Because it went so well the last time we let doctors decide which patients should have babies.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I've been really perplexed at the huge uproar over the woman who had octuplets yesterday. The mother is healthy, all eight babies are healthy, the family appears to be functional with plenty of (non government!) support, so what is the problem, exactly?

Apparently CNN questions the ethics of having that many babies at once. Among some of the reasons cited by experts (with obvious biases and agendas) are the usual concerns about the mother's health - which in this individual case, was never a concern - and the risk to babies in multiple births. Amazingly, though every set of triplets I've ever met was perfectly normal in every way, and being the parent of a child with special needs, I resent the implication that a disability might be a good cause to terminate a pregnancy, the scientists in the article advocate partial abortion be considered even in triplets. They do quote one guy who refers to fetal reduction as killing babies, but this is the note on which the article ends, and which is most scary to me:

[Sara] Rosenthal[, bioethicist at the University of Kentucky], on the other hand, questions the woman's capacity to make a good decision under the circumstances. Some neonatologists believe that when pregnant women are told about dangers of prematurity or have great expectations about giving birth, their judgment can be impaired, she said.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.

Eugenics v2, anyone? Except a million times worse. She is advocating forced abortions because pregnant women can't make rational decisions. What happened to "the government should stay out of our uteruses" rhetoric that most pro-abortion people advocate? The article ends by saying that women with that many fetuses shouldn't give birth to all of them even if they are all healthy - because it might encourage other women to do it, too.

I'm so beyond horrified right now, you guys.

Comments

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

'Kay, by that logic, women should NOT be allowed to have abortions because their judgment is obviously impaired if they want to kill their babies, right?

By that logic. *groans* Good grief. You're absolutely right when you say it contradicts their own rhetoric.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.
SAVING lives? SAVING lives? *disgusted laugh* Change "horrified" to "sickened", and I'll second your last line. Look, one thing to be pro-abortion, another thing to FORCE women to abort children. Whatever happened to "freedom of CHOICE"?

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

The consistent feminist silence on the situation in China, where women are forced to have abortions past their first pregnancy regardless of whether they want to, is deafeningly telling enough as to how much of an ethical dilemma many (though not all) abortion rights supporters see forced abortions. After all, if it's just the removal of non-human tissue, who cares? Would you object to a deranged person being forced to undergo an appendectomy for their own good? etc.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they're not shy about making the "choice" for you if it's "for your own good"--or even "for the good of society," whatever that means at that particular moment in time. I guess at this moment, it means "so we don't encourage other women to get pregnant with multiple babies."

Do these people ever listen to themselves? Because the hypocrisy is so blatant that anyone should be able to see it.

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

honestly, instead of taking issue with whether or not a woman should be forced to reduce the number of babies she is carrying, they should focus on perhaps preventing the situation to begin with, by limiting IVF transfers to a maximum of 3 embryos transferred. This would eliminate the need for the debate completely.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I think the AMA should adopt standards, but not press for legal regulations. Ultimately, it should be a choice between a woman and her OB/GYN how many embryos should be implanted.

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

I don't agree. Because I think abortion is wrong, I think it is wrong to willfully cause a woman to become impregnated with more embryos than she can/should safely carry. The practice of transferring too many embryos and then reducing after the fact is no different than aborting a baby for convenience. It is ending the life of a fetus with a beating heart.

If any of those kids end up with developmental or health issues, they should sue the doctor. His negligence (in placing 8 or more embryos inside this woman) is why this woman had a litter of babies. Maybe once doctors start getting sued for this kind of thing, doctors will stop doing it.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I think it'd only be unethical if the woman was not informed of the risks to the procedure or was mislead as to how many embryos with which she was being implanted. I have no problem with the American Medical Association adopting a standard of ethics with regard to this kind of procedure, but it isn't necessary for it to become a federal law, because as this case proves, NO ONE can ever tell how many children any one particular woman can carry and delivery safely.

Also, please remember that as the article pointed out, about 5% of embryos split after implantation, so that a woman can be implanted with only 2 embryos and still have quadruplets or more, and quadruplets, quintuplets and sextuplets have been conceived naturally, so regulating the procedure wouldn't end the debate at all.

I also do not see 8 children as a "litter" and find that description very dehumanizing, as it's a term normally reserved for dogs.

[moviequeen985.livejournal.com]

For the good of society. By that logic, we should kill off babies on the off chance they're going to be serial killers.
Also, how often do women get pregnant with multiple babies? I mean, up to 8, like that woman. Seriously. If she was healthy and the children were healthy, what is the big deal?

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Oh, this is rich:
But [George] said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy.

Because the result isn't a baby (or more than one baby!) that's just as dead as the dead baby in a "traditional" abortion? The goal is exactly the same! They might couch it in "noble" terms, but they're still ripping a healthy baby out of a woman's uterus for the sake of convenience, most of the time. What is the matter with these people?

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

I don't know about this particular doctor, but I worked for a surgeon and every procedure even for a cyst removal requires a consent form. Whether the patient chooses to read it or not is up to the patient. Most of the patients that I dealt with didn't read the consent forms. Most likely the consent form covers the doctor for any "negligence".

From what I understand with this type of procedure they place a number of embryos because often times they don't implant and continue to grow. The cost of these procedures, that are often not covered by insurance, cause the patient wanting to get pregnant as a result. So, the doctors implant more than one embryo.

The article also stated that she was on fertility treatments which can cause multiple births by itself. It's possible that embryos were implanted and due to the fertility treatments she ovulated multiple eggs which were also fertilized which in combination led to the 8 babies. A combination of very rare circumstances that can happen.

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

Whatever happened to "freedom of CHOICE"?

It hasn't changed it's freedom to make the choice they want you to make which is no freedom or choice at all.

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

The problem is that fertility doctors often say "let's put X number in and hope that one or two stick" I know this because I have been through two IVF cycles myself. Any doctor willing to put more than 3 embryos into a young woman is negligent.

Limiting a transfer to 3 embryos could *technically* result in 6 babies, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it, since ONLY 4 to 5 percent will split, and you're assuming that all 6 would implant. In terms of fertility, one in 50 babies has a twin, so less than half of those extra embryos tend to implant in real life. Really, you're talking about the least possible scenario, and that still doesn't equal EIGHT babies.

Mind you, there are still plenty of women who ovulate multiple eggs, sometimes naturally and sometimes with the help of drugs like clomid. Obviously, nothing can be done to control how many babies these women get pregnant with, however in situations where the embryos are artificially created, I stand by my opinion that transferring more than 3 is negligent.

I do see 8 babies as a litter. It is a term used for any mammal which has multiple babies, from rabbits and pigs to dogs and cats. I'm sorry you find it offensive that I consider humans to be mammals.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

No one here has disagreed with you that implanting 8 embryos is unethical and negligent, only that it shouldn't be made law, so that's all a big straw man. I personally also think performing 237429357 plastic surgeries on an individual who has obvious psychological issues is unethical; however, I don't think there should be laws limiting how much cosmetic surgery a person gets, either.

I do consider it offensive to imply that the value of the infants of humans and dogs are interchangeable, not to mention lacking in basic self-preservation instincts.

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

I've been through IVF cycles myself and would NEVER agree to more than 3 embryos because of my belief on abortion. The doctors I worked with also would never have trasferred more than 3 embryos because doing so is irresponsible.

The news report I saw said she had IVF. I don't buy the arguement that the procedure's expense is reason to transfer more embryos because raising all those extra babies (not to mention their medical costs if they have developmental issues, and the donated breastmilk they are getting at $3-5/oz) costs a heck of a lot more than another IVF transfer would. If the mother knew she was against reducing the number of babies, she should never have allowed that many embryos to be transferred.

[cakemaven.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't like having tons of laws. I prefer small government with minimal involvement in individuals' lives. While I'm not sure it should be a law, I think the doctors should be able to be found civilly liable for harm done to the children as a result of being born as part of a high-order multiple pregnancy.

In referring to the birth of 8 babies as a litter, I didn't mean to imply that the value of their lives was = to dogs. It's just much easier to call it a litter than it is to type "born of a high-order multiple pregnancy"

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I understand both your points a lot better now, thank you :) Good luck with the IVF treatments; I know those can be very stressful, both emotionally and physically.

[mockingbird39.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on all of that, particularly concerning selective abortions, which I find especially aborrent. Additionally, multiples are far more likely to be born premature, which puts them at greater risk for life-long pysical and mental disabilities. I can't imagine why a doctor or a mother would gamble with a child's health like that.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

I agree that implanting 8 embryos is clearly unethical and negligent, not to mention irresponsible. But we don't know what happened here, if the woman ovulated and became pregnant with even more, if the embryos she had implanted all split, we just don't know. Implanting 8 embryos is clearly an irresponsible gamble; but once they're there, and viable and growing, whether keeping them is also an irresponsible gamble is, IMHO, a lot less clear. (I hope that made sense.)

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one who thought CNN's tone slanted in favor of the practice? They talk about how the experts are split but both experts were in favor of reducing the number of babies the woman is carrying. One doctor supported the mother's decision even though he disagreed with it, the other didn't believe the mother should have been able to make the decision.

Way to show both sides of the issue, CNN. /sarcasm

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

Her mother told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday that the woman had received fertility treatment and that she had embryos implanted last year. from hyperlinked article

Since you stated that you had the option to agree on the number of embryos implanted. Is this a case of an overzealous doctor or a mother who chose not to exercise her rights?

[shezan.livejournal.com]

One of my friends is a twin whose sister died (of natural causes) at birth. All her life she has missed that "phantom" sister. I can't BEGIN to imagine the sense of loss and the survivor's guilt of children whose siblings were aborted. Are these people MAD?

... and being usually pro-choice, I can't even express in polite terms what I think of those KGB types who believe they can think in place of a pregnant woman.

These people are nasty, fascistic ideologues and I want them FAR AWAY from my uterus.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Since everyone covered everything, I'll leave only two people you should read up on.

1. EnterStageRight.com's Michael Moriarty. He's a former "Law & Order" actor, now writing conservative ish essays. He often writes on the Progressives' embrace of death. It will serve you well, although, his earlier works are more... verbose compared to recent times. Still, I highly recommend.

2. Ann Coulter's Godless. She documents on how the liberals want to de-humanize the Traditional family. I think Laura Ingraham's Power to the People also addresses it, but I'm not sure.

Now, why they want to promote such instability, as a caller asked Bill O'Reilly a month ago, I wish I knew. He didn't know, either. Beyond the liberal "never responsibility for anything," I suppose.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I wonder if they were doing both, and the implanted embryos all took and she spat out multiple eggs that were then fertilized and implanted...

[pastygothchick.livejournal.com]

"Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg includes a section on abortion and eugenics. It recounts the history of enforced sterilization in the United States.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, you're right -- I so need to read it. I know Moriarty referenced it several times, so I can't lose, either way.