California octuplets case dismays fertility experts

Post Reply New Topic

Ooh, gossip is bad!

Yeah, it's looking more and more like this woman is just plain nuts. I think she was probably thinking she could get her own TBS show and a bunch of handouts by doing this stunt. Unfortunately it's the poor kids who are going to suffer the most for their mother's compulsions and greed.

Yes, that's what I've been trying to say.

It would be interesting to get a professional opinion about the mother's mental state - preferably someone who has actually examined her in person.

News reports this morning stated that she has over a hundred offers to tell her story - book deals, Oprah/Phil, and a possible movie-for-TV deal.

The words "Crazy Like a Fox" are plastered all over this one, folks!

I have little need to know the specifics of the regulation of health care service delivery in the US since such specifics are irrelevant to me. If you are curious about these issues it should not be difficult to acquire information. You could probably easily find the information you ask about by typing a few well chosen words into a google search box and checking the results returned.


I have no idea why differentiating between degrees of risk rather than treating all risk as equal would be hypocritical, it strikes me as sensible and pragmatic.

Abortion is rarely fatal to babies as babies are not commonly aborted. Most abortions are in fact relatively low risk procedures when compared to other elective procedures, whereas giving birth to 8 children simultaneously is relatively high risk.


Your mileage may differ.

The reproductive rights (or their absence) of women vary from place to place, but if you are asking about the USA, to the best of my knowledge women in the US have rights relating to their reproductive functions/activities, so the obvious answer would be yes, women in the USA do have reproductive rights, (although obviously this does not necessarily imply that women in the USA have unlimited rights in respect of their reproductive functions/activities).


Personally, I have no idea whether or not there is any reason to criticize the mother, and wonder quite what the point would be anyway. It seems to me more a medical ethics issue than anything else.

Deciding whether or not we should wag our fingers accusingly at one lone mother seems rather inconsequential when compared to wide reaching issues such as what does and does not constitute ethical practices and appropriate standards of care in the delivery of reproductive heath goods and services.

Then the thing to do would be to nail down a single standard for those medical ethics, and make them apply globally, so that no-one can just skip over to a neighboring country where the medical ethics are less stringent or even nonexistant.

or just send her to whatever country's doctor did the ivf, and let that country pay for the upkeep of those babies. Seriously. I don't make a lot of money, but I take care of my kids with no help. She on the other hand will not be able to stay off welfare etc unless she gets LOTS of book, movie, magazine, tv deals. Seriously I do not pay taxes to pay for someone who is stupid and thinks she needs to reproduce every year.

I do not know that this would achievable at this time given disparity in socio-cultural attitudes internationally. Whose ethical preferences would be imposed? Those of the USA, those of the European Union? Draw straws for who decides? Consensus? Is the latter likely in the foreseeable future?

UN member nations often choose to ratify treaties but are China and the US likely to agree (in such a forum) on issues such as reproductive rights, organ harvesting, etc?

Money/resources/economic participation seem increasingly important to the well-being of nations, and increasingly multi-lateral in application. Perhaps international trade agreements are a more likely instrument by which to achieve international consensus on this (and similar issues) than more traditional methods such as the UN model.

And there you have it; just as I said previously: a problem of socialism.

Well, part of the problem with this is the extraordinarily diverse opinion surrounding it. One adult may say the whole issue is moot-a conceptus is human regardless of implantation or not and should not be killed. The other extreme would be those who say an infant is not fully developed, and can make arguments to kill it, even while it breathes and is healthy. We all hold views somewhere in the middle, maybe towards one end or the other. Then we have to decide who has the greater right. In the end it's a balancing act, and it also involves the rights of the society. If we live in a society, well, we aren't islands.


While a test for parenting is tempting (hell, we have tests for driving cars, and having kids is so much more), it's not really necessary. When it comes to certain things, especially having children, a case by case basis is as good as it's going to get. We have marriage laws, custody laws, and the like. I think the law has to reflect the best sense possible, and often laws are enacted that intertangle with each other.

The states' rights and the federal causes a lot of problems, and the violent acts of the cultish few has made it dangerous to practice given rights in certain states. That's a problem, and I see no easy way around it if we confront such grey areas, but I feel we need to confront the violence, too.

However, I think a couple can have as many children as they can handle it, unless outright recklessness is involved. My biggest issue with paternity tests is privacy, and if the guy wants a test, go for it. Men should, especially if they aren't married and living with the mother to be. Why not?

Single parents shouldn't be judged. It's hard enough. There's so many reasons why someone is alone raising kids, and if they are doing well enough, they should be left alone. My sister did it. Cousins have done it. And they did it without help from the gubmint. It wasn't easy. And I know a couple of guys who have done the same thing, and with little ones.

I really don't go for prying into people's lives unless the kid is obviously having problems.

Certain laws need tweaked, and custody laws especially. Too many shenanigans going on in fractious cases. It's something we need to work on, either by supporting those who would change them, or doing something directly.

Actually, we probably aren't that far apart at in view at all. We just come at it from slightly different angles.

Last edited by Rjaye on 07 Feb 2009, 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

14 kids ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!

Even with a father. If she'd had them one or two at a time, and I would say just barely. They would still need extended family, and she's worn them out apparently.

And now? Geez, the feeding for the infants is going to require round the clock aides (plural aides-24 hours a day), and she's got six other young ones to care for.

This is a dang tragedy all the way 'round. No social support, the neighbors thinks she's nuts, and problems at home.

I don't know how this is going to parse out.

Hm, that usually doesn't work because people usually underestimate what something is worth. And while the woman needs to pay, if the infants are alive, breathing, they are now minor children whose rights are in need of protecting and are innocents in this situation.



But rights as you suggest would be those that a reasonable person could define. In this day and age, many reasonable people would disagree as to what those are and how inalienable they would be. That's why we have to go with consensus. While you may goes Hobbesian, I tend towards Rousseau's idea of the Social Contract, though I disagree with his patriarchal ideas and his some of his ideas as to how a government could be run.



Sanctity of being consistant? Rights are constantly being refined due to the changes in society and technology. What would seem acceptable two hundred years ago is hard if not impossible to apply now. And I wasn't talking shoulds or shouldn'ts. I was talking about the grey areas that a society has to deal with within an entangling of issues that would make the most profound philosopher struggle. Who has the right? And how is it a right if it interferes with the rights of others? You are positing that the society has no rights, and I would argue it does. It that's a situation you find socialist, well, then you have a fairly loose idea of what socialism is.



I think my argument was that she showed a complete disregard for her responsibilities. She didn't have kittens. She had 8 living babies that are now bearers of certain rights that now need to be protected.



Well, I argue against recklessness. One may have a right to breed, however when one does so recklessly and in a manner in which harm may happen, there needs to be ramifications.

As for Rights not existing without Responsibility, I only think that should be part of the social contract, not the legal. A person can do whatever the heck she wants, if it's within their rights. I think there are social contracts we each have as citizens to our society that are also legal-taxes, paying our bills, etc., and there are ramifications to that if we don't. It's hard to get out of bills, and we can work at changing our taxes, and there are punishments if we knock someone on the head.

I think there are reasonable situations, and there are situations that are unreasonable. Part of being a citizen is to support society-through taxes and following laws that allow us to get along. But in unreasonable situations, such as this, I think we have a right to some kind of solution to such recklessness and to expect protection of the rights of those involved, meaning the children who now exists.

This woman having octuplets is a case where a pre-emptive response is appropriate as the outcome could be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy. It was risky, to her and the pregnancy, and the chance for multiples was nearly guaranteed. Given that this was her fifth pregnancy in seven years, she was not in as good a shape as she could have been.

But she's not the only one culpable. So are her original doctors.

This is not just a case of money. This is a case of high health risk, emotional and mental risk. In the end, to humor this woman's mental issues is to skirt society's responsibilities to protect the rights of the children.

There are situations that could be pre-empted, or we end up as we do in this case-fourteen children in an unstable family, and not enough people to take care of them.

Metta.

Raising the Extreme/Fertility bar topic

"Extreme" has been a trend/meme for ages. Now, family size has become the a freakshow industry, in an age where the traditional circus"freak" is politically incorrect. I think the Little People are the last ones to have been freakified, though the Rolloff family would not complain. Everyone wants to capitalize on some difference if it is a moneymaker.

The Specialty channels/media have capitalized on this. I would not be surprised if Nadia Sulieman has been approached for a reality series offer.

Sartrescue, I think you're right. She did the Katie Couric interview, and she was paid for that. Because of the "Jerry Springer" attitude of some quarters, she's going to end up getting something for being something of a train wreck.

I hope it works out for the kids somehow.

The only way this could work out for the kids at this point is if they were adopted out into loving families where they could be raised as children and not paychecks. I hear the woman got $300k for her last interview but that Gerber and the like won't touch her with a 10 foot pole because of the public backlash against what she did.

Hell, if some woman were living in her parents house with no job and she kept 14 cats in her room, she'd be shipped off to the mental ward and the cats would be taken in by the Humane Society. But yet because these are babies she's allowed to keep them? What a mess. Poor, poor kids.