Woman has Octuplets, after having 6 others en vitro

Archive From The 'Tank

Should the woman been allowed to have more children en vitro without being independently wealthy?

Sure! Why not? It's really none of your business!
1
6%
Everthing will work out, would have better had she not.
0
No votes
Dang if I know
0
No votes
Wasn't a real good idea
3
18%
NOt only no, but Hell no!
13
76%
 
Total votes: 17

User avatar
Rawedge Rim
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 5248
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:38 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Rawedge Rim »

wayfriend wrote:Still not seeing much outrage about these grant fraud people. I'm searching the web, too ... nuthin.

So my hypothesis, that people get more outraged about poor people gaming public assistance for thousands of dollars, than they are about white collar criminals stealing millions from the government, hasn't been disproven yet.

(RR: [edit: never mind, I looked the darn thing up myself.] CBS News wrote: Suleman's mother told CBS News Nadya paid for in vitro fertilization with money from a legal settlement after a work accident.

You seem to be confusing the cost for fertility treatment with the cost for caring for the newborn children. The former is the only time where anyone like an "accountant" asks if you can pay for it. And it wasn't at the public's expense when that occurred. So there doesn't seem to any person who "allowed" this to happen.)
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1877962,00.html
The Octuplets Mom Speaks, and the Questions Grow
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Saturday, Feb. 07, 2009



When Nadya Suleman, 33, had her eight children at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in Bellflower, Calif., one medical guideline had already been broken. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, a leading organization in the field of reproductive medicine, recommends that a woman under the age of 35 should have no more than two embryos implanted by way of in vitro fertilization (IVF). That limit was chosen, says Sean Tipton, director of public affairs for the society, in order to avoid multiple births through IVF that would expose both mother and offspring to significant health risks. This is merely one of several ethical, financial, psychological and medical issues that have arisen from the stunning news of the Suleman octuplets, who join the single mom's Texisting brood of six children living with her parents in Whittier, about 18 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Did Suleman know she was having so many kids? Did anyone counsel her? How did she afford this? What is her psychological profile?

This much seems certain. According to her mother Angela Suleman, all 14 of Nadya's children were conceived through IVF with the same sperm donor. Nadya confirmed in a TV interview that six were implanted, with two resulting in twins. The sperm donor remains unidentified; one person ruled out was Nadya's ex-husband Marcos Gutierrez (their divorce was finalized last year). Angela told the Associated Press that her daughter opted for IVF treatment because her Fallopian tubes were "plugged up" and that she decided to have more children so the frozen embryos left over from her previous fertilizations wouldn't be destroyed. In her television interview, Nadya said she wanted lots of children because she had grown up an only child in a dysfunctional family.

How could doctors let her bring so many babies to term? Though it makes recommendations, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine does not have the legal power to enforce guidelines. It can only oust unethical members from its ranks. The Medical Board of California, however, does have the ability to investigate claims filed against physicians and impose sanctions. The board will be looking into whether the as-yet-unnamed physician or clinic that treated Suleman violated the standard of care for the profession. Candis Cohen, spokeswoman for the medical board, says it is at the beginning of the inquiry, which could take several months. If found guilty of misconduct, the medical practitioner involved could face punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand to the revocation of his or her medical license.

The unusual situation has prompted some experts in the bioethics and reproductive-technology fields to re-examine the need for more regulation of IVF treatments. "The right to reproduce isn't unlimited. You can't put children at risk. The field of reproductive medicine and fertility treatment has an absolute responsibility to look out for the children it is creating in new ways. And in this case it seems to have failed," says Arthur Caplan, chair of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, arguing for a need for professional regulations. "[The process] should look more like adoption, requiring some evaluation of the patient, requiring some assessment of their psychological, emotional and physical abilities to raise children and some control over not trying to have too many children created all at once."

Politicians may enter the debate as well. California state senator Sam Aanestad, a Republican, says the legislature should not be in the business of setting the standard of care in medicine, preferring that it be left to the doctors with legislative oversight — unless taxpayers' money is involved. "If it's all private funding, then that's between the mother and her doctor and whoever is paying for it," says Aanestad. "But if we find that taxpayer dollars have been used or are going to be used in the medical care of these kids, not just the eight now but the previous six, over the course of their lifetime, then it is the role of government to make sure something like this does not happen again. That's not fair to the taxpayers, the people of California, who've got their own families to try to take care of."

Some experts argue, however, that these huge multiple births occur precisely because U.S. health-care programs and insurance do not cover such treatments, allowing them to be defined by the free market of patient choice. In countries like those in the U.K., where national health insurance covers three cycles of IVF treatment, the incidence of multiple births is 1 in 4 cases, compared with 1 in 3 in the U.S. "Fertility doctors often report feeling pressured by their patients to exceed the guidelines," says Judith Daar, associate dean for academic affairs at Whittier Law School and clinical professor of medicine at UCI College of Medicine in Irvine, Calif. "Because IVF is largely not covered by insurance in most states, if a couple mortgages their home to have a single cycle, it's understandable that they'd want to maximize their opportunities for a successful outcome. There is a tension in the field between what the patients' wishes are and what the clinical guidelines suggest."

Indeed, in her first television interview, Nadya Suleman told NBC's Ann Curry on the Today show that it was her decision to have all the embryos implanted despite being told what the recommendations were. "All I wanted was children," she said. "It turned out imperfectly." She also explained that six embryos were implanted in each of the IVF procedures that resulted in her previous six children. This time, apparently, all of them took, and she decided to bring them all to term. Asked how she was going to care for such an enormous family, Suleman said she was returning to school to get a master's degree in counseling. She had been attending California State University when she became pregnant with the octuplets. "I'm providing myself to my children," she told Curry. "I'll stop my life for them."

Given the enormous cost and general lack of health-care coverage for IVF — one cycle can cost $10,000 or more — questions have arisen about how Suleman, who previously worked as a psychiatric technician at Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk, Calif., earning just $625 a week, could afford such a procedure. At the time of her IVF treatments, it does not appear that Suleman was working, owing to an injury sustained on the job.

Records obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations show that Suleman received $167,908 in disability payments for a back injury suffered during a riot on Sept. 18, 1999, at the hospital where she worked. The payments were made between 2002 and 2008, during which time Suleman gave birth to most of her first six children, even though she was separated from her husband during part of this time. Psychiatric evaluations of Suleman portray a well-mannered but very depressed and anxious woman who reported severe lower-back pain, which limited her ability to pick up her 15-lb. baby without first sitting down. She also had difficulty sleeping. Wrote one doctor: "Since the birth of her baby, she has become very fearful that he will be kidnapped, injured, etc. She is anxious both for herself and for him, particularly in public places to the extent that 'somebody, my husband or my mother, has to take me almost everywhere.' " (The evaluation was performed when Suleman and her husband were attempting a reconciliation, which lasted for about one month.)

The documents paint a very different picture from the one put forth in the media following Suleman's hiring a public-relations agent less than a week after the octuplets' birth. Joann Killeen, president of the Killeen Furtney Group, was hired to field book, movie and TV offers for her client. During an interview on Larry King Live on Feb. 3, Killeen portrayed Suleman as a "wonderful woman." "She's smart, she's bright, she's articulate, she's well educated. She is just a delight. And I can't wait for the media to get to meet her," Killeen said. "She's a very balanced woman. She's got perspective. She really wants to tell her story."

Killeen also countered published reports that Suleman was trying to negotiate becoming a broadcast-TV child-care expert (NBC denied it paid for its interview with Suleman, the full version of which was scheduled to air on Feb. 9). She did confirm, however, that it is Suleman's desire to pursue paying projects about the birth of the octuplets. "It's not true that she is being paid multiple millions of dollars for going on the media," Killeen told King. "She's not on welfare, has no plans on being a welfare mom and really wants to look at every opportunity that she can to make sure that she can provide financially for the 14 children that she's responsible for now."
Seems a bit shy of 1.5 to 3.5 million, for the last 8 children or so, and doesn't really cover the first 6 all that well either.
“One accurate measurement is worth a
thousand expert opinions.”
- Adm. Grace Hopper

"Whenever you dream, you're holding the key, it opens the the door to let you be free" ..RJD
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

Well, I want in on this discussion... but I didn't want to read all the posts, so forgive me if this point was made.

The issue here, as I see it, has to do with tax dollars. On my more optimistic days, I like to think that we work hard to get whatever paycheck we get. On this, we pay taxes with the understanding that they will be used to fund the government which we hope will be of benefence to us. What we expect particularly the government to do with our tax dollars is to:
-pay for public things such as roads and maintence of the same.
-Keep a system of government running which will keep us safe.

On this second item, there is much debate, should the government step in to help the unfortunate who are hard on their luck or should they rely on private charitible donations? I believe that the government should work to be an example to the governed. As a result, I believe that the goverment should work to alleviate the pains of the unfortunate.

But how and for what cases? In this example, we have a woman that is either: a)insane, b)conniving, or c)maybe even innocent of all wrong doing. I believe c is an option since I never knew the guidelines for in vitro pregnancy until I read some of the post here. So how can I expect this woman to? I rely on my doctor to know these facts and administer them for my well-being. I believe this doctor did no such thing, and the fault (if indeed, there be fault) would lie with the doctor more than the mother. Investigations should be made into the matter and justice applied if necesary.

Should I be angry that tax-payer dollars are being used to fund the births and possibly the taking care of the octuplets? I believe that the better question is what's the point? The delivery has been made, the hospital must be paid and the children (innocent of all wrong doing) cared for. I can not in good conscience deny any of this from happening.

Everything else is purely ethical argument. Should the mother put the children up for adoption and would that be in the children's best interest? Should the mother use what is possibly a stupid mistake to achieve celebritidom? The first I will not discuss, and as much as my answer to the second makes me sick to the stomach, I would have to say yes... since that is the only presently concievable means by which the mother could foot the costs herself (and in turn be taxed!).
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Welcome to the 'Tank Orlion. :D

As you suggest, it's done, and the children themselves are certainly innocent of anything. But would celebrity allow the woman to be taxed? Would she have to pay tax on donations etc? Or only if her income from said celebrity exceeds a certain amount?

--A
User avatar
Orlion
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6666
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Getting there...
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Orlion »

Good points, when I was refering to money gained from celebritidom, I was thinking money earned giving interviews or writing a book...

However, if companies were to try to make them a "mascot" of sorts probably would not be taxable... at the same time though, it should keep her from needing to rely on tax dollars...
'Tis dream to think that Reason can
Govern the reasoning creature, man.
- Herman Melville

I am Lazarus, come from the dead,
Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all!

"All creation is a huge, ornate, imaginary, and unintended fiction; if it could be deciphered it would yield a single shocking word."
-John Crowley
User avatar
sindatur
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 6503
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 7:57 pm

Post by sindatur »

Heard this morning she's getting a new house "and you won't believe from who", didn't get to sit by the TV long enough to find out who though?
I Never Fail To Be Astounded By The Things We Do For Promises - Ronnie James Dio (All The Fools Sailed Away)

Remember, everytime you drag someone through the mud, you're down in the mud with them

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...
It's about learning to dance in the rain

Where are we going...and... WHY are we in a handbasket?

Image
Locked

Return to “Coercri”