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

[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.

[snackbreak.livejournal.com]

If the doctors should be able to be found civilly liable, then shouldn't the parents as well? They likely agreed to do this and signed plenty of documents saying exactly that - as long as everything was explained to them, they're just as at fault.

I guess the problem is, the parents probably can't afford a lawsuit on top of everything else... and who would be suing them - their kids? the state?