On Regulating Infertility Treatments: BITE ME

[IdaBriggs]

I suffer from a very rare birth defect, and was told as a teenager I would never be able to have children. To say it was a horrible thing to hear would be an understatement. Fortunately, medical science progressed (no thanks to Reagan and Bush Sr.) and today, after EIGHT YEARS of trying, including three miscarriages, I have my beautiful nearly two year old twins. I almost died bringing them into this world with pre-eclampsia, and the pregnancy included five months of bedrest, and non-stop vomiting (called hyperemisis) the entire time.

If I could have more children without the possibility of dying and money wasn't an issue, I would do it in a heartbeat. I told myself non-stop through the whole miserable pregnancy that 'smart women NEVER forget.' Nevertheless, my babies hit about 9 months old, and suddenly, YES, I WANTED TO DO IT AGAIN. This, despite the fact their early days as 4 lb preemies are one huge sleep deprived blur because they had to be awakened every three hours....shudder....

When you talk about 'regulating' let me walk you through some of the ASININE questions I had to answer OVER and OVER again during that time:

-- Why do you want to have children? (By the end, I told the last doctor it was because I always wanted to have little slaves who would fetch and carry for me; fortunately, he got that I was joking.)

-- Do you know that children are a lot of work? (Really? Who would have thunk?)

-- Maybe God is trying to tell you something; did you ever think about that? (Fuck you, asshole.)

-- There are too many children in the world right now; why don't you just adopt? (Maybe I will someday, but I don't need to justify my normal desire to procreate to you.)

-- You and your husband argue sometimes; maybe you shouldn't bring children into that. (We've been together for 17 years, married for 13, and while neither of us is perfect, we're still together.)

-- Don't you know how lucky you are? (Not always; we WANT children, and the journey was frequently a horrible hella-roller coaster.)

And lastly, let me repeat the one that I always found the MOST offensive:

WHY DO YOU WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN?

Let me give you the TRUE answer: NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. My reproductive choices are MINE. I was willing TO DIE to bring my babies into the world -- to hold out for just a few more hours so they would have a better chance at being healthy -- and I would trade my life in a heartbeat for theirs. Despite the complete and utter HELL that EIGHT YEARS of shots and tests and hormone surges that you had to observe to appreciate, I look at my children, and here is a SHOCK --

I WOULD DO IT ALL again IN A HEARTBEAT.

You want more regulation? Let me walk you through this REALLY SLOWLY.

When you want children, you will sign any piece of paper they put in front of you. You will take drugs that might cause problems later in life. You will present your butt for shots in places you would never believe before hand, and if the doctor tells you to give blood/have ultrasounds everyday, you will do it. If he says jump on one foot, drink pineapple juice, get acupuncture, and pray to the toadstool princess because that is what will work, you will do it. And in the end, in case you hadn't noticed, you have to go through the whole BIRTHING PROCESS which is NOT a picnic no matter how you do it.

So, let us review: Something the size of a watermelon is going to come out of a very small place (!), and its called LABOR for a reason. SOME PEOPLE say it HURTS! Also, you will gain weight, have to pee all of the time, and somebody inside you is going to KICK YOU (which hurts sometimes), and Guess What?

Lots of people all over the world do it MORE THAN ONCE DESPITE THAT.

Take your 'regulate it MORE' and stuff it. If crack whores can get pregnant, then people who WANT to have children shouldn't have to pass some idiot 'I have a right to judge you' screening. And the fact there is one crazy woman out there who has 14 now is not really relevant to me or mine or the other folks I encountered during our journey toward parenthood. If you want to regulate people being able to get infertility treatments, then let me suggest this:

Anybody who is stupid should be sterilized, and their children removed from their custody to protect them from contamination. And, in case you missed it, person who thinks we need MORE regulation because of extremely rare occurrences, I was referring to YOU!!!

:rant:

[slackmaster]

1. As long as you have some foreseeable means of supporting the children and can pay for the treatments

Go ahead and have as many children as you want.

[NashVegas]

12. And Won't Put 14 Children At Risk

of neglect and abuse ....

[IdaBriggs]

37. If your only concern is RISK, then do you think anyone with a RISKY career

who could die any day they walk in is putting THEIR child at risk of neglect and abuse by virtue of getting killed in the line of duty -- for example, Soldiers, Police Officers, Firemen, Fishermen, Etc.? Should all of these people stop having children for fear of THE RISK of living???

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

41. Show Me The Odds

The doctor who agreed to treat this woman ought to be rebuked by their board.

Families with four or more children have double the incidences of neglect as families with three or less.

What do you suppose the odds do with 14?

[WolverineDG]

43. So you want to regulate family size too?

Quit while you're behind.

dg

[NashVegas]

44. Where Did I Say That? Nowhere

I said the doctor ought to be rebuked for unethical practices.

If that means regulate, then fine. Bring it on.

[WolverineDG]

69. You mentioned the risk of abuse & neglect going up

with the size of the family. It's not too much of a stretch to go from regulating who has access to reproductive assistance & how large your family will be.

dg

[NashVegas]

71. Yup. I Sure Did

Governments regulate.

People can take responsibility for their own actions without government intervention. Trained doctors who assist medical "miracles" have a responsibility to make ethical choices.

The doctor(s) who assisted this travesty ought to be rebuked by their board. If that's regulation, bring it on.

en edit -

And if my and dozens of other DUers' opinions that this was highly unethical aren't good enough for you:

During an interview on CBS's The Early Show, Michael Tucker, scientific director of Georgia Reproductive Specialists, said: 'As the story's unfolded and it's gone from the potential use of just fertility drugs, or misuse thereof, to actual, apparently, IVF (in-vitro fertilization) with transfer of embryos, this is just remarkable to me that any practitioner in our field of reproductive medicine would undertake such a practice.'

The host asked Dr Tucker, who has a doctorate in reproductive physiology.

'Had she walked into a fertility clinic and said, "Listen, I've got other children, the oldest seven, the youngest two," is there any ethical responsibility on the clinic's part to say, "I'm not going to treat you," or, "You know what? This is not a good idea"?''

Dr Tucker's reply was unequivocal: 'I'm stunned, actually, that a clinic would proceed to treat a patient in this circumstance.'

He added a woman of her age should be receiving two embryos maximum, adding: 'To have had eight transferred is somewhat - is extremely irresponsible.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1131343/Mother-octuplets-worked-IVF-clinic.html

[Mother Of Four]

130. Hrm-

(looks at her DU name....)

And just where did you get that statistic?

[recoveringrepublican]

87. Who decides this though? If my hubby and I work at Taco Bell, should we not be allowed? nt

[slackmaster]

157. I want you and your husband to decide

How many children to have, and what constitutes adequate care. I know poor families that take very good care of their children. Both of my parents grew up in poverty.

[rug]

100. How much would you suggest?

[slackmaster]

156. How much what?

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

2. It's been a long time since "crack whores" have been featured in a DU post

:eyes:

[IdaBriggs]

3. At one point in the journey, we actually ran into the sister of one.

Her sister had 8 children by 8 different men, and was pregnant again. The rest of the family had farmed the children out for raising. It was one of the most depressing moments in my life; I had heard about people like that, but never actually knew about them in 'real life.' The sister, by the way, was a nurse who had custody of three of the children.

Sigh. :(

[leftstreet]

8. Wow That's reads like a Jacques Cousteau experience n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Well who the fuck are YOU to judge?

After the self righteous harangue of an OP you posted.

[IdaBriggs]

21. Who is judging? I was being jealous as all hell. nt

[LisaL]

54. Are you serious? What is the condition of those children?

What kind of prenatal care did this woman got during her pregnancies?

[IdaBriggs]

134. I was being jealous of her ability to get pregnant with zero effort.

According to her sister (I never met the woman) she refused to take birth control despite not taking care of any of her own children because -- you know, I'd have to go read my journal to remember why, but it was a definite "life is not fair" moment. The sister wanted to know if we were interested in adopting Baby #9. My immediate response was yes, but my husband was not willing to do it at that time. It was pretty early in the journey, altho I'm not sure to this day how we would have handled the challenges of a baby born with drugs in their system. Sigh. :(

[uppityperson]

4. Having an office policy that only 3 embryos be implanted at a time seems reasonable though.

I don't believe in gvt regulation but ethically I agree in policies like that one since it gives a good chance of having 1 take and if all 3 do it does not impose a lot of health issues on the resulting children.

I did a post on ethics...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4951602&mesg_id=4951602

[IdaBriggs]

10. Office policies are created because of success rates.

Frozen embryos usually have about a 33% success rate, depending on the clinic. (I'm three years not paying attention at the moment, to be fair.) The better the clinic, the fewer embryos they will agree to implant. We achieved success with a clinic that was running an 85% 'take home a baby' rate (only three in the country at that time), and a 50% twin rate. We had three transferred, and got boy/girl twins. There is SO MUCH that affects things, and honestly, sometimes good embryos don't take, while fragmented ones do. Personally, I count my blessings daily.

[ZombieHorde]

5. I am glad you have children now. nt

[DevonRex]

9. So am I. nt

[IdaBriggs]

30. Thank you -- my husband is on the floor playing with them at the moment.

My daughter is giggling while playing 'jump up!' with her papa, and my son is dancing in circles. I have tears in my eyes at the moment; to think how close we came to giving up, and to have never had them in our lives.....

I am grateful. I am so grateful!!!

:cry:

[Kittycat]

6. So you think it's ethical for drs to implant 8 embryos at once?

Seriously? Not to mention the woman had 6 other children between the ages of 2-7 (a set of twins in there), no job, and no spouse or partner support. Really?

I've had my own fertility and bedrest struggles, along with early delivery of twins that resulted in the loss of one twin at birth (23.3wks) - and 19wks of continuous complete bedrest with my singleton (born at 37wks). I have friends that had IVF, and fertility treatments - as well as family, and multiple adopted cousins (and a brother) due to a family history of fertility issues (which is odd in itself). And not once, even back in the early days of IVF did my mother or aunt ever have that many embryos implanted at once. Only 4... 4 at once, that was it. 4.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with putting in some common sense regulations. First being steps to through fertility, second being doctor ethics.

And by stair steps through - I mean you shouldn't start off on elephant doses of injectibles. If the dr can't identify a specific issue - you need to start at the beginning with options to side step if complications with a specific treatment arise.

[IdaBriggs]

14. We once transferred six. Long story.

By a miracle, we were briefly pregnant. Each person is different, but NO I don't think how many children other people want to have is something that should be regulated.

If she can afford it, go for it. I'd do it, if I could. Being pregnant sucked for me, tho, and our decision is not to try again.

I am very sorry about your loss. :hug:

[hfojvt]

160. "if she can afford it"

that's kind of the point. She cannot afford it. Somebody else is paying the $5 million for the care of those babies. I really do not want costs like that added to my insurance or tax bill because somebody is too illogical to abort four of them.

[Kittycat]

164. Not trying to be crass about this.

However... Over implanting also increases your risk of losing all embryos. It's not safe to do, just because you can. A little sanity and ethics are called for.

[wickerwoman]

88. Do you think it's legal for doctors to make that choice for their patients?

Her doctors advised her against it. They advised her to abort some the fetuses.

I don't want to live in a society where doctors tell women how many children they can have based on information that is private and none of the doctor's damn business. Do you?

[Kittycat]

163. No one is telling her how many she can have.

The suggestion is to limit how many they implant at once. And yes, I think it's completely ethical to put some limits on this. It creates a health crisis if unethical standards are applied.

[DevonRex]

7. To knowingly put the lives of 8 children at risk by implanting that many at once

is nothing less than child abuse.

I don't give a rat's ass how many children people have. Have a hundred for all I care. But people had better NOT endanger their children by implanting that many embryos at a time. There are some risks that aren't preventable. But THIS risk IS preventable. Plain and simple.

[enlightenment]

11. oh, good grief.

:nopity:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IdaBriggs]

22. Thank you.

I appreciate that!

:hug:

[Maru Kitteh]

31. You got it! I've been through the same hell. We're on a break now.

Carrying gonadatropins, syringes and needles with me to work, injecting myself in utility closets, daily ultrasounds, surgery to remove cysts, false positives, you name it. Oh, and my personal favorite.... the hysterosalpingogram. That was a real son-of-a-bitch.

[IdaBriggs]

35. My first one was a nightmare; the second was better.

Who knew the doctor made the difference?

PM if you want to talk. Good luck!

[ima_sinnic]

75. I tend to agree

[Hello_Kitty]

13. And none of what you say applies when the woman ALREADY HAS 6 CHILDREN

Jesus Christ on toast points, what about that is so HARD for you to understand?

[IdaBriggs]

20. Because NO ONE has the right to tell someone else YES or NO

when 'enough children' are enough. It is a PERSONAL DECISION. This isn't complicated -- its NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Its a tad weird, but the world will survive, and we don't need to go off half-cocked because of one or two stories like this.

[slackmaster]

23. When public funds are being used for infertility treatments, it becomes everyone's business

Inability to conceive a child naturally is nature's way of telling you not to have children. If you want to override that message and satisfy your emotional need for a child and can't afford to pay for infertility treatments yourself, I'm not sure how many publicly funded infertility treatments you should be entitled to. I'm inclined to say zero.

[IdaBriggs]

27. Ah, Viagra is okay, birth control is okay, but infertility treatments --

that's where we draw the line?

Why not treatment for smoking related cancer, weight related diabetes or heart problems? Why should my tax dollars have to cover things that could be prevented with a little common sense?

But that is different, right? Nature (ie God) doesn't want people like ME to have kids, unless I've got money -- then its okay.

:eyes:

Thank you for showing just how infuriating infertility issues are.

[slackmaster]

29. RIF

I never said that paying for Viagra with public funds was OK.

Nobody ever died from not having children.

[IdaBriggs]

34. Slackmaster, Viagra is paid for with public funds right now.

I am unaware of ANY state where infertility treatments are 'publicly' paid for; Massachusetts requires some insurers to help with costs, tho.

Trying to pick and choose who receives medical treatment is simply not a very nice thing to do. One family 'needs' cancer treatments (which could be considered nature's way of killing off the excess population), while another 'needs' infertility help.

Some people think 30 years is long enough to be on this planet; others consider 75 to be long enough. Who is to say how many children are enough for your family? Do you get what I'm trying to communicate?

[slackmaster]

36. I'm opposed to the use of public funds to pay for elective drugs, surgery, etc.

That's how I feel about it.

One family 'needs' cancer treatments (which could be considered nature's way of killing off the excess population), while another 'needs' infertility help.

Apples and oranges. Untreated cancer can kill a person. Untreated impotence or infertility can't.

[Shakespeare]

147. Public funds being used? Where, exactly, is the info to back that up?

Christ, insurance doesn't even pay for it in most cases. :eyes:

[MedleyMisty]

26. So the world's doing real well with almost 7 billion people, isn't it?

We're all healthy and happy and have enough resources to feed and clothe and shelter everyone and our consumption isn't doing anything at all to the planet and our air is clean and healthy and so is our water and there's tons of forests for people to enjoy.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Yes they do.

Doctors have every right to decline to give IVF treatment where there is a legitimate concern for the wellbeing of the mother or the children.

Furthermore, if a doctor can refuse to sterilize a woman who doesn't have children or only has one or is under 40, they can damn well refuse to help impregnate a woman with 6 goddamn kids already.

[juno jones]

86. Thank you.

There was a thread earlier this week with a retelling of the difficulties in obtaining sterilization. I went thru that too.

But you WANT MORE babies, well, we'll be more than happy to help.

Six is enough, sorry. I think you've proved your fertility there. Time to take care of your 'blessings'.

[mike_c]

32. that's one of the main reasons the world is so screwed up today....

There are WAY too many humans on Earth, and every one of them wants to defend their right to breed and breed and breed because it's their PERSONAL DECISION. Well, guess what? Your personal decision affects everyone else living here, to some degree or another, and it affects the other species on the planet and the planet itself.

Garrett Hardin was spot on correct: the only way to curb the plague of humans is to regulate the right to reproduce. Common sense and appeals for PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY cannot offset four billion years of lizard brain biology.

[NashVegas]

40. We Don't Have to Regulate the Right to Reproduce

We'd do just as well - if not better - to put the kibosh on miracle cures and learn to cope with tragedy and loss.

I have some sympathy for the OP; one of my siblings had fertility problems in their marriage. That single issue did more to set the tone than any other thing in their lives. They finally have two, lovely, adopted children. A shame they waited 15 years before starting that process.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. The OP's dismissal of adoption really got to me.

"Oh, I might adopt one day but it's more important to have the experience of pregnancy and a genetic replicant right now." I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that she's never going to get around to adopting any kids.

[LisaL]

49. You know what? Some here are acting as if there is a busload

of kids just waiting to be adopted. All I know is that people wait years to adopt a child.
It's not like a prospective parent can go to a home and pick a kid.

[Hello_Kitty]

52. I never said adoption was easy.

The OP didn't even want to consider it.

[rebecca_herman]

57. Maybe

she doesn't want an adoption agency scrutinizing every little thing in her history and deciding if she's "worthy" to be a parent, and then if she's lucky enough to be approved, sit around for a long time waiting for a child. Not too mention the expenses which are many times higher than fertility treatments.

My neighbors adopted two children internationally so there was no risk of birthparents changing their minds, and it was a very long, expensive, difficult process. Everyone has different limits on what they can handle.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. Too bad all potential parents aren't scrutinized like adoptive ones are.

Just sayin'.

[rebecca_herman]

65. So you think someone shouldn't be allowed to have kids...

because they were treated for depression in the past, or are overweight, or something like that?
I've heard of people being turned down for minor or past/resolved health issues that have NOTHING to do with them being able to be good parents.

[Hello_Kitty]

67. Not for being overweight or previously suffering from depression, no.

Those aren't legitimate reasons IMO. Neither is being unmarried or gay.

[rebecca_herman]

73. It happens though

And it's understandable if people fear it - I would be very nervous about trying to adopt a child someday because I've been treated for mental health issues - I wouldn't be trying to have a child someday if they hadn't been resolved to the point where I felt I could be a good mother, but regardless I'd worry about being judged for it. Here's a recent story (though not in this country, it's in England) about a couple who was denied the chance to adopt because one of them was very overweight http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7823707.stm

There have also been a few cases in the US in the past few years of birth parents taking a child back after it had been with the adoptive parents a significant amount of time. That probably leaves an impression on people as well. I think a lot of people see adoption as risky and having "their child" is the only way to guarantee they will get to keep it.

[Hello_Kitty]

81. It happens in custody battles too.

A few examples of unjustified reasons to deny adoptions notwithstanding, I still stand by my statement that I wish all prospective parents got the same kind of scrutiny that adoptive ones do.

However, the concern over losing the child after the adoption is a valid point.

[spoony]

168. Jesus, you just sound sicker and sicker every day.

I was so right about you it isn't even funny.

[Runcible Spoon]

102. If I had to choose between laying in bed 5 months constantly puking...

and having to deal with a lot of paperwork and interviews, well....is it even a competition?!! :shrug:

[Lisa0825]

56. Not true.... PLENTY of kids need homes.... its perfect infants

that are in short supply. Babies get waiting lists of eager parents; children go into the system.

[IdaBriggs]

136. Under 4 aren't easily available for adoption.

At one point we looked at becoming foster parents. 80% of the children in foster care eventually get surrendered; unfortunately, what you find out is that they come into the system at least 5 times before they are surrendered. So, to review: abused child, loving foster parents, returned to abuser, removed, new foster parents, returned, repeat, repeat, repeat -- now troubled teen/preteen with problems. Its surreal.

[alarimer]

63. Because most of them are not perfect little white babies.

Many prospective parents will not consider anything else. Most of the kids languishing in foster care are older and some have some very severe problems (which admittedly will require someone pretty special to care for them, something most people are not capable of).

[LisaL]

68. Severe and special problems require a lot of money and time.

Which many people are not equipped to do.

[rebecca_herman]

80. Indeed

This article about adoptions gone wrong includes a very sad story about a parent who was obviously not prepared for a special needs child and the agency had not been very upfront about the child which led to a very sad outcome http://www.newsweek.com/id/74385

[Critters2]

123. So will 14 healthy kids....IF they end up healthy. nt

[vadawg]

92. My wife and i have been looking at adoption for a while

already got two carpet commandoes, but have room and ability in our family to adopt a couple more. She has all but given up due to the hassles we have had with various agencies, some have problems with my job, so she is talking about us going abroad and thats probuably what will end up happening.

[Critters2]

121. People wait years to adopt a child who meets their specifications.

There are special needs kids available right now. I have a parishioner who put herself on the list to adopt a special needs child, and was called by a social worker three days after signing the papers. We're baptizing that child in two weeks.

[cherish44]

139. There aren't an adundance of healthy newborns available for adoption

People willing to adopt older children (who often have been abused and/or neglected and have lots or problems) or special needs children don't usually have to wait but it takes a very special kind of person to take on those challenges. I've had friends who have done foreign adoptions. It's very expensive and time consuming but they've all said it's worth it. Anyway I know firsthand that infertility sucks and I think people should be able to pursue parenthood if that's what they want. Some call these people selfish but really how are "fertile" people who have and keep children but lack the maturity and/or resources to take proper care of them NOT selfish?

[NashVegas]

53. Disappointing, But Again, I Try To Understand

Everyone is bringing their own baggage to the issue and projecting. Well, a lot of us.

We need to have emotions, we need to be irrational at times in order to be human; medically-assisted miracles should be expected to be backed by rational decision-making in cases where so many lives are affected.

[ima_sinnic]

77. yes, I noticed that too (nt)

[IdaBriggs]

135. Dismissal of adoption -- you don't have a clue, do you?

For every healthy baby, there are ONE HUNDRED COUPLES waiting. I live in Michigan, where the birth parents can change their mind for ANY REASON for up to a YEAR. (It happened to a couple we know -- they got their son in July, and in December, the birth mommy decided she wanted him back. Lock me in the loony bin; I can't do that.) Money is an issue, and we had a business fail in 99 that put us in debt to the tune of $150K, which we took three years to pay off -- here's a shock: we were bluntly told we weren't going to qualify except for China, which we pursued for over a year. We got hung up on the paperwork because of my birth certificate issues since I was legally adopted by my step-father. The only children we were being offered were troubled teenagers, which I did not feel qualified to parent at that stage in my life.

Dismissal of adoption? I *prayed* to adopt. Believe it or not, infertility hell was a faster, EASIER (!!!) road to parenthood. Other people's experiences may vary; these were mine.

[Hello_Kitty]

145. That's not what you said in the OP.

You said you might adopt later and that you want a baby now.

[IdaBriggs]

167. I tried to summarize EIGHT YEARS of trying to have a child,

including some of the RUDE INSULTING JUDGMENTAL things people said to us, including folks telling me to just give up on experiencing pregnancy and "ADOPT" when a) I couldn't financially qualify, b) I wasn't able to emotionally be someplace where I had so little control (other people can take your child away for A YEAR!), and c) I tried anyway, and it didn't work.

You didn't know these things? Surprise. It didn't stop you from saying rude hurtful things about/to me and this is AFTER the sting isn't as bad because I've got two beautiful children now, instead of just dreaming about being a mommy.

Let me repeat myself -- if I choose to adopt, birth a litter, or sterilize myself, IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. My reproductive choices are MEDICAL DECISIONs between me, my doctor, and whatever deity I choose to worship. (And no, that doesn't mean I don't believe in common sense scrutiny of adoptees, so don't even TRY to go there.)

You don't like the fact I was jealous of a crack whore whose ability to reproduce and discard offspring was a source of grief for her family and abandoned children; you don't like the fact you believe I dismissed adoption; you don't like the fact I think MORE REGULATION is an inappropriate response to one bizarre situation (where frozen embryos which usually have only a 33% success rate) were transferred. You know NOTHING about ANYTHING, and yet you keep setting yourself up as an expert on other people's lives.

Let me repeat myself to you for the last time: take your ignorance elsewhere, and BITE ME.

[Sal Minella]

55. "Population, Evolution and Birth Control" by Garrett Hardin was one of the first books

that made me think. Have bought and given away many copies since.

Too bad so few people took to heart what this good man had to say. He and his wife planned and carried out their own exits, too.

I wish Hardin's intelligence could have been given a greater role in shaping human philosophy of what makes lives worth living.

[ima_sinnic]

74. it is not "personal" when 14 OTHER human beings are involved

sheesh. you have two--now multiply that by 7, with almost all of them preschool (yeah, a little built-in permanent daycare center!) with no husband to help you. oh, I'm suuuure all 14 will get hours of quality time every single day of their lives from you. I'm suuure the older children can run off and play with their friends and get all kinds of help with school work and have a real childhood. And of course you have some secret source of income--or would you be working full-time AND taking care of 14 young children? yes, hundreds of dollars a week for groceries when they're all about 10 years old--hell, that's nothing. and when they all come down with illnesses---well, of course you'd have tons of health insurance with all that income from that full-time job.

[LeftyMom]

118. The doctor has every right to refuse to be involved if the situation is dangerous or unethical.

Just because a person has a right to do any stupid thing they like, it hardly means anybody else is obliged to assist in bringing their whims to fruition.

[Lorien]

142. We sure as hell do. It's everyone's business because our resources are FINITE

you may not like it, but that's our reality. I would have loved to have had kids myself, but I'm not that selfish. I can't bring a child into this world knowing the truth of the situation, which is this:

Earth 'will expire by 2050'
Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview

* Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
* The Observer, Sunday 7 July 2002
* Article history

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[lumberjack_jeff]

155. With all due respect, if I'm being asked to pay the bills, it becomes my business. n/t

[spoony]

169. I'd say that's not true.

Unless you think that every person receiving public aid ought to be opened up for every taxpayer to examine their medical status and vote on how to treat them for your money's value. Seems that'd be a little unworkable.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. That's the way that all indemnity (insurance) works.

If you want me to share your risk, I'm going to ask for assurance that the risk is managed. If that means no fertility treatments for people who are unable to feed their current six kids, then so be it.

Sharing one another's risks does not imply agreeing to finance every conceivable unwise choice.

[noamnety]

94. The message you just sent

is that you are okay with Ida's choice - because YOU personally approve of it ... not because you feel she has the right to make that decision absent of your approval.

And therein lies your problem. And being anti-choice - that IS a problem. One which apparently a LOT of DUers have. I am appalled, reading the board here.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

107. So you approve of Ida's choice

because YOU think she had an "appropriate" amount of kids. That's very big of you, and I'm sure she appreciates your support.

Your question reminds me of Bernard Shaw asking Dukakis in the debates "Hey, if your wife kitty were raped and murdered ..." Pathetic. Do I want a 14 year year old daughter of mine to be involved in statutory rape? Are you really asking me that? Please rethink your debating/social skills.

You are not Ida's mom, she is not your 14 year old daughter. She isn't asking for your approval of anything, in case you missed that. Same goes for this other woman. If you thought it was your place to decide for them how many children they "should" have, you were mistaken.

[Hello_Kitty]

110. Why does it have to be statutory rape?

Suppose she wants to have a baby with her 15 year old boyfriend? I guess in that case you'd have to okay it otherwise you'd be "disapproving". :sarcasm:

[noamnety]

119. Please see post 104. (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

120. I can't. It was removed.

[noamnety]

124. Exactly. It was your post. (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

125. Most likely because you whined about it to the mods.

I don't recall there being anything that offensive in it. You know, offensive like the OP's reference to "crack whore", which you don't seem to have a problem with.

On edit: How about you address what I posted? Would you "approve" of your 14 year old daughter wanting to have a baby with her 15 year old boyfriend?

[noamnety]

126. Actually, I wasn't the one who reported it.

on second thought, I think I'll just use ignore.

[Hello_Kitty]

129. So calling women crack whores is okay to you then?

Glad we've cleared that up.

I notice you still won't touch the subject of your hypothetical 14 year old daughter.

[Hello_Kitty]

113. Speaking of "approve" . Do you approve of the OP's reference to "crack whores"?

Sheesh. Talk about a double standard.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. I imagine she totally understands. I think you're not hearing what

she's saying.

How many is "enough"? Where should that line be set? Who gets to decide that?

Reproductive freedom is that: each woman gets to make her own decisions about when and if to get pregnant (and how!), and how many children to have.

Doesn't the very idea that someone else would be interfering in such a deeply personal decision give you the willies? It does me. It's a terrible, slippery slope into controlling our bodies and our choices.

So one child, no children or 6 children doesn't matter. Wanting a child, and not being able to conceive that child(ren) without assistance is all that matters.

No way in the world that in this day and age 8 embryos should have been implanted - or perhaps 6 in this case even, given the patient's history of twins. But the size of her family before treatment? Not part of the equation.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. Yeah, everyone should have as many children as they want

Regardless of their ability to properly care for them. Fuck the quality of the children's lives. It's all about their parents' "choice".

[JerseygirlCT]

106. The point is that YOU aren't impowered to decide what's best

for someone else's life, or children.

Would you like someone else deciding that about you? Hmm... "I don't like the way she parents, I think it should be thus and so"... that's the result of imposing your desired restrictions preemptively.

We can guess, but honestly, we don't KNOW that she will not be able to handle that many children successfully. And like, innocent until proven guilty, we cannot step in on a guess.

And children in very large families can do just fine - again, you don't know what the actual situation is or especially, will be, do you? You're making a guess, and thinking its fine to impose outside restrictions on someone's family life, because of your guess. Think about where that leads.

[Hello_Kitty]

111. The woman is currently demanding that TV personalities give her $2 million

I'm going to hazard a guess that she ain't all there. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4953436#4953448

[JerseygirlCT]

150. That very well might be true

But not being all there isn't an immediate disqualification for parenthood, either. I'd venture that there have been plenty of not entirely there parents in this country. But until they do something to show that they are incapable of taking care of their children, we don't infringe on their rights on a guess.

Should someone find that those children are not being cared for well, that's when services steps in. But from what I've read, she's actually cared rather well for the six already at home.

We're all making assumptions here, based on sketchy information. That's simply not enough to judge her incapable of parenting.

[Hello_Kitty]

177. And there are plenty of therapists offices full of people brought up by them

As for the octuplet's mother, I'm going to hazard a guess that her previous 6 children, her recent bankruptcy, and the fact that she lives in a 3 bedroom house with her parents (Grandpa has gone to Iraq to work as a contactor to support the brood), coupled with her belief that she will be showered with money by Oprah and Diane Sawyer to become a "parenting expert", make her somewhat less than the ideal guardian of 14 children. Yeah, I'm basing this on "sketchy information" but I think I'm right.

[JerseygirlCT]

179. You might be. But as I said, we don't decide to remove children

from home until there's something more than instinct or sketchy information.

[varelse]

15. Take your 'regulate it MORE' and stuff it.

I'm with you here, because I don't believe anyone has the right to butt into any other person's reproductive rights, but this is a little extreme:

Anybody who is stupid should be sterilized, and their children removed from their custody to protect them from contamination.

Bad idea. In practice, it is 1) an abomination and 2) a violation of human rights. And sadly, this "experiment" has been repeated more than once :(

No thank you.

[IdaBriggs]

24. You are correct. I was trying to make a point about how the STUPID

ones would feel if it was about THEM instead of 'everybody else', if you know what I mean.

I agree with you; it is an abomination.

[varelse]

38. They're not necessarily stupid (some of these people are obviously educated and fairly bright)

more like arrogant, overbearing, ignorant, and/or controlling. And definitely not seeing the forest for the trees :(

That's why, in spite of my discomfort with your "crack whore" reference, I was the first person to rec your thread.

I'd also like to take a moment to congratulate you on your successful pregnancy and your healthy children. I'm very glad that you (and they) survived the experience and I wish you well in the future.

ALL children should be wanted.

[Maru Kitteh]

25. I think that was intended as an example - to illustrate the stupidity of those here who think they

have the right to tell a woman when she has "too many" children.

[NashVegas]

17. Correct. You Do Not Have to Justify Your Irrational Desire To Procreate

It's a physiological function.


But any doctor who assists you via medical intervention to make it possible is and should be ethically - not legally - bound to observe the situation objectively and take the potential childrens' best interests (and your health) into consideration before agreeing to proceed.

[KittyWampus]

18. You can ASK for 8 Embryos to be implanted but it should be illegal for any doctor to do so.

Oh, and by the way, your "reproductive choices" apparently depended on medical intervention.

If you are suggesting that medical doctors and their profession have no regulation or standards then you have a problem.

[Lex]

33. "And the fact there is one crazy woman out there who has 14 now is not really relevant to me"

Exactly.

[alarimer]

64. Just one more example of putting selfish wants ahead of what society needs.

Just because we have our individual needs and desires, it does not mean we do not also have a moral duty to do what is best for society as a whole. People are so damn self-centered these days.

[spoony]

170. Not "wants," RIGHTS.

Just replace "reproduction" here with "free speech" and "what's best for society" with "national security," and you get the picture. Individual rights are not disposable when inconvenient to society, if that is even the case (which I would argue it is not, since we're talking about an "epidemic of one").

[lcdnumber6]

90. hear, hear Lex

The people fervently defending this woman seem to be very close to this subject personally and can't step back and look at this situation for what it is - an endangerment to 14 helpless lives.

[DevonRex]

39. The smallest weighs 1-1/2 pounds. The largest weighs 3-1/4 pounds.

When a person carries that many babies, she KNOWS the birth weights will be low and that there will be MANY developmental problems, physical and otherwise.

[WolverineDG]

42. Hear hear!

I remember all the trials you went through. I am so happy you now have your children.



dg

[LostinVA]

46. I believe it is unehtical AND immoral for fertile women to have fertility treatments

The damned Duggars are bad enough, but at least they do it the "natural" way, Irish Twins and all.

[LisaL]

48. Well, the mother who gave birth to 8 was infertile.

According to grandma she could not have kids on her own. Happy now? Do you think it was ethical and moral now?

[ColbertWatcher]

47. The doctors need to be regulated.

And the medicine needs to be regulated.

[Vinca]

50. You are obviously a sane person.

Octuplet mom apparently collects children as a hobby. It can't hurt to have a psychiatric evaluation if it might prevent the needless suffering of innocent beings brought into the world. Maybe all will be fine with these kids, but 14 kids sharing a bedroom? How about 14 college educations to pay for? 14 dental visits? 14 eye examinations? Unless someone is a lottery winner or Bill Gates, the kids will most likely suffer because this bankrupt woman decided to do something very stupid.

[slackmaster]

51. Let's call her mental state what it really is

An obsession. She needs counseling and possibly medication for her mental health issue.

The proper way to treat an obsession usually does not involve indulging it at public expense.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Feh, There's a group here that thinks no one should be allowed to reproduce, ever.

Fortunately, I give "voluntary human extinction" about equal chances of catching on as that Comet Cult where the guys cut their own nuts off before killing themselves.

At least in the Comet Cult they got a spiffy jogging suit and tennies.

[gristy]

59. "a group here that thinks no one should be allowed to reproduce, ever"

Huh? You gotta link for that?

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Yeah.

I do.

[ima_sinnic]

79. waiting . . .

[Warren DeMontague]

82. Here's something to do while you wait.

http://riddles.com/all-kinds-of-riddles/hard-riddles/metaphor-%11-a-ponderous-house-000000004261/

[ima_sinnic]

85. gee, you mean, you mean ... you couldn't come up with a link? who woulda guessed?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

101. You're right. They're only advocating "voluntary" human extinction.

My bad.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. OT, but don't you think that if they were around today, they'd all be wearing

those Snuggies? That's all I can think of every time I see that commercial. It looks like a cult uniform.

[alarimer]

61. They need to be regulated like any other treatment.

I think there are a bunch of unscrupulous operators in this field that take advantage of people.

In any case, why do people spend so much money to have "their" kids when there are hundreds of thousands of kids without homes right this minute?

[LisaL]

66. Oh baloney. People have to wait years to adopt.

Adoption isn't easy.

[Maru Kitteh]

78. Adoption can be damn near impossible if you're not rich

[kestrel91316]

70. I've said it before but it obviously bears repeating:

any doctor who would acquiesce to a demanding woman and implant 8 embryos at one time needs his/her license revoked and a serious psychiatric exam (along with said woman).

I think the current guidelines set forth by the fertility specialists themselves ought to be followed. And when they are not, the punishment should be sure and swift.

Why does everyone care so much for what prospective mothers want and not THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN to not be born part of a litter and destined for lives of medical uncertainty or misery? Just curious.

I guess I just don't get the obsession with childbearing and motherhood as the be all and end all to life.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. I thought this was about a woman with some sort of mental illness.

Personally, I agree.. I think the situation carries deeply unethical implications, and I question the doctor's judgment in a big way.

But are we talking about whether it's ethical to go ahead and implant 8 embryos?

Or are we talking about passing laws telling people how many kids they can have? Got a ballpark number?

So as DU clearly heads into another tired round of breeder/"childfree" shit-flinging, it bears asking: is the larger debate about the lady with the octuplets? Or is it about "the obsession with childbearing and motherhood as the be all and end all to life."? :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

114. Meanwhile, the OP makes a reference to "crack whores" and that's hunky dory with you

Does having children give one a free pass to be judgmental about other parents now?

[Warren DeMontague]

116. No, I never said I agreed with all the phrasing in the OP.

Meanwhile, any chance of responding to what I *did* say?

[Hello_Kitty]

117. I agree with you about the ethical implications and questioning the doctor's judgment.

Honestly, it's not that hard to see that the situation is 10 kinds of fucked up.

[IdaBriggs]

137. You don't believe in crack whores? Or are you unaware of the term?

A crack whore is a woman who will sleep with anyone for money for drugs for her addiction. To clarify further, it is a term for a woman who prostitutes herself for drugs, and because of the desperation of her addiction, she is rarely concerned with safety for either herself or her customers, thus not usually using condoms and exposing herself to disease/pregnancy. We met the sister of one who had given birth to 8 children, who was pregnant with a 9th. I'm not sure why you find the story so offensive, but it happened, it was real, and it was depressing as hell for half a dozen different reasons.

[Hello_Kitty]

144. Ida, your bitterness toward such women is quite clear.

The reference to them is pretty ironic considering the rest of your OP was essentially telling people to mind their own business.

[kestrel91316]

141. Well, to answer that last question of yours, in this particular case

it appears to be one and the same. A batshit crazy obsessed woman who clearly wants to pump out offspring like some cats pump out kittens.

I can't wait to see all the people jumping up to support her "choices" when she goes back for MORE fertility treatments down the road and has another litter. I am of the belief that if you keep insisting on having children you have no possible way to care for, you SHOULD be stopped from having more children. YES, I WENT THERE. And I can't give an exact number when that point is reached, but like pornography, I know it when I see it, lol.

[BrklynLiberal]

159. and having the means to support and care for the children must be consideration as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. See, I'm not comfortable with goverment dictating to people when to have or not have children.

I don't think there are enough of these outlier cases to even suggest that we have some sort of a "need" for legislation. I think this is a freak occurrence. I certainly think there are some serious ethical questions as to the doctor who performed the fertility treatments, implanting 8 embryos, in this particular case. This case that, I would tend to agree, involves a woman who may very well have some mental issues.

But if she has mental issues, if she's 'batshit crazy', as you put it, it's not because 'society wants to force all women to be mommies' or some such shit like that. It's because she's fucking nuts. Some people just are.

[ferrous wheel]

72. Well, I am very very, very very very - very very happy that

I'm not one of your offspring.
:D

[Berry Cool]

83. You know what? I can sympathize with the OP's feelings, but here's what I think:

As "asinine" as the questions she was asked may seem, I think that maybe they were asked, and phrased the way they were, as a test--a screen--deliberately designed to ensure that she wasn't one of those people who THINK they want children but actually have no clue, or would be bringing them into a bad situation. Let's run through the whole gamut:

-- "Why do you want to have children?" Well, maybe it would be a good thing if more people thought about why they want to have them, rather than just getting pregnant the way so many do.

-- "Do you know that children are a lot of work?" Amazingly enough, some people don't give much thought at all to how much work children are. When they picture themselves as parents, they picture walks in the park and trips to Disneyland. They don't think about the work.

-- "Maybe God is trying to tell you something; did you ever think about that?" I believe the OP's feistiness quotient was being tested here, and "Fuck you, asshole" is actually what they WANTED to hear. They wanted to know that she wanted kids so badly she'd go through hell or high water to be a parent, because she just might have to. They didn't want her to be the kind who might lose heart easily or say "Maybe God doesn't want it to work" or use other rationalizations.

-- "There are too many children in the world right now; why don't you just adopt?" This sounds like an attempt to get the OP to justify her human desire to procreate, but it's not; it's designed to screen out people with whom this argument would work and keep ONLY the ones really committed to having and raising their own flesh and blood, because they will have to go through hell to get it.

-- "You and your husband argue sometimes; maybe you shouldn't bring children into that." Again, the OP took it as an insulting and belittling question--not so. It was a screen, designed to filter out couples whose "arguments" are DEFINITELY something kids shouldn't be brought into, and keep only those who argue the normal amount that just about any couple may argue and disagree.

-- "Don't you know how lucky you are?" Another screen, designed to filter out only those whose lives would truly feel incomplete without children.

And again, the OP found it offensive to be asked again why she wanted to have children, but asking it twice was not too much, considering how much the process would demand of her. They had to know that this woman, this couple, was going to find all the time, trouble, misery and sacrifice they went through to have kids worth it, 100 percent. And that's what they found out: yes, they WOULD think it was worth it. Good!

In short, the system worked. The fertility folks got just the kind of people they want: those who cannot imagine life without children of their own flesh, who will do anything to have them and will do anything to raise them the best they possibly can.

The way I see it, the down side isn't that couples seeking fertility treatments are forced to answer these questions the "right" way to get treated, but that ALL people who say they want to become parents don't seriously ask themselves these questions, and carefully consider what their answers mean, before they go ahead and try to get pregnant. And that for so many, it's sheer accident, and they don't want to be parents at all but it happens anyway.

I think if anything is outrageous, it's that people who need help having children have to jump through all these hoops, and in the meantime it can happen to any poor kid on the street when barely even trying.

Edited to add, lest anyone misunderstand: No, I am not in favor of forcing all parents of all kinds to answer these questions the way someone else wants them to (the government?) before they become parents. I am against that kind of regulation. However, I do wish more people thought voluntarily about the commitment of parenthood before becoming parents.

[Canuckistanian]

84. There will be a time in the not-so-distant future

That such treatments will be banned.

The human race is expanding at such a rate that all the planet's resources will be depleted in about 50 years or so with the current population explosion. It's inevitable. After that point , we'll have to make some serious choices.

What if this fertility technology catches on in India? Or China? Or Africa? Does the world really need more people?

Yes, there are more "marketing possibilities", but are we ready for mass die-offs from starvation, disease and warfare over shrinking resources such as food, water, and energy sources?

I think it's right to protest this example of "right to procreate", especially knowing that there's no rational reason to do so in this age of massive population growth.

[Number23]

91. Very, very interesting thought

There will be a time in the not-so-distant future That such treatments will be banned.

Wouldn't be surprised if you were absolutely right...

[Number23]

89. You GO, IdaBriggs! lol I agree with every word you've said.

I ain't never having no 14 children, but I'll be damned if I'll tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own bodies in their own homes. It's no different than what the Repubs are clamoring about re: abortion.

[ismnotwasm]

93. A fucking men

I'm under the impression, here at DU, that those screaming regulation and "what about those poor babies" don't realize they are one short step away from saying in essence, "poor people shouldn't breed". Since they obviously can't afford to "have children" and bring them up properly" those who can't afford children should have their reproductive status regulated. Not that a great of a difference in logic, and quite terrifying.

Personally, I think a full range of reproductive care, education and support up to and including daycare for parents is a much better approach. I like the idea tax dollars going for health care and education WAAAY better than I like the idea of tax dollars paying for wars. (Of course, If we regulate how poor people breed, will we have enough soldiers to die in said wars?)


Oh, and minding my own business and tending to the business of my own uterus, I like that idea a whole lot as well. In fact I try to do it every day.

BTW, I'm very, very glad for you and your children, and I know enough about fertility treatments to know it's not a guarantee for a happy outcome. Good for you!!!

[noamnety]

96. "poor people shouldn't breed,"

They aren't even a step from saying it - they HAVE said it.

Sure is a convenient notion when white folks have generational wealth and a big fat lot of privilege in a way that people of color as a class just don't have access to. What they are one short step away from saying is that more white people should reproduce than black people.

Oh, they aren't saying that straight out. But ... you know ... if that just happens to be the way wealth in this country falls, well you can't blame them for that, eh?

As an ex-WIC recipient, I'd like to line up next to Ida to help dish out some FU's to deserving DUers.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. "minding my own business and tending to the business of my own uterus"

Damn straight. Far better than the pro-choice-with-an-asterisk (as in *="as long as I approve of your choice") views of some, here.

When it comes to overpopulation, it's pretty clear that empowering people, giving them the freedom and the tools to make their own decisions, leads to a stabilization of excessive population growth.

[Hello_Kitty]

112. I find your response interesting

In light of the OP's invoking of "crack whore". You have no problem with that?

[ismnotwasm]

143. Well

I invite you to the world of L&D nursing, NICU and the specialty centers that tend babies through a heroin or methadone addiction. Or fetal alcohol syndrome. Talk to an L&D nurse at a teaching hospital and you'll hear stories that make "crack whore" sound benign.

Ever hold an addicted baby--they need to be semi-swaddled and held? Know how? I have and do. And here's a small factoid; it's common knowledge out on the street that cocaine use can cause miscarriages, and it's been used for that purpose from time to time. Not a reliable method.

It happens. It's not right. It's worse than not right. It happens. Do I want these women hunted down and forced to abort? No. Do I want these women hunted down and forced contraception? No. Do I even want to get into the topic of who the fathers of these babies are in light of this particular topic? No. Do I support the few treatment centers that provide care for these women and help them stay clean through their pregnancy? Yes.

Do I want a full range of reproductive care, as a stated earlier for all? Yes.

[Hello_Kitty]

146. I appreciate your experience

My question was do you approve of the way that IdaBriggs was referencing these women? Given that your response was highly supportive of her and scathing to people for criticizing the actions of the woman who had octuplets. I find it amazing that this thread is full of pious finger-wagging along the lines of "How DARE you judge anyone! Who are you to say you "approve" of someone's reproductive choices!" Yet the cruel and snotty remark Ida makes in her OP, "...if crack whores can get pregnant..." you all ignore.

[ismnotwasm]

161. Oh, Ok, I get your point

I didn't think the comment was meant to be inflammatory to pregnant addicted women in general-- but used as an type of test sample of where regulation can possible start and where does it end. A known or suspected drug addict who tests positive in my state loses her child. Period. Sometimes they get them back, but It's a horrible cycle.

It's very disconcerting to walk into a hospital that has an actual unit for pregnant addicts. Usually, these women are desperately trying, most won't make it statistically. Walking in with harsh judgment is a bullshit thing to do for a nurse to do if she chooses that field, if we can't do it, we need to not work there.

I remember working with one Mom who had been on Methadone--her choice to get off heroin during her pregnancy, and her baby was born addicted. These days there is very good treatment for narcotic withdrawal babies, so the symptoms are not as drastic, but I've seen videos of the bad old days. Anyway, one thing you never forget is that high pitched cry and thrashing around the babies do you hold them and rock them until it's time for morphine.
In that case, the still using father came to visit and he said "Poor baby, I understand exactly how she/he feels" Gives me chills to this day.

Cocaine babies are a little different. Overstimulated in the womb, they often arch away from touch and don't want to suckle. Mother/baby bonding is a big problem. The withdrawal symptoms Moms tend to see as rejection compounded by everything else going on. A mess.

(I don't do that type of nursing, today I'm transplant/renal/dialysis)

[IdaBriggs]

165. Thanks for getting the point, and understanding the challenges.

It was a very challenging time for us; part of me wanted to instantly take that baby, and then there was my husband with a brother who grew up with a disabled brother who had a better idea of what was going to be involved with the reality of the situation. Although I want to be someone who was equipped mentally/emotionally/financially to take on that type of challenge, I am extremely grateful my twins are healthy despite being 4 lb preemies. The poster you are responding to just doesn't get it.

I cannot speak highly enough of our NICU nurses; they were unbelievably wonderful and amazing! I will never forget how my hands trembled the first time I was trying to 'swaddle' my daughter -- the nurse was so unbelievably nice about not laughing. She just smiled gently at the miracle of the whole situation -- or at least faked it enough to keep me happy! LOL!

[Hello_Kitty]

174. I get that. And I'm sure that octuplet preemies would be equally disturbing in their own way.

Ida was evoking "crack whores" in a disingenuous and, frankly racist dog-whistling, way to shut down criticism of the gross misuse of IVF by the octuplet's mother and her doctors.

[AnnieBW]

115. She's already "bred" six times!

Ida, I'm all for fertility treatments - even though I chose not to go that route - and am glad that you have healthy children. But what this woman did is irrational, and her doctor was most likely unethical.

Before someone adopts, they have to go through rigorous testing to make sure that they can handle having a kid. But there's no such mental fitness test for people who have them naturally. Reading about this, and the person that beat their 2-year-old to death, makes me think that there should be.

[IdaBriggs]

138. If I understand things correctly, these were leftover frozen embryos from

the previous treatments that got her other children. Maybe the issue was freezer costs -- $800 bucks a year to store them -- I don't know, but I'm pretty convinced NO ONE expected that many to take. Deciding what to do with leftovers is a tough choice; we 'lucked out' (and let me tell you, lucky was NOT how we felt originally) and didn't have to make a decision about what to do with leftovers -- destroy them, donate them, or let them sit until they get freezer burn? Usually frozen embryos only have about a 33% chance of success. Even transferring 8, they probably thought best case was going to be twins or triplets.

Its annoying that people think -- transfer 8, get 8. I'd have a boatload of children at the moment if all of mine had taken. Sigh.

[Hello_Kitty]

122. I see from another post that you are a nurse.

If you worked in a fertility clinic, would you have any qualms about participating in the implantation of multiple embryos in a woman who already had 6 children? What if you knew that she lived with her parents and had recently filed for bankruptcy?

[BrklynLiberal]

158. Especially implanting 8 when the ethcial medical limit is 2 or 3??

[ismnotwasm]

176. First of all

I don't know all the details of this and neither does anybody else. My understanding is that she wanted one more child. Do I think it's a great choice? No. Is it my business? No.

A small amount of research, which I believe you've done-- having pointed out limiting the number of implanted embryos in europe-- shows that IVF is not an easy process, or a guarantee. There is precounseling and a lot of work involved.

I personally know several women who, after all that work, all that agony, lost their single, implanted fetus, the one that constitutes an actual pregnancy. It didn't matter in those cases how many embryos were "implanted" There are a variety of reasons. Some quite complex.

Nurses work using evidenced based practice. I don't know what works in that field, but if the evidence said that it took 8 embryos, hell no I wouldn't have a problem with it. IVF is NOT cheap so the money came from somewhere. I seriously doubt she planned on 8 babies, and her choice, was NOT to selectively abort. Her choice, not mine.

This is a rare occurrence. Sure gets lots of attention.

A far as finances, you're talking to a woman who raised her kids on welfare and food stamps. Perhaps I should have chosen a few abortions instead to meet the approvel of the uterus control patrol? They all seem OK now. Paying taxes and shit. Happy, loving adult people.

[JerseygirlCT]

95. Amen. And I'm sorry for all your pain, and happy for the joyful

result!

[depakid]

98. Basic medical ethics require regulation

as I'm sure the physicians and clinic in this case will find out from the California Medical Board if and when they're identified.

[lcdnumber6]

99. selfish, selfish.

hey, I have a deep desire to adopt 24 abandoned cats, but I'm in a small apartment and don't have the financial means to support that many cats or move to a larger place. So I won't do it, even though I ache to be able to house more unwanted animals. And I'm GLAD that Humane Society would come after someone who wanted that many animals and couldn't reasonably do it. Yeah I'm comparing children to cats because THEY ARE BOTH HELPLESS and it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to care for them in a humane manner!

I do (reluctantly) agree that trying to regulate this type of behavior is a slippery slope, but this is not a natural act and I would hope that you could at least agree that this woman should have been thoroughly screened before getting fertilization, and maybe warned of the financial/psychological/long-term risks?

[AZBlue]

108. You're obviously missing the point entirely of the uproar over the octuplet mom.

Congrats to you and your twins!

[BlooInBloo]

127. You're defending as a well-made decision octomom's 14 kids? Seriously?

HAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!

[Hello_Kitty]

128. So I've learned from some people on this thread:

Criticizing a woman for having IVF octuplets after she already had 6 kids is very, very wrong.

Calling women "crack whores" is just fine.

[Mz Pip]

131. Pretty much everything else is regulated

in medicine, why not fertility treatments?

good grief, people can't just demand open heart surgery because they neurotically think they have a heart condition.

Why any doctor should be required to placate some idiots neuroses just because she demands it is beyond me.

[earth mom]

132. People shouldn't have children they can't afford to take care of and feed.

I learned that as I was growing up and it's one reason I didn't have a child until I was 34.

The mother of the litter everyone is talking about right now here on DU obviously can't afford to have all those children.

And that is what so many people are objecting to.

So get a clue. It's NOT about you. :eyes:

[hamsterjill]

180. Well put!

There is no way that those 14 children will receive the parental involvement that they need. They will be competing with one another for the mother's attention and she won't have enough time in a 24-hour day to give each one the emotional security that he/she needs - not to mention the monetary implications.

Good grief. Where is the sanity?

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. Ida it is not you who is an ethical problem... the ethics of this delivery

came into the eight kids in the womb

You carried, to term mind you, mostly, twins. The human body, even with all the defects, can mostly safely carry to term, mostly, two kids.. and they were still premie, a risk with twins...with eight... it is compounded

This wasn't the case

As is, this is not for the guv'ment to get involved in

This is for the Bio-Ethics commission, or board, yes every hospital should have one, to regulate. And yes, she can get pregnant, but this pregnancy put everybody, from mom to kids, at severe risk. Having two kids, fine no problem... three upper limit, after that... we enter very dangerous territory for all concerned.

Now if you decide to do this again, by all means. Find an ethical doctor that will keep this at a SAFER level. IFV has its own risks. That is for the readers not you... I am sure you are aware.

No need to compound them by carrying that many kids...

As to me... if and when we have kids, we will adopt. I am NOT putting a baby at risk due to MY medical issues... and yes, it would put the kid at risk even in the best managed of circumstances.

Oh and in a national healthcare setting, I am almost willing to bet that IFV will still happen, but not with eight kid pregnancies. Those medical stunts, and that is what they are... will go away...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

140. As medicine improves, the state will have to stop funding most infertility treatment, I suspect

Right now, there are two connected processes underway that will greatly affect what medicine the state pays for in the future.

Firstly, the range of things we can treat is increasing - things that people would just have died of a decade ago can now be treated. Most of these new treatments are expensive, though.

Secondly, partly as a result of that and partly for other reasons, more people are living longer. That means that a smaller percentage of the population is of working age, and more of them are old (and old people tend to need more medicine).

The cost of providing the best possibly treatment for serious illness to everyone is going to increase dramatically over the coming decades. I think that will mean that the state will have to stop paying for other things, and most infertility treatment - along with things like elective plastic surgery, viagra, and the like - will probably have to become the province solely of those who are willing and able to pay for them themselves.

I wish this wasn't the case, but it's a lot easier to say "it shouldn't be like that" than "here is a feasible way of making it not be"; I think it will have to be. Some of the slack can be taken up by spending more on health and less on other things, but I don't think that will nearly suffice.

[Shakespeare]

149. Show me, please, where the state funds infertility treatments.

Really, I'd love to see that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

171. Here, in the UK.

N.T.

[Shakespeare]

172. NO public funding in the US, and it's even spotty in the UK.

Here's the link.

http://www.nobabyonboard.com/worldcompare.html

[Shakespeare]

148. Thanks, Ida. Folks are acting as if we have an epidemic of octuplet births going on.

Know why this woman made news? Because it's HIGHLY UNUSUAL to see this kind of multiple birth result.

Our hospitals are NOT full of women giving birth of 6, 7, 8 babies--the last octuplet birth was a decade ago.

Yet people are using this event to pretend that this is an actual problem (it isn't--it's a single, isolated case that involves medical ethics and the mental health of the mother), and using it as a straw man to suggest that fertility treatments should be regulated, limited or outright banned.

Like you, I have fertility issues (PCOS), and would be thrilled to have just one child. For every case of multiple births, there are thousands and thousands of women for whom fertility treatments don't work at all. And nobody can imagine that pain (both emotional AND physical) that one endures to go through these treatments.

And anybody who wants to pass judgment on you, Ida, can kiss my sweet, liberal ass. :hug:

[Cerridwen]

153. Thanks for saying what you said, Shakespeare.

I was starting to think I was the only one noticing this is an "only one" situation.

Watching the responses to this story has been surreal.

[JitterbugPerfume]

151. apples and oranges , Ida

assisting people with difficulty concieving is a whole different subject . The woman who birthed the litter was not having any problems with concieving. She just wanted a litter.

She already had six kids

[Shakespeare]

152. Not really, JP. People are using what is a highly unusual occurrence to argue for regulating or...

...banning fertility treatments. This is a single case that involves medical ethics and the woman's mental health. To suggest limiting or banning fertility treatments for tens of thousands of women based on the occasional, rare multiple-birth event is patently absurd.

[JitterbugPerfume]

154. I really do hope

that this can be resolved . Fertility treatment is something that I would never want banned. My six kids (concieved the old fashioned way) are the light of my life, and my son who died in 1988 is still , and always will be ,a source of great loss for me.

That woman is obviously mentally ill, and I am sorry if certain DUers can not see the difference.

Those babies need all of the love and attention that any baby deserves, and that includes having their medical needs met.

[Hello_Kitty]

175. Hardly.

I expect that fertility specialists will be motivated to strengthen their own restrictions after this. I think this is a highly unusual occurence as it is, since most people who seek IVF are those who have no children.

[Shakespeare]

178. Hardly what?

I'm not sure what you're commenting on.

[dysfunctional press]

166. personally, i have no idea why anyone would want to go through all that effort/expense to have kids.

it just seems fairly egocentric to me.
but that's one of the great things about our country- everyone can pretty much spend their money on what they choose, and evryone has different wants and needs.

and with the way the world is progressing, climate and economy-wise- i'm glad that my wife and i made the decision awhile back NOT to have kids anyway...although "planetary/social decay" was not a factor in our decision...neither of us just had any overwhelming desire to have'em.