Do doctors and/or medical institutions have a responsibility to protect the unborn? How about the newborn?

I agree. From the little I’ve heard about this story, she isn’t even prepared to care properly for the first six she had. I think this woman is very selfish to expect others to pay for all her children. It will cost several millions to raise them, and she certainly doesn’t have that. Who is going to pay the hospital bill? You and I, and that’s not right. I can’t imagine why she would want to have so many when she is so unprepared.

I think some type of law should be made so that beofre people start having litters of children, they should have to prove somehow that they have at least the finances to give them what they need.

I think the doctors involved should have refused to impregnant her again, especially with so many embryos.

Ethicists agree that it is not the doctor’s place to pass judgement on who should be allowed to have children, regardless of their circumstances.

I do feel, however, that there should be some formal legislation to limit the amount of fertilized embryos implanted in any given cycle/attempt to 3, maybe 4….which is what responsible OB/Gyns are currently doing….

This would limit the extreme multi-birth scenario.

My god… When I first read this I thought you said the mom was under eight-years-old! Whew!

I think it’s irresponsible for anyone to have that many children, regardless of whether they have the money to raise them or not. This world is going to be extremely over-populated and people that have that many kids do nothing to help the situation. Then there’s the matter of not being able to give each child the individual attention they’ll need to form a proper bond. Too many things… It’s just not right.

@scamp – I don’t think it’s suddenly going to be a fad to have litters, just because this crazy woman did it. And while I agree in large part that you shouldn’t have more kids than you can afford, I also think that laws governing reproduction could lead to a very slippery slope.

@laureth I think that is an excellent point…but I would like to see something….perhaps a position paper from the AMA or the ACOG.

Here’s my issue with this whole story, as with many of the other stories of multiples being born as a result of the number of embryos implanted in the mother. I read the interview the grandmother who said that the mom did not want to selectively reduce the number of fetuses because she did not want to mess with God’s plan. But isn’t the very act of harvesting the eggs, fertilizing them, then implanting them in the mom’s womb messing with God’s plan? How is it so easy to justify messing with one part of it then using His Plan to justify not messing with it. It just makes no sense to me and seems incredibly hypocritical.

I do however agree with Laureth, that an attack of any kind on a woman’s reproductive rights puts us on a very slippery slope. Perhaps a complete psychological evaluation is in order prior to this type of procedure.

If it is indeed God’s Plan that all these children should be born, perhaps it is the job of her Church (rather than the public at large) to chip in for their upkeep where the mother cannot.

How can a mom who owes $900,000+ afford the treatment in the first place. She will owe at least that in hospital bills by the time those 8 babies go home.

Is this not putting a price tag on life, @cdwccrn?

I’m not saying that’s wrong to do. In fact, I think it’s wise to consider one’s means before bringing kids into the world. However, I’ve often heard people say that “not able to afford the kid” is no reason to terminate a pregnancy. Think she’ll give 6–7 of them up for adoption, though?

Hippocratic oath:

First, do no harm…

Supermouse, I agree with the apparent inconsistency about God’s plan, though as a pastor, I would support my parish in their desire for
children and infertility
treatments. It is an agonizing
issue.

I think that psychological assessment for both parents is in order, and if there is no dad,

and no money to raise kids
with and a house full of babies
at home, I think if I were a physician, I would say “no” to treating.

@laureth, I like your idea of having the church support the families.

I find it amazing that this woman and her six children are living with her parents and no one has said a word about the father.

@SuperMouse I read somewhere it was a sperm donor…does that mean he doesn’t know he reproduced 8 babies?

And I think the whole thing is irresponsible, she only wanted one more, ha! Then why did she get 8 embryos implanted…that is the hardest part for me, she took a Huge risk with each of these babies lives, we don’t know yet if they will have problems, it is just not right, it is not ethical.

Also, it should have never gotten to the point of asking about reduction, I don’t agree with that either, the responsible thing would have been to implant way less embryos in the first place.

I have such conflicted feelings about this whole damn mess. I wish people had to have a license to have children, but I don’t think the government should be involved in our reproductive affairs. In any event, that woman is flat out nuts, as are her parents and the doctor involved.

well according to their oath, doctors have a duty to protect the life and health of everyone in their care, and this includes the unborn embryos, regardless of age.

In the story (which I just heard 5mins ago on the radio actually), I think the problem was with the people allowing her to have the in vitro treatment, when she already had 6 children. If there is no law about it, then maybe it’s a time to start it. I thought the technique was only available to people who don’t have children. I think the fact that she is a “sigle mum” (the report I heard said “lesbian”) is just a media-generated detail that makes the story sell better. But it doesn’t really matter that much. The technolgy is there and she decided to use it. The real ethical question is how we should use this technology, and whether it is right to just mass-produce children as if they were chocolates off an assembly line. Do we want that as a society? Does this woman want that? If so, why? And how will these children feel? Will their lives be as meaningful and happy as they would otherwise?

And what it really boils down to is our preconceptions about the meaning of life. If life is so easy to reproduce, and a woman can just go and order 14 kids off the shelf of her nearest clinic, then what happens to our religious notions of the eternal soul, and social individuality?

If the children feel like assembly line chocolates, and perhaps don’t get the loving care that they would have if it were not so widely dispersed, than did the doctor protect their lives and health more than if he’d not performed such a procedure? Or does “protecting life and health” depend only on getting them born and out the door, which is about where the pro-life movement stops caring as well?

exactly, the “pro-life” movement (and the doctors who keep their oath) are only about life, not the quality of it. It’s the same with euthanasia. Keeping someone alive somehow, in whatever condition, seems to be the doctor’s only job. Making that life decent is up to the family. And I don’t really see a problem with that, doctors have enough pratical and ethical questions to answer already. They should not have to make the choices as well.

The grandmother does not support her daughters decisions. Read this MSNBC article.

@Judi The article you posted also linked to this article discussing the concerns over why the fertility doctor agreed to treat this particular patient and why 8 embryos were implanted.

Of particular interest is the following info:
“The U.S. fertility industry has guidelines on how many embryos doctors can implant, with the number varying by age and other factors. The guidelines call for no more than one or two for a generally healthy woman under 35, and no more than three to five, depending on the embryos’ maturity, for women over 40.

Clinics that clearly violate guidelines can be kicked out of another group, the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, which in turn affects whether insurance covers their services. But the guidelines do not have the force of law.”

In this same article they also point out that to be a foster parent or to adopt that you must undergo multiple evaluations exploring your motivations and your ability to support children financially…..something not universally done w/ fertility treatment.

@laureth slippery slope or not, there are already some laws or at least regulations on people accepting government assistance and having so many children. A woman I know was given the choice of getting her tubes tied or losing her welfare assistance. She had 3 children, all by different fathers, and relied completely on welfare to raise them.

Something needs to be done. I know it wouldn’t be an easy decision to make and all variations would have to be carefully considered, but this whole story is simply ridiculous.

I’m very worried about the well being of these children.

I don’t see the government saying, “We won’t keep giving you money if you keep having children” as being a slippery slope. However, the government saying “You cannot have any more children” is. (So is the government saying “You must have a child,” but that’s an argument for a different day.)

@scamp; what state gave that ultimatim? It sounds like they have already started sliding down the slippery slope.