Regulating Fertility Treatments

[erpowers]

I am not a big supporter of strongly regulating things, but with this new case of multiple births pregnancy I am wondering if the government should in any way begin to regulate fertility treatments. It just seems to me that multiple births is becoming a game with some people. It seems that some people are doing this just so they can get records and attention. I do not know why this latest woman or any other family does fertility treatments (I do not know whether or not they want the attention or the record), but it just seems to me that some of the people doing it now are not doing it because they just want to have a child or a few children; it seems like they want large multiples of children. When I mentioned fertility treatments in the previous sentence I was mainly talking about fertility treatments that lead to multiple births. I understand why a family would want to use fertility treatments to have a kid or kids, but I cannot say for a fact that some of the people are doing it just for the attention. It seems to me that a few years ago multiple births were happening because people who could not have kids were just trying to have at least one kid and somehow they ended up with multiple children. Today, it seems like a number of people are trying to have many kids at one time. It is not that I am against people having kids or using fertility treatments I am worried that the idea of having multiple kids is becoming a game. I am somewhat worried that some people are just trying to have an many kids at one time as possible just to say they had more kids at one time than anyone else.

On another note, should the doctor involved in the latest case lose his/her license? I ask this because I saw a report on the news this morning that said the woman who had the eight kids already had six kids. I wonder if the doctor should have told the woman no in terms of getting fertility treatments and putting that many embryos into her body. My main issue is that now this woman has to put 14 kids through elementary and secondary school and college. In addition, she has to feed and support 14 kids. It seems like it was at least partly the doctors responsibility to tell this woman that she should reconsider having that many more kids. It seems that he should have asked her how she planned on taking care of that many children. I am not trying to bash the woman, but she now has to take care of 14 kids. I just think that is a real burden on that woman.

[elleng]

1. NO NO NO

.

[EFerrari]

97. Don't doctors have a professional organization that monitors ethics?

I thought I heard they did. :)

[question everything]

101. Yes, this is what I am thinking

Find out who was the doctor who kept shoving those embryos into her when all she wanted was "one more girl" and discipline him.

Get the medical board to conduct hearings.

[Triana]

2. I think they oughtta be banned but that's just me. n/t

[Skinner]

21. Whoa. Fertility treatments ought to be banned?

Care to explain?

[Spider Jerusalem]

48. Why ought they to be allowed, exactly?

Fertility treatments are generally necessary because many women choose to put career before reproduction, and find themselves in their late childbearing years (mid to late 30's-early 40's) and unable to conceive through normal means. Therefore they choose to engage in potentially risky medical procedures at great expense, with a significantly elevated risk of producing a child which may have mental and developmental disability (the risk goes up considerably in the later childbearing years). It's hard not to look at this as not being to some degree extremely selfish and careless. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean that we OUGHT to; and considering the number of children up for adoption, the desire for genetic offspring only seems more selfish.

[LisaL]

50. Number of children up for adoption?

Seriously? Where are those children,exactly?

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. Approximately 1.6 million, per recent statistics

and considering that we live in an increasingly overpopulated world the desire for genetic offspring regardless of the consequences to society in general is selfish and shortsighted.

[LisaL]

52. 1.6 million? Really? And why exactly do people have to wait

years to adopt?

[Spider Jerusalem]

54. Why do you seem to think that having children is an inalienable right regardless of medical ability

to do so? Newsflash: it isn't.

[Realityhack]

100. Waiting to adopt is not necessarily related to the number of children in need of adoption.

Please don't construe this as agreement with the other poster, but while there are lots of hurdles that doesn't mean all the children have adoptive homes.

[Ms. Toad]

110. Because they want perfect white infants.

The children waiting to be adopted are generally non-white (black males make up a large proportion of the waiting list), older (beyond age 2, the chance of having emotional issues related to bonding is pretty high), or have physical (disabilities, chronic illnesses, etc.) or emotional challenges (fetal alcohol syndrome, born addicted to cocaine, below average intelligence, etc.).

[Happyhippychick]

61. By that "logic", it's selfish for anyone to want bio kids since there are so many adoptees.

[Heidi]

65. Because infertile folks are entitled to equal accomodation to have children,

if they choose, for beginners.

Heidi,
Child free by choice (and aware that _my choice_ shouldn't dictate everyone else's choice)

[Spider Jerusalem]

91. They are? Why?

Infertility is not a handicap requiring equal accommodation. It is not blindness, or deafness.

[WolverineDG]

89. so go adopt one then nt

[Shakespeare]

92. And there are HUGE numbers of women, like me, with fertility issues that have nothing to do w/age.

It has nothing to do with age. I have polycystic ovarian syndrome (diagnosed when I was 17), and will never be able to conceive without medical intervention.

JFC, educate yourself. You're usually smarter than this on issues.

[Skinner]

107. Also, women aren't the only people with fertility problems.

Men experience fertility problems, too. (And believe it or not, in many of those cases the treatment is the same as when women have fertility problems.)

[Skinner]

95. Just a second here. You've got it backward.

If you want to make something illegal -- if you want to curtail the freedom of your fellow citizens -- then the burden is on YOU to make the case. Unless you can demonstrate that some sort of tangible harm to society comes from fertility treatments -- which is separate and distinct from the harm caused by people having children naturally -- then there is no need to outlaw it and no need for me or anyone else to justify it.

So instead of twisting the question around and asking me to justify it, how about if you explain what harm comes from fertility treatment that justifies making it illegal? How are families that take advantage of fertility treatments causing more harm to society than families who have children naturally?

[Realityhack]

102. QFT. Well put Skinner. n/t

[Happyhippychick]

3. I agree on "no". You can't stop millions from having children because of a few nutcases. But more

than that, I will give a quick lesson on how this is impossible to regulate.

If the woman had fertility issues and was prescribed a follicle stimulant, a responsible physician would do an ultrasound and say "oh look you produced 10 follicles so it would be unwise to do an IUI (intra-uterine insemination, aka artificial insemination) because there is a likelihood of high order multiples."

Then the woman can go home and have sex, thereby ignoring the doctor's advice.

This is likely what happened. Or she could have gone to Mexico, bought the fertility drugs and not have ever been in the care of a doctor. We just don't know.

But I repeat: fertility methods have provided millions upon millions of people the chance to have children. The recklessness of a few should not deprive the rest of the world from the blessings of having a family.

[LisaL]

4. No this is not likely what happened. What is being reported

is that she had her kids through IVF.

[Happyhippychick]

7. I know that's what is being reported but how come nobody heard a thing about this until after the

birth?

But whether it happened that way or not doesn't change my feeling on the matter. There will always be people who take a wonderful thing and turn it into something bizarre, it still shouldn't deprive the millions of responsible families from having children.

[LisaL]

8. Why would you be hearing anything before the birth?

Do you think press reports on every birth out there?
This only got attention because she gave birth to 8 kids at once.
The doctors didn't even know she was having 8, they thought she was having 7.

[Happyhippychick]

12. Being pregnant with multiples over 6 is newsworthy.

[LisaL]

16. Jeez.

It doesn't mean that you had to hear of it before she give birth.

[Happyhippychick]

38. It's highly unusual that it was not in the news. I don't believe this woman's story.

[LisaL]

39. Oh please. This is laughable.

Seriously, are you expecting to hear about every multiple pregnancy out there? Did you hear about other multiple pregnancies before the babies were born?

[Happyhippychick]

40. What is? That you think IVF should be regulated and I don't?

[LisaL]

41. No. Your idea that it should have been on the news before the

babies were even born.

[Happyhippychick]

42. Yes because we all know that it's hardly news when somebody is pregnant with eight babies. Happens

everyday.

[LisaL]

45. Jesus Christ.

WTF is your point exactly? It's on the news.
Do you think it should have been reported every day since conception, or in this case, embryo implantation?

[Happyhippychick]

60. This topic seems to be upsetting for you.

[Skinner]

22. I am highly skeptical that this was IVF.

I suspect this is a case of the media showing their own ignorance. It is extremely dangerous and costly to carry eight embryos to term.

[LisaL]

25. The media is reporting on what the woman's mother is telling them.

"Nadya Suleman's goal in life was to be a mother, her friends and family said. That is why, even with a brood of six, including 2-year-old twins, she decided to have more embryos transferred in hopes, her mother said Friday, of getting "just one more girl.""


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-octuplets31-2009jan31,0,6246659.story

[Skinner]

30. If true, it is very disturbing.

I still think it is possible that someone might not have their facts straight here.

[LisaL]

32. The woman lives with her parents. She doesn't have a husband.

Mother says her daughter is obsessed with having children, but could not have then naturally because her fallopian tubes are plugged.

[Happyhippychick]

36. Thank you Skinner. I don't believe it either.

[Coexist]

5. I blame John and Kate

*snort*










heh

[LisaL]

6. To be serious, who knows what kind of influence watching a show

like this could have on someone "obsessed" with having children?

[erpowers]

11. Explain John and Kate

I realize you were making a joke and by a response you got it seems John and Kate have something to do with a show. What show are you talking about?

[LisaL]

14. John and Kate's tv show, John and Kate plus 8.

[Coexist]

62. there is a show called John and Kate plus 8.

they have eight kids. for some reason its popular, I've never seen it, just seen commercials previewing episodes.

[LisaL]

74. They had six kids at the same time.

Through fertility treatments.

[NashVegas]

9. That's Not the Answer

One answer is rebuking those doctors who fail to use good individual judgment. The other is not letting people who are in it purely for the money into a medical school.

[LisaL]

10. I don't think there is anything wrong in regulating at least how

many embryos can be implanted in one woman at the same time.
I don't think it's enough to simply trust every doctor is going to have good judgment.

[Happyhippychick]

13. .

[yellowdogintexas]

15. what I wonder is how the treatments were paid for. That stuff is expensive

and not covered by many insurance plans. Insurance (if she has it) would cover the actual birth and neonatal care of the children but now the actual treatments themselves.

[LisaL]

17. The medical bills for the delivery should be huge.

I am not sure insurance (if she has it) would even cover all of it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. This case is an aberration and cannot be used as a litmus test. I am PRO CHOICE

and although this woman might be certifiable, I don't want anyone telling us how many children we can have.

It is a slippery slope..first screen fertility treatment patients, that opens the door to screen anyone who wants to have children. When starting a family, do you want to have to be screened for your ability to care and provide for them? It is inviting government into the womb. We are not a totalitarian state, Yet. Let's keep it that way.

[LisaL]

19. People are screened before they are allowed to adopt.

Oh do you have problem with this too?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

29. No, I don't have a problem with screening for adoption. The children in question of adoption are

not, for a lack of better words, under the control of the prospective adoptive parents, but another party, who does have the right to decide.

And you obviously don't have a problem with state interference into people's decision to have children. Does that include not having children too?

[Skinner]

20. Does anyone know for certain that this was a case of having embryos implanted?

I have seen it reported on MSNBC that the embryos were implanted, but I find this extremely hard to believe. I think it may be a case of the media showing their ignorance. (By the way, the proper term is "transferred" not "implanted")

It is my understanding that NO doctor would *ever* transfer eight embryos. It is much too dangerous to the mother and the children to carry them to term. Not to mention too costly. Ethical doctors would only transfer two -- maybe three -- in hopes of getting one live birth.

My understanding is that these cases of super-multiples always stem from the use of fertility drugs that cause the mother to release multiple eggs. But the fertilization of those eggs takes place "the old fashioned way" if you know what I mean. Fertilization is in-utero, not in a petri dish. (The other variable is an unwillingness on the part of the parents to undergo a "selective reduction" -- also known as abortion -- to reduce the number of embryos to a safer number like two or three.)

To answer your question: No, government shouldn't regulate fertility treatments. And doctors shouldn't ask whether the parents can take care of the kids.

[LisaL]

23. Well it's being reported she got them through IVF.

And not from taking fertility drugs.
As for doctors not asking whether the parents can take care of the kids-seriously? What about adoption? No questions should be asked either? Just adopt as many as you possibly can?

[Skinner]

28. And what about natural birth?

Should the State tell people whether or not they are permitted to have children?

[LisaL]

49. Who exactly was able to produce 8 children at one time

naturally? Do tell.

[moc]

94. My bet is the media is wrong. By the way, IVF involves fertility drugs too.

How do you think they get so many eggs to retrieve?

Both IUI and IVF use injectibles. Some are injected intra-muscularly (in the buttocks). Some are sub-cutaneous. Doses are higher in IVF because they are trying to retrieve maximum number of eggs. In IUI, if a woman hasn't agreed to selective reduction, they usually will not trigger ovulation if more than three viable follicles develop.

I know this because my second child was conceived via IUI/injectibles.

[cali]

24. it is being widely reported that the embryos were implanted

but there's been, to my knowledge, no corroboration of that claim. The fact that no ethical physician would do this, is however, no guarantee that it didn't happen. We'll just have to wait to find out.

I share your sentiment that government shouldn't regulate fertility treatments, but I strongly feel that the medical profession should police its own. If this doc did implant 8 embryos, that seems a break with established practices.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. There was at least one article which I read reporting that the mother of the woman said that

8 embryos were not implanted, but once they were, divided. It is possible that there are identicals within the octuplets. If this is true, at the point the embryos were thriving in the womb, it was the woman's decision to selectively abort, which she didn't. That was her Choice.

[moc]

96. I seriously doubt it. The media doesn't really understand the differences in fertility treatments.

They think everything is IVF. I've seen them misreport in other situations.

Back 10-15 years ago, transferring large numbers of embies was not too uncommon. (A friend of mine got pg with sextuplets that way; she had selective reduction and had healthy twins.)

It's pretty rare today to transfer more than 3, especially now they've gotten better at blastocyst transfers. The only thing with blast transfers, though, is that spontaneous identical twinning is more common. So, you can transfer two embies and end up with quads.

[enlightenment]

43. I don't think that the ethics have caught up with the science.

You're speculating as much as anyone else, which you're entitled to do - but the question wasn't the method by which she wound up with eight fetuses, but what sort of responsibility both the medical profession and, frankly, society bear in regard to the increasing number of super-multiple pregnancies that are being created through medical intervention.

I do believe that we need both regulation and social change. I find it fascinating that there are so many people who feel it is acceptable to have a huge number of children (ie, the Duggars) or find it 'miraculous' 'wonderful' 'precious' (etc) when a human female conceives - via medical intervention - super multiples.

It's not cute - it's certainly not miraculous. It's utterly and completely irresponsible. I would love to see some real statistics on super-multiple (or even just multiple) pregnancies. How many are there, every year? How many progress to the point where live births are achieved? What is the mortality rate? How damaged are these infants (blind, deaf, develop CP, cognitive issues, brain damage, etc)? How many families of multiples need to rely on public assistance of some sort to help them raise their brood? Children aren't collectibles and yet it seems many people (including many here on DU) see them as such and support the 'right' of a woman to have as many as she can possibly can, regardless of the consequences for the human beings she is bringing into the world.

The idea that every woman has a 'right' to have children is absurd. Not every woman can have children - that's life and it sucks sometimes. Still, it seems to be the new cultural meme, so with that in mind I believe that we do need to regulate the process to prevent these super-multiples from the outset . . . and we need to stop finding the birth of super multiples salutary. It's not.

[auntAgonist]

56. Another news report. ALL 14 babies were IVF

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/01/30/pf-8198141.html

By Raquel Maria Dillon, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



LOS ANGELES - The woman who gave birth to octuplets this week conceived all 14 of her children through in vitro fertilization, is not married and has been obsessed with having children since she was a teenager, her mother said.

Angela Suleman told The Associated Press she was not supportive when her daughter, Nadya Suleman, decided to have more embryos implanted last year.

"It can't go on any longer," she said in a phone interview Friday. "She's got six children and no husband. I was brought up the traditional way. I firmly believe in marriage. But she didn't want to get married."

There were frozen embryos left over after her previous pregnancies and her daughter didn't want them destroyed, so she decided to have more children.

Her mother and doctors have said the woman was told she had the option to abort some of the embryos and, later, the fetuses. She refused.

Her mother said she does not believe her daughter will have any more children.

"She doesn't have any more (frozen embryos), so it's over now," she said. "It has to be."

Nadya Suleman wanted to have children since she was a teenager, "but luckily she couldn't," her mother said.

[moc]

103. Well, the fact they her mother refers to frozen embies does imply she had IVF not IUI.

Seriously, if they transferred 8 embies, that clinic should be shut down. Pronto.

[AngryAmish]

26. little problem with Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut and their progeny

Under current law, there is a Right to Privacy in the Constitution. Where is it? That is a different (and long) story. But it is in there. Trust me.

So the government cannot interfere with birth (or non-birth) decisions until the second trimester. At that point the multiples already exist.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. I think you raise a good point

there is a difference between the government telling people how many children they can conceive and the government regulating specific cases on a case-by-case basis, taking into account many factors such as income and home-life and the ability to care for all potential children.

In this instance I think if this woman had six dogs and wanted to go to a shelter to adopt 8 more, there would have been more regulation on the part of the shelter than there was on the part of this fertility clinic.

I think the fact that its a fertility clinic itself means the government can regulate it. I think one could say that this is an extreme case, but most laws arise out of extreme cases to keep them from becomming commonplace.

I should note, however, that this applies to women who are seeking fertility treatments, not those who have already undergone the procedure. I wouldn't ask the clinic to step in and force the woman to terminate the pregnancy.

[noamnety]

31. I find these posts odd.

This woman has a large number of children. Get over it. It's NOT a national crisis requiring legislation.

Poor women not having access to birth control IS a national crisis.

What the hell is the obsession with controlling a small number of individual women's bodies/choices, rather than ensuring that women as a group have the resources to make their own decisions?

Priorities here are screwed up beyond comprehension.

[THUNDER HANDS]

33. there doesn't need to be a national crisis for there to be legislation

I'm sure there are many laws on the books that only effect small numbers of people.

But I think the point of this thread was to regulate an industry, not a person. I think there's a difference there.

[noamnety]

34. I wish half this amount of "concern"

was geared toward poor women who don't have resources to make choices at all.

This seems oddly disproportionate, reactionary, and designed to combat the "problem" of women who don't make the "right" choices.

[THUNDER HANDS]

37. well, this story is just odd

so it's going to attract attention.

But, yes, I too wish more conern was geared towards poor women who don't have resources to make the choices this woman made and other women have made. valid point.

[FarCenter]

44. The UK allow at most 2 embryos to be implanted at once, Italy allows 3

Reasonable precautions against multiple births.

For young women, one at a time is the best practice.

[Shakespeare]

46. She may have had the fertility treatments in Mexico.

Your suggestion isn't just ridiculous, it's also ineffective, especially when women leave the country for fertility treatments.

[LisaL]

47. Where did you get that info? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.

[Shakespeare]

53. I have some contact with hospital administrators here in LA.

It's local gossip at this point, but makes sense.

[LisaL]

55. I don't think much of this story makes sense.

But maybe that's just me. An unmarried woman with six kids, living with her parents (with history of bankruptcy in the family), and yet wanting more kids through IVF? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Nikia]

57. I don't think that a responsible Dr. would implant more than 2 or 3

Or encourage her to be insemminated if there were more eggs than that if she was against reduction. Most doctors don't seek putting their patients at high risk for something so unhealthy, which carrying so many is.

[LisaL]

58. My guess is you can't count on every doctor being responsible.

[Sanctified]

59. Shouldn't people be staying out of other people's Wombs?

One is either Pro Choice or they are Anti-Women, asking White Males in Government to make reproductive decision for women falls under Anti-Women in my opinion.

[PeaceNikki]

63. No. I am pro-choice.

The government needs to stay the fuck out of decisions people make with their own bodies and doctors.

[LisaL]

66. Doctors shouldn't be able to do any procedure just because

someone asks them to. If a healthy person shows up at the doctors and asks for legs to be amputated, or eyes removed, should the doctor oblige?

[PeaceNikki]

69. ROFL.

Ooh, you're serious?

[LisaL]

71. Yea I am serious.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

[PeaceNikki]

72. You're argument is ridiculous.

Are there laws on the books now that say a doctor can't remove a limb if the patient asks?

[LisaL]

75. I believe hospitals have ethics committees.

[PeaceNikki]

76. The same ethics committees that "regulate" fertilization.

The topic of this thread is government regulation. See the difference?

[LisaL]

77. Ethics committees regulate fetilization? That's news to me.

:eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

80. Again... are you serious?

Ethics boards are involved in most ethical ambiguity.

[LisaL]

84. So are you claiming that fertility clinics have ethics board

and decide who should or shouldn't get fertility treatments?

[PeaceNikki]

86. No, but it appears the OP suggests that the government do just that.

[nc4bo]

73. Money.

So two people want to become a family. Dad works and has a good job w/benefits or if Mom has a good job w/benefits (or they're perfectly cable of financially supporting a family) and the go the AI multi-route, then who are any of us to be in their business? They're not asking any of us for anything except peace and quiet. We should definitely stay out of their womb!

BUT, what if you have an Octamom, who is not in a relationship, goes AI, does not have the means to pay for or support the offspring she births and the taxpayers in some state have to pick up the tab? Can a line be drawn now? Shouldn't a line have be drawn?

Pro-choice is as it should be a choice but taxpayers should also have the right to have a choice. Right now, we don't. If Octamom can not support herself or her kids, we pay whether we like it or not - those babies deserve to be cared for.

Shouldn't we regulate or limit SOMETHING in an Octamom scenario?


Disclaimer: I don't know the entire back story of Octamom and am just making up a scenario.

[PeaceNikki]

78. Ummm..."taxpayers should also have the right to have a choice"

... are you insane!?

Taxpayers should have a CHOICE in someone's reproductive rights!??

Where am I? Did I make a wrong turn and land on Free Republic?

[LisaL]

79. I personally think you landed on the moon. Or from the moon.

[PeaceNikki]

82. Am I supposed to be offended?

Was that an attack?

[nc4bo]

81. No dear Nikki - you missed the point a bit

Of course women have CHOICE. BUT, if that woman's choice to AI 8 fetus(s) will ultimately place a burden on a state's welfare system than where is the choice for the taxpayer to say - Um, no - why should I pay for this woman's choice?

That alone is my argument.

[PeaceNikki]

83. And I contend that it's a very right-wing argument.

[nc4bo]

85. As you will. nt

[Realityhack]

104. Think that idea through a bit more.

Wouldn't that imply that the tax payers would get a choice about wither a poor family could reproduce at all?
Why should I pay for your child to go to school? Why should I pay for a subway when I don't use it?

This is in fact a very right wing argument. And VERY sensitive moral/ethical ground. If 'the taxpayers' are paying for a poor child how much control are you comfortable giving the tax payers over that child's life?

[nc4bo]

108. I'm talking specifically talking about a woman who AI's 8 (eight!) embryos!!

Not only that - but will depend on public assistance to pay for the health and other care of those 8 (eight) embryos.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with a woman having babies - rich, middle class or poor. I'm specifically talking about choosing to carry a 8 fetus multi pregnancy.

[Realityhack]

109. No you are not.

You are not talking about only one specific case any more than someone is talking about one specific case when they propose banning a particular type of speech.

You are upset by this example, but that doesn't mean you can get away with saying the taxpayers should get a say without considering the consequences of such a position.

[uppityperson]

64. Ethics and Regulation.

From what I read on the internet news, this was a case of the first 6 children being IVF, and this last batch having a whole bunch of embryos transfered/implanted due to the strong desire of the mom.

I am a RN and a mother and see this from both viewpoints. A person wanting very strongly to have a child from their own genes, from their own body AND the medical aspects, along with the allocation of resources aspect.

I cannot speak against people wanting to bear their own child/children, as I understand that can and is a VERY strong thing for many people. As it was for me. It can be heartbreaking to have this desire and not be able to do it. There are others who say "adopt" or "volunteer with kids somehow" which is also a legitimate thing and a very kind, caring thing to do. But still I understand the need to bear.

However, I do think it unethical for a doctor to transfer/implant this many embryos at a time since there can be huge health issues for the resulting premies. I do not think it fair to put such a high chance of lifelong health issues onto a bunch of kids because the mother "wanted one more". I think that is shameful. I do not know if she was aware of the possible health repercussions, but any doctor doing IVF sure would be and shame on him.

I also have an issue with allocation of resources. Start with the idea that resources are limited (resources being where to put the money and technology). This has been a topic amongst many for as many yrs as I have been aware.

For example, which is a better use of health care resources? Spending a brazillion dollars keeping a bunch of premies alive, or on vaccines for thousands of children in developing countries? Do we put research funding and labs into seeking help for more common diseases or more uncommon ones?

These are difficult questions to ask, very difficult things to look at since we are not just looking at statistics but at individual people. But they must be looked at.

Do we put money into WIC or into Viagra? (ok, that is an extreme difference, but another example). I don't have an answer as to where to put resources, but feel this case was ethically wrong for any legitimate doctor to do this.

Regulating IVF. I do not know how it is regulated, but would like to see it done to avoid instances like this.

[ismnotwasm]

67. Nope

Not until the science is more exact, and then women will regulate themselves. I don't understand the desire to have a litter of kids, but I don't understand what it feels like having great difficulty to conceive, which is the more likely situation when dealing with multiple births resulting from these cases.

I would have NO difficulty selectively aborting one or more of the fetuses of a multiple birth of this type, but that's my choice, and I have no right to ask other women to make that decision.

What was she seeking, this women with 6 children? One more? Two more? I don't know enough about the case. I have a feeling that 8 viable fetuses was not what she expected, but she choose to keep all--- seven was it? When she thought there was 7 not 8? She knew what she was getting into, obviously decided against selective abortion and through her OWN choices is not getting much sleep and won't be for some time I suspect.

This is a rare case, and one that's gotten a lot of media attention. I agree that it's not a great situation to say the least. She'll get lots of support from corporate sponsors, who love litters of children and the women who bear them, and certain churches who are quite smug when a litter is born of woman and offer much support.

So I think and hope her kids will be OK.

Having fertility treatments be regulated is not the answer. Fertility treatments aren't that easy, they often don't work, and women who wish to have children have to follow a pretty strict regimen. The science isn't advanced enough or we wouldn't be having these disgusting little scenarios.

[LisaL]

70. There is nothing wrong with regulating how many embryos can

be put at one woman at the same time. Many European countries do it.

[ismnotwasm]

87. Well you made me look

This website from the UK is quite informative

http://www.ivf-infertility.com/ivf/standard/regulations.php

I found a few more site about regulating. Most from individual states.

Several from forced birth organizations, which is irony personified.

I hadn't realized, I suppose, that in the US the procedure is so privatized. Anyway, I guess this throws the whole discussion into do we want Federal regulations of IVF? Where is the evidenced based practice on what is most effective? How many embryos per attempts, how many attempts? Do Lesbians qualify? Do single mothers? What is the age cut off?

It would be an interesting piece of legislation indeed.

[moc]

98. It's more complicated than mere number. One issue is embryo quality.

All embryos are rated. Sometimes they transfer more if the embie quality doesn't look good.

[AguaAzul]

68. No US Doctor Would Do It

I cannot imagine a doctor in the United States risking his or her reputation and, ultimately, loss of license on ethical grounds. I would wager to bet she might have gone to Tijuana or the like to get it done. But, then again, she apparently worked at a fertility clinic, or so I've heard. Bizarre.

[PeaceNikki]

90. And this is how it should be (and is) handled. Ethics.

Just like other decisions between patient and doctor. Suggesting that that the government should regulate reproduction on any level is terrifying.

[moc]

99. Worked at a clinic? I'd bet she stole the meds and injected herself. nt

[WolverineDG]

88. Not only no, but Hell No

Goddamn fascists.

dg

[moc]

93. A good start would be for the government to force insurance to pay for fertility treatment.

As pointed out by someone else in another thread, if this were the case, only fertility treatments provided by board-certified reproductive endocrinologists would be eligible for reimbursement. As it is now, in most states, fertility treatment has to be paid for out of pocket. (I know this first hand because both of my children are the result of said fertility treatments.) Because you're paying out of pocket, any charlatan with an MD after their name can hang a shingle, claim to be a "fertility doctor" and start prescribing shit without the appropropriate training or monitoring.

By the way, can anyone clarify whether this was IVF or IUI? The difference is that IVF involves egg retrieval, fertilization in the lab and transfer of embryos back. These days, I don't know of a single reputable provider who transfers more than 3 embies at a time. (Spontaneous identical twinning can still happen, and is more common in blastocyst transfers.) IUI uses the same ovarian stimulation as IVF (although at lower levels), but ovulation is triggered and then the woman is inseminated a specific number of hours after trigger. In both cases, the woman is monitored daily or every other day to monitor size of developing follicles and blood levels. No reputable doctor would trigger a woman with 6+ viable follies for an IUI unless selective reduction had been discussed and agreed to. However, IUI is more likely to be undertaken with unreputable/untrained doctors than IVF. My guess is that this was an IUI case, not IVF. The media is often confused on these specifications.

[LisaL]

105. IVF. She had embryos transplanted.

[moc]

106. I must confess I was skeptical when it was just the media reporting that because the media is often

confused about the different types of fertility treatment. I've seen them misreport IUI as IVF in the past. HOWEVER, I saw elsewhere in this thread how the woman's mother referred to frozen embryos, so it indeed must have been IVF. That doctor should be shot.