conceived litter will take away from others who were born before. Well, of course, she can exploit them the way the Duggars do their children, and the way that couple with 8 children on TLC do theirs. That's so "humane." And, yes, that is sideshow freakery, exactly. Hey, everybody, get a peek at the octuplets! Just the way the Dionnes treated their children, who grew up to talk about how resentful and messed up they were by it.

At least I sure as heck hope not! We as a culture have agreed on certain limitations/qualifications.

Medical procedures which result in high incidence of physical/mental birth defects is something that needs to ... not be done.

On the other hand, if people expect society to support them, they should accept some restrictions by society to make up for their lack of foresight.

Largely because the mere mention of it often invokes references to genocide or other such atrocities. As others have mentioned above the biggest problem is that reproductive freedom goes both ways. We can't justify our support for a woman's right to have an abortion based on reproductive freedom if we also don't support her right to reproduce in the manner she chooses.

Now if people would start justifying their support of a woman's right to an abortion not based on a woman's right to choose but based on the need for population control, then they could also make the argument for limiting the number of kids that she can have. Not that I am advocating this justification over the reproductive freedom justification.

Because according to what LynneSin posted above from a professional in the reproductive field, the doctor violated a lot of ethical boundaries.

whether the children are being properly cared for or whether child endangerment is or will take place if the parent(s) have few visible means of support and do not have a huge support network to come every day and night and help out. Kids have to eat and they need lots of love and touching. Children who are not held and taken care of do not develop into healthy persons. The doctor/clinic that implanted 8 embryos should be looked into and some standards set for limiting the number of implanted embryos to help prevent harm to the children from competing for limited resources in the womb. Autism and other special needs have a much higher incidence with preemie's. Families that have just 1 child who is autistic can barely handle getting the necessary services and helping the child to move forward. With 14 children, if one or 2 of them or 6 of them have special needs, I do not see how the children will obtain the help they need. It was a selfish decision to have 8 children. It is the mom's decision to make and it was a sad one from the point of view of the children's rights. Perhaps the community will come together and help every day for the next 18 years. I hope so.

It is apparently common to implant multiple embryos at a time but it's very unusual for all of them to come to term. It's certainly legal but whether it's ethical is a different matter.

in the UK IVF recipients aren't allowed to have more than two fertilised embryos implanted. As for the ethics of it, no, it is not ethical, either. It's staggering selfishness and irresponsibility to take the extreme risk of bearing seven or eight foetuses to term (especially given the risk of spontaneous miscarriage and severe complications, not to mention the elevated risk of developmental disorders and other maladies to such children); it is especially selfish and stupid when one considers that this is, per press reports, a single mother who ALREADY HAS six children.

While there are no statutory laws against injecting numerous zygotes through IVF procedures in the US, it is *not* considered to be standard and sound medical practice to do so. And acting beyond what is considered by medically trained peers to be sound and healthful practice is grounds for having one's medical license suspended or permanently revoked.

In the US, having a censure against or revocation of one's medical license makes it incredibly difficult to ever be hired by any medical practice or to have standing for practicing privileges at a hospital. A doctor who bears the provincial "black mark" of censure or revocation will never be hired considering the concerns of higher malpractice insurance and patients leaving the practice because of the new questionable hire.... However, not to seem like we're totally irresponsible over here, there are laws in effect to prosecute in cases where drugs are illegally obtained. And I honestly think that's likely what happened in this case.

I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that the woman who had these octuplets somehow managed to forge a prescription for injectable fertility medications (like Lupron) and ordered it on-line. She then went to a new OB (who never bothered to perform a medical records research on the presenting patient, likely due to lack of consent) because she (claimed) had trouble conceiving the (claimed) only child she now has, claiming to have undergone fertility treatments via some locally known reproductive specialist and now wants an OB closer to home. But now!!! *Gasp!* It just happens to be a higher order multiple pregnancy! Can you see the layer of lies and negligence needed (but possible) in order for this to happen?

Unfortunately, medical privacy laws are susceptible to abuse. Believe me, after we moved to a new city, I was shocked that some of my son's new physicians did not feel the need to transfer his medical records as their new patient! They were quite happy to go along with my account of his medical history and needs. I understand now that they wanted to evaluate his current medical needs as just that - current issues. But, Colin has a complex medical history due to being a preemie. Though I now get where their perspective came from, at the time it was confusing. And now I know, all too entirely vulnerable to potential fabrications on my part... I think that's what likely happened in the case of this octuplet birth.

I still respect the general reasoning of medical privacy. But it does come with some costs of potential abuse....

I don't think it's ethical.

Sooner or later though, the Earth will introduce people to it's own personal brand of culling, just like it does for any animal that over-populates a region.

I'm not having kids, so at least I won't feel responsible for future generations having to deal with it.

Doesn't matter how much conservation we introduce as long as we keep making more people than are dying off at the current rate. Like all species, eventually an explosive population boom will lead to a massive die-off.

First: the woman gave birth in Kaiser Permanente, an HMO. HMO's generally shy away from paying for IVF or fancy fertility treatments. They're trying to limit their costs, and taking care of octoplets is the last thing they'd want.

Second: any fertility specialist would have STRONGLY recommended selectively aborting several of the fetuses, to increase the chances of survival for the remaining fetuses. The fact the woman carried 8 to term tells me she must have disregarded any reasonable doctor's advice.

Third: the fact the OB was shocked to see 8 babies, not the 7 she expected, makes me think that she assumed care for this patient rather late in the pregnancy. (addendum: Kaiser now says they got the patient when she was already 3 months pregnant.) If she'd been the attending physician from the time of implantation, she probably would have known there were eight.

Fourth: the woman's already proven fertile, and her youngest was only 2. Why would she seek any help at all in getting pregnant?

The medical ethics aspect of this case are so surprising that I'm wondering if the woman got implanted outside the Kaiser system. Or if -- weirdest possibility of all -- these really are naturally conceived octoplets!

.

more to this story cause it seems everyone involved is a bit crazy. Her, her docs the grandfather going back to Iraq wtf ? the grandmother watching 6 kids by herself and 8 more coming home no father or bread winner in the pic now for 14 kids it's all just nutz.

it may even be cruel to the kids, not one of whom will get the proper degree of focus and attention from Mom.

genetic manipulations of animals that result in their pain and suffering - think it can apply to this situation. Fertility drugs result in very high incidence of birth defects, mental & physcial, not to mention the neglect and emotional problems unless this woman has a large enough staff to care for these 14 children.

All that IMHO something to be judgemental about!

Something is not quite right here.

I have many questions but most important - is she emotionally and financially capable of taking care of 14 children with eight being babies on her own?