Woman has Octuplets, after having 6 others en vitro

[wayfriend]

RR: seems to be you agree with me: this thread is about making angry remarks against someone abusing public support. (And I don't disagree with that assessment, either.)

But you go further. You seem to also saying that someone who takes too much advantage of public support should have the state take away their kids. Is this so?

On what grounds? Does taking advantage of public support make one a danger to children? I can't see what other grounds you might be thinking of.

So ... you think the state should take away kids if parents don't display the same principles you and I have? Sounds like a bad precident to me.

And when people call such people as this woman "typical liberals", (although admittedly they are only the typical "mythical liberal"), it makes me scared, because it seems like your saying that people who are too liberal should have their kids taken away.

[Farsailer]

Taking the kids away is harsh, yes, but what other penalty can we apply to a woman who willfully abuses the process and wants us to believe she isn't doing that. How the heck can she be serious about going back to school for her master's degree? Why are we taxpayers stuck paying her hospital bills?

From LINK

The manifest irresponsibility of this eccentric woman toward her children is one issue. Another is the irresponsibility of the physician who took money to impregnate a jobless, husbandless woman with 14 children. His peers and state medical authorities will have to sort that one out. Hiding out there in the weeds, there's also the issue of the man who reportedly contributed the sperm that helped produce all 14 children. Does he have any responsibility for what happens to them? If not, why not?

Here we confront the complexities that arise when people assume that because something can be done, it should be done. The fact of the matter is that decisions about reproduction and child-rearing quite properly occur in a zone of privacy. It is, however, an abuse of the mutual respect we extend to each other to behave as if decisions made in private have no impact beyond the bedroom door -- or, in this case, the door of the doctor's office.

The Suleman case is a caricature of the issues raised by contemporary fertility medicine, but sometimes a cartoon brings discomforting truths into high relief. One of them is that the novel, perplexing and often unhappy demands that situations such as Suleman's make on our legal, ethical and social consciences aren't really a matter of necessity, but of choice. That choice is an outgrowth of the narcissism that has become our society's background noise.

When the Nadya Sulemans of the world say, as she has in interviews, that they undergo these extreme, invasive, unpleasant, uncertain and expensive medical procedures because they "want children," that isn't really the case. If what people want is children -- and the incomparable experience of parenthood -- there are tens of thousands of children in our country and perhaps millions more abroad waiting for adoption. Thousands of others in our country are waiting for foster care.

The impulse that has made fertility medicine such a large and lucrative specialty in American medicine is about something other than children; it's about the narcissistic assumption that one is "entitled" to "the experience" of childbearing and, more to the point, the notion that, somehow, if your particular strands of DNA don't live on into another generation, the species will be poorer for it.

That sense of entitlement and its enabling delusion are about a lot of things -- but none of them really involve children.

[Rawedge Rim]

RR: seems to be you agree with me: this thread is about making angry remarks against someone abusing public support. (And I don't disagree with that assessment, either.)

But you go further. You seem to also saying that someone who takes too much advantage of public support should have the state take away their kids. Is this so?

On what grounds? Does taking advantage of public support make one a danger to children? I can't see what other grounds you might be thinking of.

So ... you think the state should take away kids if parents don't display the same principles you and I have? Sounds like a bad precident to me.

And when people call such people as this woman "typical liberals", (although admittedly they are only the typical "mythical liberal"), it makes me scared, because it seems like your saying that people who are too liberal should have their kids taken away.

We are not talking about a woman who got on public assistance after making a minor error in judgement and having 1, 2, or even 3 children. We are talking about someone who had 8 more at the publics expense, after already bringing in 6 at the publics expense. Enough is enough. This is a lot like having your neighbor come over and borrow sugar one day, and by next week they are "borrowing" coffee, milk, flour, beans, meat, vegetable, the car, your swimming pool, and your cable box.

The word liberal has not been in any of my posts.

[Farsailer]

RR: seems to be you agree with me: this thread is about making angry remarks against someone abusing public support. (And I don't disagree with that assessment, either.)

But you go further. You seem to also saying that someone who takes too much advantage of public support should have the state take away their kids. Is this so?

On what grounds? Does taking advantage of public support make one a danger to children? I can't see what other grounds you might be thinking of.

So ... you think the state should take away kids if parents don't display the same principles you and I have? Sounds like a bad precident to me.

And when people call such people as this woman "typical liberals", (although admittedly they are only the typical "mythical liberal"), it makes me scared, because it seems like your saying that people who are too liberal should have their kids taken away.

We are not talking about a woman who got on public assistance after making a minor error in judgement and having 1, 2, or even 3 children. We are talking about someone who had 8 more at the publics expense, after already bringing in 6 at the publics expense. Enough is enough. This is a lot like having your neighbor come over and borrow sugar one day, and by next week they are "borrowing" coffee, milk, flour, beans, meat, vegetable, the car, your swimming pool, and your cable box.

The word liberal has not been in any of my posts.

The single mom who has 1 to 3 kids is one thing; we debated that one in a separate thread. But I agree this is abuse of the taxpayer. That one family will cost the state of California up to $1m to $1.5m to be paid out of funds supplied by taxpayers. And that's just for the hospital expenses. At a time when the state is struggling to make ends meet, when it is forced to furlough employees 2 days a month, when it is forced to issue IOUs for tax refunds and some payments, this is an *outrageous*, totally, totally *outrageous* waste of *our* tax dollars. Conservative, liberal, whatever, that does not enter into this judgement, that is flat out abuse. Think how many other people on basic assistance and unemployment could have be helped with that $1.5m.

The state needs to sue that doctor and clinic to get some of those funds back. And if she ever gets a real paycheck, they need to garnish her wages for the next 20 years... If she actually lands a book deal or other commercial endorsement, they need to garnish that too.

And finally, women who seek in-vitro treatments need to be means tested. Especially if they already have children of their own.

[sindatur]

What the heck? Are people actually suggetsing making it illegal for unemployed people to have children? I hope not.

This woman is apparently insane. Given that, I think judging her ethics is not only a waste of time but a display of poor ethics on the part of those judging.

Leave aside unemployment for a minute.

Should people be allowed to have as many kids as they like? I'm sure libertarians would say, hell yes, it's no one elses business. And I would agree. Anyone not agree?

As for unemployment: is anyone suggesting that unemployed people using public assistance should not be allowed to have children? I would never agree to such a statement. I hope no one else would.

Then we can agree that what this thread is really about is whether or not someone is abusing public assistance designed to keep the impoverished alive.

So what we have here is, someone has found a case of someone taking advantage of public assistance, and they're trying to stir up as much angry diatribe as they can.

The unspoken agenda being, public assistance should be ceased.

Wee. Sounds like fun. Or it would be if it wasn't done to death.

No absolutely, if you have kids naturally, and end up with more than you intended, that's nobody's business.

However, if you are unemployed, you do not have the right deliberately have numerous fertilized eggs artificially put inside you, that will become the Gov'ts responsibility to support. For that matter, multiple births decrease the chance of children being born without defects. It is irresponsible (and unethical, IMHO) to deliberately give birth to 8 kids at a whack, as the chances for them all to be born defect free is incredibly low. If a person wants to excercise their right to do this, they should know that the Gov't will not support those children. People should not have the right to a "Baby Bailout"

Yes, it often takes more fertilized eggs than the number of children you intend to give birth to, but, it's unethical, IMHO to put in enough eggs to produce 8 offspring at one shot.

[Ki]

Web Site Created to Accept Donations for Octuplets' Mom

Despite the controversy surrounding the California mother who gave birth to octuplets last month, donations have been flowing in to a Web site created for the massive family, FOXNews.com has learned.

The Web site, thenadyasulemanfamily.com, was created by the Killeen Furtney Group, a Los Angeles-based public relations and marketing firm retained by Suleman following the birth of her six boys and two girls. Suleman's publicist, Joann Killeen, declined to indicated how much had been donated thus far, but stressed that her firm designed the Web site for free.

"We put it together because of the massive public interest in Nadya and her family," Killeen told FOXNews.com Wednesday. "We wanted to give people the ability to make donations and send comments to the family."

Killeen said donations have already poured in, including books, clothing, cribs, bedding and diapers.

"People have been calling us from around the world trying to make donations," Killeen said. "We needed to provide a vehicle where people could write to the family or make donations because everyone wants to donate."

Click here for photos of the octuplets.

Killeen added, "All of this is pro bono. We haven't taken a penny."

The eight babies — who are less than three weeks old — are "healthy and growing stronger by the day," according to the Web site.

Click here to view the Web site.

Suleman — a 33-year-old divorced, single mother who already had six children — told NBC's "Today" in an interview broadcast Wednesday that her family receives no cash from the government and that the $490 in food stamps she receives are "not affiliated with welfare."

Suleman also told NBC she intends to go back to school to pursue her master's degree. In the meantime, she said she'll support her children with student loans until she can find a job as a counselor after graduating in a year or two.

The eight babies — Noah, Maliah, Isaiah, Nariah, McCai, Josiah, Jeremiah and Jonah — weighed between 1 pound 8 ounces and 3 pounds 4 ounces at birth, according to the site.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491130,00.html

[Avatar]

I dunno about taking the kids away...but maybe giving her a set period of time to get a job and support them. She'll support them off her student loans? Isn't saying so in public just making that loan less likely? *shakes head*

Look, people are free to do what they want. But I think that, as somebody said, there are social consequences of this that go beyond her choice to do so.

Maybe it's not entirely rational, but I can't suppress the feeling that there is something not right about it. Whether it demostrates lack of foresight, lack of caring, denial of consequences, I'm not sure...but it's just not right.

--A

[Zarathustra]

But you go further. You seem to also saying that someone who takes too much advantage of public support should have the state take away their kids. Is this so?

On what grounds? Does taking advantage of public support make one a danger to children? I can't see what other grounds you might be thinking of.

I'm not advocating taking the kids away, but if an argument can be formulated for doing so, it has to be for the safety and welfare of the children. I think there should be a limit on how much government support one woman can receive. Once she goes past that limit, if she still chooses to have more litters of children, it's reasonable to say that she is endangering them with her irresponsibility.

The woman has another good ten years of child-bearing years. What's to stop her from having 80 more children? At what point do we recognize that the children are the victims here, not this insane woman?

If she wouldn't even qualify to adopt children, then perhaps there is legal grounds to deny her (and more importantly, future freaks like her) access to artificial fertility treatments.

[aliantha]

From what I've read of this situation, several points have emerged for me:

1. She has some pretty glaring emotional issues.
2. I can't believe that the state of California would pay for in-vitro fertilization treatments for *anybody*. I confess that I've only glanced over most of the posts here. Did somebody somewhere see or post that specific bit of info? If not, I've gotta believe that she came up with the cash for the artificial insemination herself.
3. I know that there's a maximum limitation on family size for child support; I would suppose there's a cap on public assistance payments, as well. The low-income apartments here in Virginia cap the rent break at family size of 6, I believe. So I'm pretty sure her public assistance payments are already maxed out, size-wise.
4. The clinic clearly violated medical ethical guidelines by implanting so many embryos at one go.
5. What the hell are her *parents* thinking? Granted she's an adult, but they're enabling her. I would have drawn the line and kicked her a** out long before this.
6. If I lived in California and knew my state tax dollars would go to support this chick, I'd be *so* pi**ed.

And I'm a liberal!

[Farsailer]

From what I've read of this situation, several points have emerged for me:

1. She has some pretty glaring emotional issues.
2. I can't believe that the state of California would pay for in-vitro fertilization treatments for *anybody*. I confess that I've only glanced over most of the posts here. Did somebody somewhere see or post that specific bit of info? If not, I've gotta believe that she came up with the cash for the artificial insemination herself.

She paid for them from an accident settlement. Which brings up a whole topic about her exploiting the system.

3. I know that there's a maximum limitation on family size for child support; I would suppose there's a cap on public assistance payments, as well. The low-income apartments here in Virginia cap the rent break at family size of 6, I believe. So I'm pretty sure her public assistance payments are already maxed out, size-wise.

Not in California.

4. The clinic clearly violated medical ethical guidelines by implanting so many embryos at one go.

Amen. As I said, women who already have children of their own and want in-vitro treatment need to be means tested.

5. What the hell are her *parents* thinking? Granted she's an adult, but they're enabling her. I would have drawn the line and kicked her a** out long before this.
6. If I lived in California and knew my state tax dollars would go to support this chick, I'd be *so* pi**ed.

I live in Cali and I am plenty mad!!! And judging from the comments in the local newspaper websites, I'm far from alone.

And I'm a liberal!

I think we can hold this one as a universal attribute...

[Rawedge Rim]

From what I've read of this situation, several points have emerged for me:

1. She has some pretty glaring emotional issues.
2. I can't believe that the state of California would pay for in-vitro fertilization treatments for *anybody*. I confess that I've only glanced over most of the posts here. Did somebody somewhere see or post that specific bit of info? If not, I've gotta believe that she came up with the cash for the artificial insemination herself.
3. I know that there's a maximum limitation on family size for child support; I would suppose there's a cap on public assistance payments, as well. The low-income apartments here in Virginia cap the rent break at family size of 6, I believe. So I'm pretty sure her public assistance payments are already maxed out, size-wise.
4. The clinic clearly violated medical ethical guidelines by implanting so many embryos at one go.
5. What the hell are her *parents* thinking? Granted she's an adult, but they're enabling her. I would have drawn the line and kicked her a** out long before this.
6. If I lived in California and knew my state tax dollars would go to support this chick, I'd be *so* pi**ed.

And I'm a liberal!

I don't live in CA, and I'm a conservative, so you can figure that I'm nearly frothing at the mouth about this.

[wayfriend]

I don't understand the frothing at all.

The woman didn't set out to make suckers of tax payers. She's got mental issues, and all she is concerned with is many kids equals happiness. It's a waste of time being mad at her.

Some have argued that the doctors should have intervened. But there's a good argument that the judgement required was not in their pervue. So it's a waste of time being mad at doctors.

The insurance company could have intervened, except she didn't use insurance money. So it's a waste of time being mad at the insurers.

And now the kids are born. You can't let them starve. So it's a waste of time being mad at the public assistance.

And there's no good grounds to take her kids away. So it's a waste of time being mad at the social services.

Frankly, I am at a loss of who we're mad at.

I guess were just mad.

[Farsailer]

The woman didn't set out to make suckers of tax payers. She's got mental issues, and all she is concerned with is many kids equals happiness. It's a waste of time being mad at her.

So the woman is not responsible for the effect of her issues on the taxpayers?

[wayfriend]

The woman didn't set out to make suckers of tax payers. She's got mental issues, and all she is concerned with is many kids equals happiness. It's a waste of time being mad at her.

So the woman is not responsible for the effect of her issues on the taxpayers?

Did I suggest she wasn't? Yeesh.

[Rawedge Rim]

I don't understand the frothing at all.

The woman didn't set out to make suckers of tax payers. She's got mental issues, and all she is concerned with is many kids equals happiness. It's a waste of time being mad at her.

Some have argued that the doctors should have intervened. But there's a good argument that the judgement required was not in their pervue. So it's a waste of time being mad at doctors.

The insurance company could have intervened, except she didn't use insurance money. So it's a waste of time being mad at the insurers.

And now the kids are born. You can't let them starve. So it's a waste of time being mad at the public assistance.

And there's no good grounds to take her kids away. So it's a waste of time being mad at the social services.

Frankly, I am at a loss of who we're mad at.

I guess were just mad.

Who informed the doctors who performed this "modern medical miracle", that they would be re-embursed for this procedure? Did this woman just walk in and say, "Well, I'm on public assistance, I draw some piddling amount from SSI for problems with the 1st six, so tell you what, how about making it 8 more" and the doctor said "Sure! Why not?"

1.5 million to 3.5 million just for the births alone.

[Farsailer]

The woman didn't set out to make suckers of tax payers. She's got mental issues, and all she is concerned with is many kids equals happiness. It's a waste of time being mad at her.

So the woman is not responsible for the effect of her issues on the taxpayers?

Did I suggest she wasn't? Yeesh.

Yeesh indeed, your very own words imply that we shouldn't be mad at her because she's got issues. In other words, we should let her off the hook.

[Avatar]

*shrug* I'm not mad at her. I just think there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere...whether it's with her, or the system that allows it, or somewhere else, I'm not sure yet.

--A

[caamora]

I think the babies should be taken away and adopted to the many parents who are anxiously waiting for babies.

There is no way this woman will be able to afford to raise all those children. This alone puts the children in danger. Even student loans aren't enough to cover the expenses. Being that these are preemies, they will have a plethora of health issues - possibly throughout their entire lives. This woman would have to make over 6 figures to even come close to supporting these kids and even then, they will be living very frugally.

[wayfriend]

So the woman is not responsible for the effect of her issues on the taxpayers?

Did I suggest she wasn't? Yeesh.

Yeesh indeed, your very own words imply that we shouldn't be mad at her because she's got issues. In other words, we should let her off the hook.

If you can think "it's a waste of time to be mad at her" means "she's not responsible", I can't help you.

I've never tried to suggest that she wasn't responsible. Just that, IMO, she didn't set out to bilk any taxpayers, nor did she willfully disregard bilking the taxpayers. In all likelyhood she was derangedly focused on her idea of motherhood and she probably didn't even recognize the issue.

[Damelon]

The doctor should be on the hook for this, since from what I've heard he implanted 4 more embryos than he should have according to guidelines. This doesn't appear to be the only questionable case involving him link

Octuplets doctor has another patient expecting quadruplets
The patient, who is in her late 40s, wanted one baby. Dr. Michael Kamrava transferred at least seven embryos to her. She is now hospitalized without insurance.