So, if I'm correct, if I want to have one of my legs amputated for the hell of it...

I should be allowed to get this simply because I demand it. And I'm not talking a badly damaged leg but a perfectly healthy, fully functioning leg.

This is exactly what that woman who just bore 8 kids did - she demanded a procedure she was NOT eligible to receive. She has had no history of fertility problems (she already had 6 kids ages 2-7) and a reputable fertility doctor would have not provided this for her. If anything, a reputable doctor would have recommended the woman getting therapy for demanding something that was very unusual and unneeded. And if I demanded a healthy leg be amputated just because it can be done - I would hope the same recommendation would be made for me.

Edit Note: I'm very happy with my 2 legs!

services.

I know this only because of an interesting group of people who feel unusual view about their body - they feel they were meant to live their lives in a wheel chair or with less than the normal limbs one normally starts with in life. It was an odd story but one guy, to get his legs amputated because he felt that having no legs was how his body was suppose to look, he actually parked his car outside of a hospital and had his legs immersed in dry ice in order to create severe frost bite and have the legs removed.

your post first.

It isn't unheard of for a woman who has lost multiple family members to cervical or uterine cancer to ask her obstetritian to perform a hysterectomy despite the fact that her own organs are showing no signs of disease as a prophylactic measure. I've seen it happen a number of times. If the patient wants it and consents to it and is able to pay for it, there is nothing unethical about the doctor performing the procedure.

A woman who has her breasts removed or reduced usually work with the doctor to justify the reason whether it's a strong family history (having the breasts removed) or perhaps oversized breasts that cause severe back pain.

The was no valid reason to request my healthy leg to be removed nor was there any valid reason to plant 8 embryos via IVF in a woman who pretty much shown that she has no fertility issues.

to prevent development of a genetically likely cancer.

One identical twin has an arm removed...

so that his twin can have 3.


I don't know how real it is, but here's the story...
http://www.bmezine.com/news/people/A10101/addsub/

a condition that makes people feel like one of their own limbs doesn't belong to them. They ALL want the limb removed. And NO DOCTOR WILL DO IT.

Jesus Christ.

:hide:

being wheeled into surgery. That way you'll come out with at least half of 'em. :)

The anesthesiologist and the surgeon thought it was pretty funny.

getting all huffy. I could see some of them thinking, oh yeah? Well, I'll just show you. ;)

There's gotta be a page somewhere on the Internets explaining how to do this.

going to the hospital. Once it's completely frozen they have to amputate. Oh, they can try to save it, but it almost never works if the person froze it long enough.

Just pay for something and you'll get it-despite the fact that only a mentally ill person would pay for fertility treatments after having six kids-or would ask for their leg to be amputated?

Capitalism has done a real number on you.

But I must admit I was curious about your amputated legs

:D

What woman who already had 6 kids would want to have another
one so badly that she'd have fertility treatments? I could
understand it if she was especially fertile -- and just happened
to get pregnant, AGAIN -- but to actively seek to have more
children? In this economy? Gotta be some religious thing
going on there, that's all I can say ...

who is the father of these children? Was she going to surrogate? Was she working with an adoptive couple? No mention of that, then that leaves sheer greed and hoping for a LITTER, with all the media hype and rush to give the babies EVERYTHING.. greed and opportunistic avarice.

If we start seeing companies and churches donate houses and college tuitions, I'm going to puke. Lots of wonderful couples would love to adopt.

Someone much more familiar with IVF treatment here at DU mentioned that when one goes under IVF treatment usually you work with the same hospital from start to finish but this hospital had no knowledge of what was happening just that a woman pregnant with 7 fetuses (the 8th they discovered at delivery) started coming to their hospital.

was his and his alone. My decision about hospitals came from knowing which ones had good NICUs, and considering that I despised Erlanger then, and have grown to despise them more over the years, my choices were dramatically narrowed. I made a great choice and all 3 of my boys were delivered at the same hospital and we had great results.

Kaiser Permante (sp?) was featured in Sicko, and the more that I read about this case and relate it to my experience and others who underwent fertility treatments, the more questions that I have.

:silly: :crazy:

and perhaps because the media sensationalizes the Duggar's and that other show about all those kids (I can't remember the name).
A little off topic perhaps...but the Duggar's are very frugal and they receive no public assistance--regardless of their politics and religion--their situation is more about choice than this one.
There is something not right with this story...and it has nothing to do with choice.

A woman's right to make reproductive decisions should not include a right to make stupid, irresponsible decisions. Jush because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

If she did take fertility drugs it is possible she didn't get them from a reputable doctor. You can buy just about anything over the Internet these days. This could have beena do it youself job.

and that 8 were placed in the uterus - which is almost 3 times the number that a reputable fertility specialist would place in the uterus during IVF.

But you have a valid point - this procedure may not have happened in the United States.

people who decided to adopt several "snowflake babies" all at once.

There is a bit of :sarcasm: there but there isn't much in this story that makes any sense.

That woman in Iowa had an 18 month old daughter and underwent fertility treatments, so go figure.

in which a couple manages to have one child, but is unable to conceive a second time. It can be very upsetting to those who desperately want a second child. I met some of these folks many years ago when I was in Resolve - a national organization that provides support and information to people dealing with infertility.

Don't get me wrong -- from what I know so far, the case of that woman who had 8 embryos implanted when she already had 6 kids sounds like it could have been medically unethical. In my opinion she needs her head examined -- and it should have been done before she went for infertility treatment. But I can feel compassion for a woman with an 18-month-old who seeks fertility treatment to have a second child.

with wanting a second child, but after such a short time after the birth of the first, fertility treatments sort of seem link going after a fly with a hand grenade.

Seems there might have been alternative, less drastic methods to try for a while.

But fertiltiy treatments after 6 kids? When the youngest is 2, it just seems psychotic. Just my opinion.

And then a while to do testing and diagnosis prior to treatment. So a woman with a 18 mo old or 2 yo should only be undergoing infertility treatments if she was diagnosed prior to that conception and the condition persists. There really isn't enough time to diagnose and begin treatment for secondary infertility, because you have to allow time for cycles to regularize and the body to recover after the previous birth before you do your year of attempts.

The recommendation, if I remember, goes to after 6 months of trying. Do we know how old the mother is? I haven't heard.

Six months is also the guideline to start investigating causes if you've been charting correctly with no conception.

In some ways, thankfully, it feels like a long, long time ago.

and waited another 6 years before finally succeeding. No problems with the first. And no idea really why it happened.

It's very frustrating and painful, though I understand that those suffering from primary IF have a whole other set of pains to deal with, too.

But there's no telling. Past fertility isn't a guarantee of future fertility.

help.

I think we're dealing with a less than reputable doctor here. 8 embryos at once is way, way beyond what is safe, especially if the mother will not selectively reduce.

"A woman's right to make reproductive decisions should not include a right to make stupid, irresponsible decisions."

Excuse me, but yes it should.

Who gets to decides whether one woman's reproductive decision is or is not "stupid and irresponsible"?

You?

Let's TRUST women to make THEIR OWN reproductive decisions, without trying to limit them by saying what one person (or even a group of people) might think is "irresponsible and stupid".

and asked for a particular medication or a particular treatment and the doctor said, "No"?

As patients, we do not get to demand any treatment we want.

Well, of course I have been to a doctor and asked for a particular treatment or medication, and had the doctor say no.

But many, many, many more times I have been to the doctor and she has said "YES".

The point, of course, is that MY medical treatment should be between ME and MY doctor.

And, if my doctor and I agree on a decision -- ESPECIALLY a reproductive decision -- no one -- AND I MEAN NO ONE!! -- should tell me that my right to make a reproductive decision should NOT include the right to make a decision SOMEONE ELSE would call "stupid and irresponsible".

THOSE decisions are between ME and MY doctor -- and NO ONE ELSE!

I may make decisions you or other people might call "stupid" or "irresponsible" -- but the fact is that IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS!

It is ONLY the business of me and my doctor.

PERIOD.

it is my business is not the point. I am giving an opinion in a discussion group.

Using your argument, good old Rush should have been able to Dr. shop until he got a Dr. who gave him what he wanted. Which he did.


I had a friend years ago who found a doctor who went along with whatever she wanted. She became addicted to perscription meds. This Dr. got busted for dealing drugs. He was a Dr. She was the patient. I don't think "My patient wanted them" was a particularly good excuse.

I do not believe that a doctor should just go along with what a patient wants just because it involves a reproductive decision. Procedures like this are dangerous for both the health of the mother and for the infants. Maaybe this woman had to Dr. shop to get this procedure done. I seriously doubt there are many doctors out there who would go along with this. Just because she found someone to go along with what she wanted doesn't make it right. That's my opinion.

I'll tell you this --

Any Doctor who refuses to give me the treatment I desire based upon HIS (and it usually is "HIS") views of what he THINKS is right or wrong has received an earful from me in the past.

I WILL NOT have anyone -- doctor or not! -- attempt to shove his own personal morality in MY face.

It should be the ABSOLUTE RIGHT of every single woman to "shop", as you call it, until she finds a doctor who is willing to do what she wants and needs! A doctor should, of course, ALWAYS have the woman's health (including her emotional health) in mind when making a decision. But MEDICAL decisions should be just that -- MEDICAL decisions.

It reaaly doesn't matter that you think that "Just because she found someone to go along with what she wanted doesn't make it right". What makes it right is that THE WOMAN AND HER DOCTOR thought it was right. And it doesn't matter in the least that YOU "seriously doubt there are many doctors out there who would go along with this." Unless YOU are a doctor who has reviewed the entire medical history of this woman, and is a doctor who this woman has CHOSEN to go to to be treated, YOU DO NOT GET an opinion in this matter!

The ONLY opinion that matters is the WOMAN's and HER DOCTOR'S!

Is so far out of what constitutes acceptable medical practice that it's downright criminal.

Where is your medical degree from?

And when, exactly, did you review this woman's medical history?

You are stating an opinion.

But you really don't get an opinion in this case.

The ONLY opinions that count in a matter such as this are (1) THE WOMAN'S, and (2) HER DOCTOR'S.

NO ONE ELSE has any opinion that really matters in this case.

And I've worked with several fertility MDs. There's not a one who would implant that many embryos, particularly in a woman that young.

Well, it appears that there was a doctor who DID consult with the woman, review her medical history, and decided, based upon all the medical history, to do the procedure.

I'm sure you'll agree, with all your experience, that some times doctors make decisions that nurses disagree with. It happens frequently, I'm sure.

As I said, this is really between that doctor and that doctor's patient.

AND NO ONE ELSE!

I TRUST WOMEN to make the right choices, after they consult with their own doctors. That is what this woman did.

people make stupid choices sometimes.

But the alternative is that people get to make no choices.

:applause:

Rather than provide this nutbag with IVF, she should have been referred to a competent therapist.

Height of medical malpractice, IMHO.

go to people whose lives are on the line.

To avoid getting jumped on, I don't mean people really infertile who can't have children otherwise. If this was her first and she happened to have 8 it would be one thing - she was infertile, and the infertility treatments can overcorrect, so to speak.

But someone with 6 kids already? Mrs. Duggar is one thing, where she is doing it the natural way. But this is like - enough! Even if she had infertility treatments before, she's benefitted from them enough.

Though whether legally they could be stopped is another question - the state can't decide who gets fertility treatments, I would suspect, without making laws that are overly intrusive.

she and her husband are debt free and pay their own way.

I'm sorry. I think finances does enter into this. I would have loved to have more than the three I have because I adore kids, but finances and practicality reared their predicatable heads.

How is this woman going to pay for school supplies? School clothes?

Children should be wanted, not collected. Hell, I'd love a Porsche, but I can't afford one right now.

Anyhow, there was an article that came out about a year or so later about how a mother was disappointed that she did not get the same fanfare and gifts after she had Septulets.

I honestly think there is a strange sickness out there where the mother perhaps wants to have these large broods with no regards to money or responsibilities. And we have TV shows where we glorify these large families like the Duggars (which in all due respect what they did was natural not forced) and think if they could have large families perhaps they could cash in on the great rewards too.

The Guiness World Book of Records use to keep a record for the world's fattest cat until they found out that people were forcibly fattening their cats just to get into the record book. Perhaps Guiness needs to stop tracking how many kids and how many kids at one time a woman can have since it seems we're 'fattening the cat' just for the publicity it might bring.

any laws to that effect without intruding on a fundamental right. And whether or not one can afford one's children changes - maybe you can afford 3 now but can't in a different economy at a different time - so it's really impossible to say how many children each person should have.

I believe, from what I've read, there are some regulations out there which state that well, one has to be infertile first to be qualified.

A big red flag should have been the 6 kids she already had. And let's go out on a limb and say that the father of these 8 kids (who as far as I can tell - is there a father) was not the father of the first 6 kids and there was some sort of barrier that kept the 2nd father from impregnanting the woman. Then the doctor should have only placed 2-3 eggs in the woman - NOT 8 and especially not 8 if the woman was refusing selective reduction.

This woman is just as fertile as Michelle Duggar. Infertility usually isn't diagnosed until about 36 months of trying without success.

Not the case here. Not by a long shot.

What she did was irresponsible and the doctor should have his/her ticket pulled.

Should we also cut off the penises of men who impregnate too many women? You know, on second thought, I like the look of Burkas.

than any woman can possibly do. Imagine Mr. Dugger with 2 wives.

My girlfriends cousin has fathered children by SEVEN different women in FIVE years. He is 23.

6 kids just wouldn't qualify - wouldn't one have to show one was infertile, medically? Tried to get pregnant and couldn't due to a medical condition?

I've heard people who want sex change operations have to qualify - before they do an operation like that, the doctors, who don't want to be sued for malpractice, apparently need reassurance that it is what the person really wants.

Here it would be so easy for the doctor to get sued - the number of kids and the increased likelihood they will have problems - so the Dr. is reckless at least.

on the fact that she already has kids?

Because it's quite common to conceive once and not be able to conceive again. I certainly had that problem.

This woman has six children, including a set of twins under the age of 7. That's not infertility, it's fertility.

route if she didn't need to?

blaming the doctor. This woman wasn't infertile. She should NEVER have been treated for infertility.

:shrug:

Once again, DU jumps to conclusions.

Father is still unknown.

There are four fathers for the 14 kids. Her dad is returning to Iraq to help support the family.

"Suleman said she was concerned about her daughter's homecoming because her husband, a contract worker, is due to return to Iraq."

I guess CNN could have edited that better. Who is the her referring to? I assumed it was the mother of the babies husband and not the husband of the grandmother of the babies.

My god, semantics screw us up all the time!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/01/30/mother.octuplets/index.html

he was returning to Iraq to help support the babies.

That's why I stay out of these threads.

:rofl:

That's what I heard and I've read on the web; that she's unmarried and that her dad is returning to Iraq to help support the 14 grandchildren.

source was and why I was confused.

Just sayin'

and selective reduction where the link is worded less poorly.

Heh heh. Forgot to put the link in at first. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4943211&mesg_id=4943211

And, her mother said she was implanted with 8 embryos.

Woman don't naturally conceive eight babies. In fact, AFAIK, there are no naturally occurring cases of sextuplets, let alone octuplets. The Dionne quints were an anomaly, and still are because they were conceived without infertility treatment.

:shrug:

The question is why was she having them. Was it because of her or her husband?

And, my issue is that is was irresponsible of the doctor to treat her for infertility when she wasn't infertile. I think it is an egregious abuse of power.

When the doctors at the hospital first met this woman she was already pregnant. And because of the big stink about selective reduction most fertility doctors in the state will not plant more than 3 eggs at one time.

that suit their own preconceived notions.

Also, IVF is not successful much of the time.

infertility, this woman wasn't infertile.

The diminished ability or the inability to conceive and have offspring. Infertility is also defined in specific terms as the failure to conceive after a year of regular intercourse without contraception.

THis is DU - we jump to conclusions on everything. We're not really sure if you are mad or if you are in Maryland!

but that's a temptation that a reputable doc won't give in to.

I was told more than once that my desire to have a second child was unnecessary - I had one, I should be content with that.

Much as having 6 kids seems overwhelming to me, and 14 just beyond my imagination, it is not for me to make that decision for another woman.

be looking for legislation to limit the size of everyone's family - or key it to their annual income?

The difference here is using a medical procedure to conceive. But without the need for that procedure, she would be absolutely free to have as many children as she could. Potentially irresponsible? You bet. But that's also the price we as a society pay for allowing people reproductive freedom - to choose whether and how many children they will have.

Or if you prefer, we could go the way of China.

Yes, I do understand and appreciate the fact that help might be needed for those who have had children in the past. But I truly believe that if this woman was properly vetted by the doctor he would have discouraged her from getting treatment and then if he still went ahead with the procedure he would have planted the normal number of eggs - which is around 2-3 and not 8.

agreeing to treat a woman with six children, including a set of twins in 7 years, for infertility. It completely boggles my mind.

I just don't think that's their decision. Because once you go down that road, you get to where the doctor can make all sorts of judgements about a patient's life. Don't like people who in the doc's opinion don't make enough money? Don't like lesbians trying to build a family? You see where it leads?

The doctor absolutely should never have implanted 8. That's just unethical, given the patient's unwillingness to selectively reduce. But I'm quite leery of making outside judgements about how many children (in total, not from one pregnancy) are enough.

No reputable fertility doctor is going to treat a woman for infertility who doesn't meet the criteria. It's considered malpractice.

This woman did not meet the definition. Not by a long shot.

The diminished ability or the inability to conceive and have offspring. Infertility is also defined in specific terms as the failure to conceive after a year of regular intercourse without contraception.


It's like treating an obese woman with metformin because women with PCOS have excellent results taking the weight off with it. It's malpractice. If not, it's certainly off license use of the drugs.

then it's not ethical to treat her for infertility. I'm just not ready to jump to that conclusion based only on what we know now - having been there myself, I know it can happen at any time.

It was wrong of the doctor to treat her for it. Flat out wrong.

I just hope these babies turn out okay. CP is a very real danger at this point for all of them. It's heart breaking.

But I still don't see where we know she wasn't infertile. Do we know if she'd been trying unsuccessfully for a year? (And the time is even shorter if she's 35 or older - then we're talking trying for 6 months). I haven't read or heard anything to that effect. So I really don't think we have the information needed to make that call.

Including a set of twins?

and, think about this for a minute. There is no mention of a father. So, if there was no boyfriend or husband or whatnot, how could she have been trying to conceive through regular intercourse for over a year? Her twins are 2. Even women who don't breastfeed can find themselves without a regular period for quite some time after delivering.

It's ludicrous. And, I don't mean the rapper.

8 is just nuts.

But having dealt with years of secondary IF, after having no problems conceiving my first, I know it does happen - even to people with many children. And how many children to have is really a parents' decision, not the doctor's.

But yes, if she was found to be fertile, and still for some weird reason wanted IVF, it would not be ethical to allow her to spend the money, and to put her body through that (it's not without its own punishments). I imagine she might have needed some help, if there wasn't a father around - insemination from a donor perhaps. But IVF?

And personally I don't think she got this treatment in the United States.

Plus, isn't this treatment expensive and not covered by insurance which leads me to ask "Who paid for this?"

(all those drugs to stimulate the ovaries... whew). So if she's this single mom with many kids to support, why in the world would this be an option for her if she was able to conceive without help?

As I said above, perhaps help as in insemination from a donor - but that's a fairly low-tech and inexpensive procedure - especially compared to IVF.

which honestly made sense to me. She told me how if the doctor suspects a large number of ovum were to be generated that the doctor would ask that the cycle be 'scrubbed' (ie the parents avoid sex in order to not end up with 5-8 kids in one pregnancy). But I guess even some people who do this method might still ignore doctors and have sex anyways (which other poster said was the case with the septuplets from Iowa).

But IVF means that a doctor knowingly put more than the usual number of eggs in the uterus. This had to be done outside the country.

Now, the Today show might be incorrect - wouldn't be the first time!

But it's more likely to be a cycle from injectible fertility meds in which the ovaries were overstimulated, and too many eggs "ripened". In which case, yes, any reputable doc would call off that cycle. If the patient ignores that, and has unprotected sex anyway, there's not much that a doctor could do. Less controllable, IOW.

IVF, OTOH - lots more control. Implant only 2-3. Patients on a tight budget, who maybe can only afford one cycle (and IIRC, we're talking something like 10k each time) might push for more, gambling that one of the bunch will "take". But it's irresponsible to do that, and that's definitely where the physician's expertise and authority come in. I guess there's a very faint chance that only 3-4 were implanted, and then divided... but from what I've read, that's highly unlikely at the age the embryos are usually implanted. All that division that happens to create natural twins or triplets usually happens earlier in the embryos' development.

of this, as I don't think any of us are here.

:shrug:

want to know the back story on this one.

I would hope that this woman's health insurance did not pay for this!!!
As you said, the money would have been better invested in psychotherapy.

surgeons who will tighten them up for you. The comparison doesn't really hold.

But I'm not asking for the eyelid to be removed and if I'm asking for plastic surgery the doctor will probably say "Pay before we do the work".

for the doctor to give you 8 more eyes.

I hate that I'm getting into this argument, frankly. I really don't give a shit whether people reproduce or not.

Well you have to separate this woman from regular couples who wish to have children and truly fit the term "infertile".

I would never deny reproductive rights under any normal circumstances. However this woman was not 'under normal circumstances'. She clearly was able to produce kids and had 6 already. At this point I would think that the doctors AND insurance companies should both have come back and said that if you want more it's on your dime. And if she came up with the money then it should have been limited to only 2-3 eggs at a time NOT 8.

The only wild card in all of this is the father - who is he and what involvement does he have in all of this. Perhaps since her 6th child and this latest batch the woman was remarried to a man that had some sort of reproductive issues and she wanted to be able to bear this new father a child. Again, the eggs should have been limited to only 2-3 and NOT 8.

a fertile woman with infertility treatments. Not even close.

shouldn't be an absolute right. This woman is not infertile and should never have been treated for infertility. Regardless of her desire to have another child. Whoever did it committed gross medical malpractice.

a whim, or comparable to cosmetic surgery in that way.

to go down. I wouldn't wish that trip on my worst enemy.

My brother and SIL went through it. It was awful. Continues to be, actually.

If you want kids - or more kids - and can't have them, it leads you to question everything about yourself. Those were not fun years for me.

:hug:

I hope you don't think I'm some anti-fertility type person. I just see this stuff, not the everyday people dealing with fertility issues but the unusual cases of abuse and it angers me. It's amazing that we have this technology where man can help where God perhaps has faltered but what happens when man decides to play God himself? There is just something abhorably wrong with this and to me this Octuplet case strikes a very sour nerve.

I totally agree that there's something wildly wrong with implanting that many embryos. It's almost certain that the result of such a choice will be a huge risk of life and health.

My only beef is with those who insist that a doctor should have turned away an IF patient simply because - in their estimation - 6 kids is already too many. I'm very concerned about what might come from such a stand: what happens with 2 is too many? Or even one? If people are ready to cede to someone else - doctors, gov't - the right to decide the size of their family, well... it leads to very unfortunate places.

then they'd be unethical to do it.

And that's the same issue here. If this is a case of a mother of 6 wanting more children, then that's her business, and not mine. If, however, she wasn't really infertile, then proceeding with treatment for infertility is not ethical.

AND even if she is infertile, allowing 8 embryos to be implanted, especially since she wouldn't selectively reduce, is highly unethical, since it has a direct bearing on her health and quite possibly, her life, not to mention the lives of the babies.

I object to the vitriol, in this thread and others (not from your post, though), directed at this woman for wanting more children.

I saw a fair amount of the same on some boards dealing with infertility. Those with primary IF getting very upset with those with secondary - as if they were using precious resources and how dare they want a 2nd or 3rd, or 4th child when others didn't have one?

Which is silliness. The choice to have children, and the choice to have X number of children is strictly the parents' choice.

why is it okay to mess with 'god's will' when it comes to makin' babies, but not when it comes to preventing them?

The RCC for instance.

Which is why it always cracked me up to see a huge poster of JPII framed on the wall in my RE's office... Oh the irony!

She refused selective reduction saying it was God's Will. Sorry. I'm a person of faith and there is no way God wants women to have that many babies at once.

And, two of those kids have mild CP.

and with the case of the McCaughey and this lady with the Octuplets - it was man playing God.

:D

and that's a frightening can of worms that could be opening up. With the Duggar family (the woman who had 18 children naturally throughout her 20+ year of fertility) being hyped on Cable TV, you can imagine the number of people who see this as a call that they too need to 'catch-up' so to speak.

And since the fertility industry in the states are probably a bit more strict on how many eggs get implanted it would almost seem logical that outside the US is where this is happening.

Which takes me back to the healthy leg analogy.

Why would I knowingly want 8 embryos implanted and allowed to stay knowing that the risks for severe & permanent damage to the embryos increases greatly with each egg that manages to take. Again, I'm not suggesting selective reduction, which is offensive to the anti-choice crowd, but simply planting the proper number of eggs to ensure at least one success and reduce the risk of damage during the pregnancy.

in the clinics here doing this. It's appalling.

Sorry. Either you believe in reporductive choice or you don't. There ain't no middle ground on this one.

This woman was treated for infertility when she doesn't meet even the barest standards for such. It is gross medical malpractice.

not to implant 8 embryos at once. That's where things veer into the patient's health and life at stake.

But saying "you've got 6 already, no more for you!" is just wrong. As nuts as doing that sounds to me, that's not mine to decide.

Fertility Doctors are essentially taking over where God/Nature has failed. And from everything I've read a reputable doctor respects that concept by ensuring that treatment is fair and ethical. Plus don't forget that old adage in the oath that all doctors swear "First do no harm". Implanting 8 eggs is clearly the path towards doing harm.

to provide for the children she has. The doctor should not have given her the fertility treatment.

In most states there's a limit to how many DOGS or CATS can reside in a single home. Do children deserve less humane treatment than our pets?

There really are people who have a psychiatric disorder that causes them to desire an amputation, usually of the leg. I am not making this up.

And, indeed, no reputable medical provider will touch them with a ten-foot saw. I am told that there are people in Tijuana who specialize in this. :scared:

Some man incased his legs in dry ice just so he could get the body he felt he should have. And he used that method because no sane doctor would just remove a healthy leg.

dealt with that issue. Very strange.

is not designed to birth litters

"nuff said

I say this after filing not one but TWO grievances against my insurance company this week for denying necessary medical procedures.:mad:

That's the other thing that bugs me about this. Who paid for this - I can't imagine insurance allowing this to happen especially since the woman already had 6 kids.

Go figure

:hugs:

But the strange thing...my insurance WILL pay for fertility treatments and I googled this
http://www.fertilitylifelines.com/paying/insurance/statemandate.jsp#

I think the crux of THIS story is 1. She worked at a fertility clinic (I know there is a backstory there!) and 2. She had a quack doctor.

My armchair diagnosis with her having 6 children in 7 years is that she was literally addicted to being pregnant with a little Munchhausen thrown in (seeking the attention of a respected medical professional is one of the key points and seeing a physician frequently for a multiple pregnancy would give her the desired time).

She certainly was not infertile and indeed if she DID want more children (edited to add by fertility treatment), her physician should have sought psychiatric care FIRST (this is mandatory for certain procedures ie transplant, transplant donor, gastric bypass, etc...)to make sure that she was mentally fit after having 6 children in such a short period of time...and the short period of time is the key here. If she was deemed stable, then absolutely her wishes to have more children should have been granted provided she was able to meet the standard guidelines for fertility treatment.

A tourniquet, a chainsaw, and a guy they call "Dr. Butcher."

$50. He pays you. Hospitals are so expensive.

It could become a Halloween DVD Classic!

Sorry! "Eating Raoul" just came to mind...

:scared:

So long as tax dollars don't have to pay for her lifestyle, choices, and poverty ridden 14 children I am happy (unforts thats not the case). Too bad she couldn't file a welfare waiver before doing this. Other than that, to each their own.

A doctor willingly planting 8 embryos in a woman is immediately violating that oath since the rate of defects & damages increases with every extra embryo added above the normal 2-3 that most fertility doctors implant at any given time.

Maybe she didn't heed it. Its a tough situation, because while you are advocating regulation based on health concerns, you are also advocating a regulation that would effect "morality" and lifestyles. Should we ban women over 40 years old from getting pregnant due to the drastic exponential increase in Down Syndrome?

No reputable doctor would put more than 2-3 eggs in at a time. And even then no reputable doctor would use such an invasive procedure on a woman who has not proven she was infertile. She still has kids in diapers!

A reputable car company would put in 200 extra HP you don't need if you have the money and desire to buy it. The medical community has put fake boobs on a man who wanted to win a bet. You have an insane society dabbling in an insane private market ran by insanely indebted doctors. What do you expect? You want to town vet from the Andy Griffith show to put his arm around her shoulders and give her a sweet good ol talk before taking her fishing and eating apple pie?

You are pretending these doctors have ethics. You find out they don't (and they work in the most morally bankrupted industry in America), so you want the government to go in and Nanny down on the people? This might disgust you (it disgusts me a bit), but this reactionary, control crap is what sets those single issue right-wingers off, just to let you know.

I mean if I abuse the extra 200hp in my car and crash it - I can just by another one. If I abuse that power to where I actually kill another human being I would be held accoutable for it - lose my license and quite possibly spend time in jail. And finally, NO ONE is going to give me a car with that kind of power if I can't afford it. I mean just because I have this uncontrollable desire to drive like an idiot at outrageously unsafe speeds does that mean I should be given a free $40k car for the asking?

Believe it or not, and as I've posted in that article that has been mentioned countless times, there are regulations in this industry. Doctors are meant to help those who are reproductively challenged not play God and there is a very thin-line between the two.

And believe it or not - most doctors out there do have ethics but unfortunately there are those out there that give a slap to the face in the industry. Clearly this doctor is a prime example of that has no ethics but it's unfair for me to say the whole industry is corrupt just because there are a few bad apples out there. If fertility doctors were a race I would call that racial profiling.

It is completely a decision between the woman and HER doctor.

Even though we just ended eight long years of an illegal and immoral Bush/Cheney regime that tried all sorts of ways to control and abuse women, women STILL have reprodcutive rights.

And the PRIMARY reproductive right is that the WOMAN gets to decide questions about HER reproduction on her own and with HER doctor.

It is just unconceivable that someone here would suggest that a woman ought not to have the RIGHT to make a reproductive decision along with her doctor.

You say that no "reputable" doctor would put more than 2-3 eggs in at a time. Are YOU a doctor? Did YOU have access to this particular woman's medical records? Do YOU want to start coming between the decisions that women and their own doctors make regarding reproduction??

I trust the doctor and I trust the woman. The doctor had access to this woman's medical history. I don't.

Let's have enough trust in the ability of women to find competant doctors, and let's certainly have enough trust in women to consult with their doctors and make their own decisions regarding reproduction!!

She can't support the ones she has. She should have been denied the treatment.

There are parents of 1 child that are abusive and neglectful. There are parents of a half dozen who are great. Do you create a government branch to investigate all families, to some arbitrary morality standard, to deem if they are suitable to being future parents and continuing parenting? We could seize children, force sterilization?

What business of it to a fertility clinic what type of existing parents their patients are? This is really Brave New World kind of shit you are talking about here.

As a government, you focus on increasing opportunity, intergenerational mobility, education, early prevention, etc, to ensure the conditions are met to breed a sane and healthy society. You don't play nanny, fertility fairy, and morality judge in the homes. Blatant child abuse is one thing, which CPS takes care of, but this is a whole other slope, and a slippery one at that.

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."

You get what you pay for (if you are lucky), bottom line. I would hardly call the medical industry in America a "community" anyway. She demanded it, and it was supplied at the optimal price to generate the most profit for the company.

regulations that any fertility specialist follows to ensure that the procedure is a success and the children born are healthy.

Which leads us down the path of who did this procedure knowing they were not following the regulations as set by this industry. It's one thing to help out where God might have failed us but it's another to play God.

And edit note: Private Market? This woman has filed bankerucy, isn't the goals of the private market to make money??!!

I also think polygamy should be legal (as far as it is between two consenting *adults*), such that they are excluded from benefits over a certain number of children. Those are lifestyle choices, but public monies shouldn't be used dis proportionally on families that make such drastic choices that could potentially burden a society.

That is very different that a person on welfare getting pregnant, eh? Fertility clinics are expensive, and they are paying cash to bring in a ton of children. Cash that could be used for food, clothing, school supplies, etc, for their current children. I would most certainly hope they could be presented with a choice to opt out. Of course, I know that would not happen, but its just wishful thinking, you know. The thing about public entitlements is that the abuses and the waste are so few, compared to the norm, even though they make great media fodder. You have to take some of the bad to have good solid social programs.

If someone had 5 kids and you told them you weren't going to pay for the 6th, most reasonable families wouldn't be phased. You make it work, and they would probably still go ahead. If you told a woman you weren't going to pay for a complete 8 children that didn't yet exist, well, thats a pretty big motivational factor I would think, right?

But the reality is, as I mentioned, no one would do this. In the end, you only really hurt the children, but welfare in cases as extreme as this does not always make it to the children anyway. Welfare can never be a perfect system, and to implement it conditionally (perfectly) would require so much overhead and investigators that it would cost more than the original welfare would.

The bottom line is I don't really know how to approach this situation. How I feel is that in sick societies, the damage is already done (maybe a society should be obligated to pay for its mess). If a society breeds people that do this, and creates system where it can happen, maybe they should be stuck with the bill. The real tough thing to swallow though is the thought that this woman is going to get paid, essentially, for being a complete ignorant, worthless piece of trash and she will probably pocket most of it and raise her kids on Ramen Noodles (that's natural a judgment). How do you stop a society for paying for that? Can you? Should you? How do you de-motivate a woman to having 8 children at once? Could you? Should you? Should government's focus instead be more on preventing the generation of people like this, who make these choices? And if a government could do that, it would cause everyone much less in the long run.

You would only hurt the children. I have seen many kids that I thought should be taken away from their parents, the social workers just laugh and say they are great parents compared to some they see.

David

It's just like with the leg - just because I want it removed does that mean a doctor should chop off my healthy leg?

Doctors are not out there to fulfill the whim of every medical wish we have. They actually have regulations they need to follow and the fertility industry has their own.

That woman can wish all she wants as to how many babies she can have and clearly having 6 kids withing 7 years proves she was living the dream. But no doctor should have touched this with a 10-foot pole.

Under HIPAA doctors can't just turn over records to another doctor without the patients permission.

David

you are outraged and disgusted with her. Of course you are. Don't deny it. I am too. Its natural. Most people want to spit on someone who did this.

But you are delving further into "health" and "ethics" to advocate a government system to control her, in order to hide or justify your disgust. You are trying to approach the issue from a fake high ground, when you are essentially disgusted at her reproductive CHOICES and you want to limit them. Thats the reality.

the doctor I could have spit on.

And unfortunately doctors are regulated to death, so you're a bit too late for that. Anyone who thinks doctors can do whatever we patients wish is just living in a foolish world.

This is why I don't want the government involved with my health care.

I have a right to my body. My doctor and I make OUR own health decisions.

the government has no involvement with this case other than the fact that they will probably have to pay for the healthcare and medical coverage since this woman has no money.

You have the right to do what you want with your body but a reputable doctor also has the right to deny you any procedure if it is felt that is unhealthy or medically unnecessary to the point of health risk. In the fertility industry, it's very rare to find a doctor willing to put more than 2-3 eggs in the uterus at any given circle because that doctor's goal is to ensure you get one healthy baby. At least with 2-3 there is still a good chance of having healthy babies if some or all of the eggs manage to go thru full term. But putting 8 fertilized eggs in this woman is borderline malpractice. Our bodies are not designed to carry that many fetuses at one time and the risk of deformities and still-born births are greatly increased with the higher number of fetuses in the uterus. By sticking with 2-3 eggs per cycle, the doctor avoids the discussion of selective reduction - which would offend the religious types who would never abort an unborn child.

So yes, you and your doctor should be the only ones to be making those decisions but your doctor should have enough common sense to say "This is ok for us to do" vs. "This person needs professional therapy for this crazy idea"

Thats exactly what some doctors think about IUD and morning after pills. Thankfully, Bush ensured their feelings were protected.

I don't think they'll take because Im a man though. Being pro-access to abortion and anti-open access to fertility clinics is an absurd contradiction.

No one needs to be Fristing her, okay? You don't know shit about her situation and neither does anyone except for the principals.

Not just this article but everything I've read has shown that fertility doctors rarely plant more than 2-3 eggs during IVF. So yeah, we're questioning the mental health of the woman but my biggest concern is that their are doctors out there that are going outside of what is norm for this procedure and creating, as what the doctor from this article has said" a medical disaster.

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."

We really don't know, and I'm not in the business of criticizing other women's health decisions, even when I don't necessarily agree with them. I feel like either women's body autonomy is absolute or we don't have any at all.

This whole discussion just bugs the hell out of me. It's a real slippery slope, is what I'm saying. I've heard the same arguments used against women who seeks tubal ligations and such. There's a paternalistic quality to it that rubs me the wrong way. There are plastic surgeons who have done some borderline unethical things for instance (see: anyone who's ever taken a knife to Michael Jackson ever) but there is never this level of scrutiny. It's red meat for the "women can't be trusted to make their own decisions" crowd.

I trust that this woman did what she did for a reason and that she educated herself as to the risks, etc. Health care providers should ensure that people have all the facts about the medical decisions they're making. Should the clinic be investigated? Again, that's something up to the principals involved. We simply don't know enough. They may have just done it for the cash, lord knows there's tons of unethical physicians out there that will do shit like that if enough $$$ is involved. But I'm just not going to judge because I don't have all the info.

:hi:

The difference between Bill Frist and what is happening here is none of us are a US Senator using our title to promote these ideas to the rest of the country thru either the senate floor, our politcal office or the media.

We're just a bunch of randoms on a discussion board debating the ethics of whether a doctor should knowingly implant 8 embryos (which is 5-6 above the norm that is done in this procedure - that is researched facts) into a woman who is clearly not fertile.

My suggestion is if you are uncomfortable with this discussion then hide it.

As usual, you cut through the bullshit.

There is a ton of unnecessary surgery out there. Breast enhancement, anyone? Is it really a medical necessity to implant plastic bags full of silicone or saline into healthy women? Hair transplants?

If we aren't equally outraged about that, I have a hard time believing there's not an anti-choice anti-woman sentiment lurking beneath the latest obsession with this person.

"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?""

Had she walked into a drug storeand said, 'Listen, I've got other children, the oldest seven, the youngest two, and I don't want anymore, so I need Plan B" co-anchor Julie Chen asked Tucker, "is there any ethical responsibility on the pharmacist's part to say, 'I'm not going to treat you,' or, 'You know what? This is not a good idea?"

See ??

assumptions while knowing very little about this woman's situation.

Good to see you! :hi:

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

Those kids will never have the loving attention and care that they need from their parents.

You are correct.

If you want to have a leg amputated, and are able to find a doctor who is able to perform the surgery (along with the other professionals involved in surgery), and you can afford to pay for it -- DAMN RIGHT it should be allowed.

It is YOUR BODY!

Do you really want the government interfering with what you can do to your own body?

I sure as hell do NOT!

I'm hungry.































And the restaurant I want to go to will cost me an arm and a leg.
































Please don't ask me about the arm.






































Let's just say my panhandling skills are quite disarming.






































Ha!



































Get it?




























Disarming?














































That's a joke, people.





































(wankers)

 

End.Of.Story.

I can't remember the details though.

I'm sure you could find some doctor willing to do it. Or you could just go to Tijuana. But that's another story.

Her fallopian tubes are plugged. All the children are apparently through IVF.