California octuplets case dismays fertility experts

Page 1 of 6 [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

jrknothead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423

31 Jan 2009, 5:00 pm

California octuplets case dismays fertility experts

Quote:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The birth of octuplets in California, hailed as a medical triumph by doctors who delivered the tiny infants, has dismayed fertility experts who say high-number multiple births are an outcome they work hard to avoid.

The arrival of six boys and two girls on Monday, marking only the second known set of octuplets in the United States, has sparked intense interest and media coverage, particularly after reports the mother already had six other children.

But experts in reproductive health say an occurrence of octuplets represents a likely case of fertility assistance gone awry, posing grave risks to the health of the mother and her premature offspring.

"The cost of taking care of multiples is huge," said Dr. Vicken Sahakian, director of the Pacific Fertility Center in Los Angeles. "It's not going to finish when the babies go home. There's a high likelihood they're going to have (long-term) medical and psychological handicaps."

For that reason, the U.S. medical establishment has long-standing guidelines designed to reduce the probability of multifetal pregnancies.

A single, healthy baby is the ideal strived for by fertility specialists, said Dr. David Adamson, a fertility specialist and past president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Even twins can be fraught with complications for mother and babies, but three or more simultaneous births "are considered definitely an undesired outcome," he said.

The arrival of the octuplets, nine weeks premature, was celebrated as a medical success by doctors who handled their birth, but "only from the standpoint of maximizing delivery," said Dr. Mousa Shamonki, director of assisted reproduction at UCLA's medical school.

"Well over 90 or 95 percent of these situations will result in a catastrophic event, namely the loss of many, if not all, the fetuses, and a high risk to the mom," he said. "It's a scenario that really should never happen."

The identity, age and background of the octuplets' mother was withheld for privacy reasons by her doctors at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in the Los Angeles suburb of Bellflower.

The woman issued a statement on Thursday saying she was "ecstatic about all of their arrivals." Seven of the infants are breathing unassisted and most have started feeding.

Doctors said the woman came to Kaiser in her first trimester from "an outside provider."

'WHAT IS MAGIC NUMBER?'

Comments from the woman's mother suggested she conceived through in vitro fertilization, in which eggs from the mother are joined with sperm in a dish, and the most healthy-looking embryos are returned to her uterus.

The mother told the Los Angeles Times her daughter had decided not to abort any of the embryos earlier in the pregnancy.

Since guidelines generally restrict the number of transferred embryos to one or two, fertility experts said they doubted she conceived through in vitro with the help of a legitimate clinician.

"Having eight (embryos) implanted is just absurd," Shamonki said. "I can't imagine one of my colleagues doing that."

He said a more likely scenario was that the mother received fertility drugs designed to stimulate ovulation. When the eggs reach maturity, they are fertilized in the mother through artificial insemination or intercourse.

Doctors are supposed to monitor such patients, watching for an over-production of eggs. In such cases, they typically terminate the process and advise the woman not to have sex until another cycle with a lower dose of fertility drugs.

Otherwise, the woman can abort some of the embryos after conception, a process called selective reduction.

Sahakian predicted an "outcry in our profession" from publicity surrounding the octuplets, which he said could lead to calls for regulations to limit the number of embryos that may legally be implanted, as happens in some European countries.

Fertility experts said it was not their role to question why a patient wants to have more children. "Who decides what is the magic number?" Sahakian said. "for some people, two is too many."

(Editing by Jill Serjeant and Peter Cooney)


8O

Eight newborn babies, and six more at home? I shudder to think what a typical morning is like in that house...



release_the_bats
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,033

31 Jan 2009, 6:39 pm

Anything more than 2 at once should at least be considered a "litter", no offense to any triplets or quadruplets who might be reading this . . .



Mage
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,054

31 Jan 2009, 6:41 pm

The doctor should have his license taken away. It was just irresponsible. If this were any other country, he would have been harshly disciplined for putting in more than 3 embryos.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

31 Jan 2009, 6:46 pm

Mage wrote:
The doctor should have his license taken away. It was just irresponsible. If this were any other country, he would have been harshly disciplined for putting in more than 3 embryos.

But in America, we have a thing called "Reproductive Choice"! This means that women are free to choose however many babies they want, whether by whelping an entire litter through in vitro fertilization, or by aborting her ever fetus that lives past conception.

If the mother wants 14 kids, then that's entirely her right to choose and no one else's!


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 76,382
Location: Portland, Oregon

31 Jan 2009, 7:45 pm

Yikes!
I cannot imagine being the father{s} who supposedly
were forced to go through this process.

Once I have my own children, one or two will be enough.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


WhittenKitten
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 127

31 Jan 2009, 8:56 pm

Honestly I don't see why so many people are getting riled up over this, let her have 14 kids, people say she's a good parent. I hate that the media is making this lady to be out to be a terrible person. 8O



aspiemom1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 44

31 Jan 2009, 9:56 pm

newest news says that mom is almost ocd in her need to be pregnant and a mom. also states that one of her older 6 has autism.

oh and there is no "dad" she is a single mom, but the kids are supposedly all by the same donor. oh and this last batch was not supposed to be 8, was only 6 implanted, with twinning happening causing 8 babies. she did not want these embyros destroyed as they were from her previous attempts, so she said implant them all. OH MY. oh and all the kids were invitro.



Rjaye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 823

01 Feb 2009, 12:55 am

Oh, I bet we're missing the whole story...and it's going to be a doozy...and grampa is supporting them? Bless his heart, and he's already exhausted helping gramma take care of the six at home. Only one is in school.

And it's a three bedroom house...oh, my. Someone should be charged with child endangerment or something. This was reckless, thoughtless, and cruel. This pregnancy could've killed the mother, and those children will be impacted, and we'll see in a couple of years what the fall out will be.

And who's going to pay for this? We're talking millions of dollars, and the docs who delivered were not the docs who did the implantations. Who were those idiots? They have not been named. And they should be with great big capital letters, and their licenses revoked.

This is a direct ethical violation of their own medical association.

That's enough. I'm done. I could go on. But oh, my. What a flipping mess.

And to the young person who said why get upset, people have said she was a good mom. NO SHE IS NOT. She is not in her right mind, and she is not going to be able to care for all of her kids now. Not even with mum and dad's help. And no, they do not have the money, or they would not be in a three bedroom house with the six kids she already had. And now 8 more? Would insurance pay? Or is it Medicaid, or whatever it is in CA? No way would an insurance company pay for that-there's no way they would've paid for all those implantations...

Okay, now my blood pressure's up...not worth it...



WhittenKitten
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 127

01 Feb 2009, 1:02 am

Rjaye wrote:
Oh, I bet we're missing the whole story...and it's going to be a doozy...and grampa is supporting them? Bless his heart, and he's already exhausted helping gramma take care of the six at home. Only one is in school.

And it's a three bedroom house...oh, my. Someone should be charged with child endangerment or something. This was reckless, thoughtless, and cruel. This pregnancy could've killed the mother, and those children will be impacted, and we'll see in a couple of years what the fall out will be.

And who's going to pay for this? We're talking millions of dollars, and the docs who delivered were not the docs who did the implantations. Who were those idiots? They have not been named. And they should be with great big capital letters, and their licenses revoked.

This is a direct ethical violation of their own medical association.

That's enough. I'm done. I could go on. But oh, my. What a flipping mess.

And to the young person who said why get upset, people have said she was a good mom. NO SHE IS NOT. She is not in her right mind, and she is not going to be able to care for all of her kids now. Not even with mum and dad's help. And no, they do not have the money, or they would not be in a three bedroom house with the six kids she already had. And now 8 more? Would insurance pay? Or is it Medicaid, or whatever it is in CA? No way would an insurance company pay for that-there's no way they would've paid for all those implantations...

Okay, now my blood pressure's up...not worth it...


It's called insurance in California, she can't be on medicaid (i believe that's for elders here), and who are you to say that she isn't in her right mind? My friends mother has 10 children, her husband died and she's an amazing mother. You shouldn't judge, and shouldn't complain. It does not affect you, only her. I am sure insurance will coveri t, there isn't a cap on how many people can be on insurnace. She didn't want another set of multiples she wanted ONE kid, but ended up with EIGHT. How can you say someone with that many kids aren't in their right mind, who are you to judge? I am juts wondering, do you have a psychology degree? You are aware of religions where they encourage you to have a bajillion children, if I recall there is a family that has NINETEEN. You'll probabyl complaina bout them too.



Rjaye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 823

01 Feb 2009, 1:22 am

WhittenKitten wrote:
[It's called insurance in California, she can't be on medicaid (i believe that's for elders here), and who are you to say that she isn't in her right mind? My friends mother has 10 children, her husband died and she's an amazing mother. You shouldn't judge, and shouldn't complain. It does not affect you, only her. I am sure insurance will coveri t, there isn't a cap on how many people can be on insurnace. She didn't want another set of multiples she wanted ONE kid, but ended up with EIGHT. How can you say someone with that many kids aren't in their right mind, who are you to judge? I am juts wondering, do you have a psychology degree? You are aware of religions where they encourage you to have a bajillion children, if I recall there is a family that has NINETEEN. You'll probabyl complaina bout them too.


Actually, what's for elders is called Medicare, and she's undoubted on MediCal, because the cost of having six kids on regular insurance would be huge. And yes, I would say anyone who did what she did is in her wrong mind. You have never taken care of a child much less more than one, so you really don't know what you're talking about. And about the cap on insurance...eh, there actually CAN be a cap. Most of the ones I've gone through will limit it to a certain number of kids per adult.

Oh, irony, and yes, I do have a degree. And as far as religions who encourage the reckless breeding of children, yes, I do have a problem with that, because it's usually the girls who get shafted into taking care of their siblings at a cost to their own education and opportunities.

And here's the kicker-the Duggars, with their litter (they are a Quiverfull family-a Christian religious cult) could only get by because of donations from their community. That "Jack and Kate make 8" or whatever they are, are also part of a Christian sect and their house was donated to them, along with assistance for medical bills. Also, the older Duggar kids work to support the family.

And yes, this does affect me, you, and anyone who pays taxes, and most of all the kids. Most of these families end up on some kind of assistance. What happens to the disabled octuplets when they become adults? Mom and Dad (or not Dad, in this case) can't keep supporting them.

These situations have long term consequences. And is it really fair to the children involved? That's who I'm thinking of. There is not enough parental time to love, much less take care of, 8 babies. I know two women with triplets. One woman was able to do it, and she had two other young children, but she couldn't have done any more, and that was with her parents' help and her husband's. The other woman had to hire a full time helper.

And this 33 yo woman with 14 kids under 6 is going to take care of them how?

Fourteen kids who deserved better than they got.


Metta.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

01 Feb 2009, 11:57 am

14 kids and one "Welfare Momma" living in a three-room house? Welcome to America, kiddies!

Women's groups have been "de-criminalizing" single motherhood for decades, along with ensuring that women have "reproductive rights" and free cash handouts for every one of their mistakes - the more children a woman has, the more handouts they get.

Heck, in this country, she could live in comfort whether she popped out a new one every year for 14 years or whelped a litter or two at once!

Besides, as I pointed out before, it's a woman's reproductive choice to have as many children as possible by in vitro fertilization, none at all by serial abortion, anything in between!

Now, you want to whine and moan about how much this is all going to cost the American taxpayer?

You should have voted Republican...


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Anemone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,060
Location: Edmonton

01 Feb 2009, 12:55 pm

This has nothing to do with political parties. It's a chidren's rights issue and children don't vote.

Babies need individual attention up to age 3 for sure and probably to age 4-5. You make them share before they're ready and it affects their ability to thrive as adults. It's so normal in some cultures that people don't think there's anything wrong with it, but once people start spacing their children further apart, you do see a difference in how emotionally secure they are. They grow up to be psychologically healthier (=physically healthier), more resilient, more able to pull their own weight and help others. Less prone to addictions and other dysfunctional behaviour. Etc. Why compromise on child rearing when it's so much easier for everyone not to?

But most people don't know about spacing, or about emotional development in general.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

01 Feb 2009, 7:33 pm

Just because it's a person's legal, legitimate choice to do something does not mean that criticizing their choices is invalid. I'm pro-choice; I think that a woman should have the legal ability to have one abortion after another - but a woman who would do so clearly has either intellectual or emotional problems, either in her inability to use proper birth control or in her lack of conscience for the enormity of what she is doing.

that this woman had the legal right to do what she did, and that she found doctors willing to help her, does not mean that she is in her right mind. That Ms.Duggar is physiologically able to pop out one baby after another does not make her choice ethical, either.



Rjaye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 823

01 Feb 2009, 7:49 pm

Fnord wrote:
14 kids and one "Welfare Momma" living in a three-room house? Welcome to America, kiddies!

Women's groups have been "de-criminalizing" single motherhood for decades, along with ensuring that women have "reproductive rights" and free cash handouts for every one of their mistakes - the more children a woman has, the more handouts they get.

Heck, in this country, she could live in comfort whether she popped out a new one every year for 14 years or whelped a litter or two at once!

Besides, as I pointed out before, it's a woman's reproductive choice to have as many children as possible by in vitro fertilization, none at all by serial abortion, anything in between!

Now, you want to whine and moan about how much this is all going to cost the American taxpayer?

You should have voted Republican...


Fnord, to make this personal is kind of odd. While I do support reproductive choice, I also support reproductive responsibility. Also, in vitro is not as accessible as some think. I didn't have access to it-it's cost is prohibitive. There are limits to certain choices. Just because a woman prefers to have and parent a child on her own doesn't mean she has a right to expect others to support her financially to do so. I also support a man's right to do so as well. Hey, Ricky Martin isn't the only single dad out there.

There's indications this woman may have gone outside of the country to get her procedure, and paid cash out of some kind of injury compensation. The procedure done was unethical and dangerous, and it's a miracle (for lack of a better word) it looks like most of the babies may be okay. She played and weaseled to get what she wanted at the expense of her parents, her other kids, the medical system, and the taxpayers. She either lied, or she used the money she should have saved to take care of her other kids to bribe the doc who did the in vitro...this is wrong. It used and abused people, and she could have died, which would have left six orphans and two grieving parents.

As news comes out, it is quite likely she was on Medical, and while she had a settlement, there's conflicting reports about whether she was on welfare...if she was, with resources, that will be investigated. And with millions of dollars now being spent on these babies...you can bet the state is involved...

The neighbors are saying that this woman was hoping for big pay outs from big companies and non-profits, like free diapers, and cars, and furniture. We'll see as the case unfolds.

As to welfare mamas...

Also, thanks to the welfare reforms under the Clinton administration, people have a limited time on welfare, whether they have children or not. Also, families in Washington State can only claim up to five children, with decreasing money for each child up to five, and these families are booted off welfare after two years. A friend of mine's niece is now surfing sofas and her kids are living with relatives because she can no longer collect wefare.

I mean, please. There are many fewer people on welfare than there were ten years ago.

And those reforms were during a Democratic administration.

Feminism has nothing to do with any kind of right to live off the state. Feminism means standing on one's own two feet, using one's talents, and participating fully in society, not taking from someone else. So if a woman wants to have a child and raise it on her own, well, okay. It's a choice we have to make for ourselves. But to have a child and expect money for popping one out...uh uh. Crap happens, and welfare is only supposed to be there to help until a mother, father or family can get back on their feet, not a permanent solution.

So if your experience, Fnord, is with women who want it both ways, all the rights and none of the consequences, well, that's not feminism. That's being a brat, and a child, and deserves to be treated as such, or avoided. To have full rights means having full responsibilities, financial as well as social.

So does that make sense? Or not?

I gotta go--I have to fix my sink.

Metta.

We actually agree on that. And what this woman did had nothing to do with feminism-it was some personal "issue," to put it mildly.

I hate to say it, but I think the state needs to consider taking these kids away. I don't know how this whole sitution is going to work out, but damn, this is tragic no matter what happens.



KenM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,491
Location: Mass. USA

01 Feb 2009, 8:23 pm

I read someplace that the reason she had more kids was so she can get out of paying taxes. I heard in CA if you have more then 10 kids you don't pay taxes.



Rjaye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 823

01 Feb 2009, 10:16 pm

That's a hell of a way to get out of paying taxes. OUCH.