I haven’t seen anything mentioned here on the board about a situation playing out here in Australia at the moment, but if I am flogging a dead dingo, then I’m sure someone will be along to enlighten me soon.
A couple with a two year old child were recieving fertility treatment, and as a result, the woman gave birth to quadruplets 10 months ago.
Fine. Multiple births are a relatively common side effect of such treatments. I don’t have a problem, per se, with that.
However, the couple apparently sought further treatment when the quads were only 7 months old, because the woman is now three months pregnant…with another set of quads. :eek:
Medical astonishment aside (it IS an incredibly rare occurence), who in their right fucking mind would go back for help to have another baby when they already have five babies who need pretty constant care? And what was the freakin’ Doctor who authorized such treatment thinking?
Geez, the first quads were born extremely prematurely (and the long-term effects of that haven’t been found out yet) and this stupid couple are at it again to bring another four babies into this world with probable disabilites, let alone the social, emotional and financial problems that will ensue.
The couple’s justification was that they wanted a big family for religious reasons. :rolleyes:
If someone can find me a link that doesn’t need registration (like the Sydney Morning Herald etc), I’d be eternally grateful. I’d offer to have your baby, but I’m too old and the world has enough it seems.
Not proof, just my compilation of humorous anecdotes. But the reasons I think of it that way:
*What kind of god would give these people five kids, and then curse those five kids with five more siblings?
*If there’s any kind of divine plan, if this is involved it’s even more muddled than a Season Eight X Files story arc.
I’m not entirely sure what happened here, as the news stories aren’t exactly big on detail.
They definitely used donor sperm, but it’s not clear if they used IVF or IUI with ovulation induction.
If the latter, then there is really no way of predicting how many foetuses will result, certainly another set of quads is a very rare occurrence. It took them 18 months to get pregnant last time, apparently, which is why they started trying so early. That makes perfect sense to me, if they don’t feel their family is complete.
If it was IVF, then the maximum recommended number of embryos to be implanted is limited to 2 or 3 in many countries, and it really is the doctor’s fault for putting back 4.
It’s probably ust bad luck and timing, not really preventable, and since we don’t limit the number of children that fertile couples can conceive, it would be morally suspect to do so for infertile couples. If this was a singelton pregnancy (even using fertility drugs, this is the most common outcome of successful treatment) they’d have had 6 kids, which is a large family, but certainly not unknown.
I hope no one is advocating foetal reduction in multiple pregnancy if it is against the wishes of the parents…sort of anti-choice, wouldn’t you say.
I’M advocating NO fertility treatment at all for couples who have just recently given birth to quadruplets, reduction aside. When a couple have five children under the age of 3, there is no reason for fertility treatment IMHO.
And I have further qualms about the religious justifications for their errant irresponsibility. I know of NO religion or sect who advocates the use of artificial fertility procedures to increase family size…anyone care to enlighten me here??
The government gives a $3000 payment for every child born. I hope they can really stretch that $12000 out because quads can’t be cheap to raise. I certainly hope they aren’t motivated by the lump sum payment.
In my experience (having a few disabled distant cousins that are now adults) the costs of having a disabled child far outlast the period in time where the parents are responsible for their welfare. Both my cousins now live in group homes that are taxpayer funded. Their parents are still alive, but are at an age where caring for them is pretty much impossible.
Not that this makes their lives not worth living. This is one of the places that (in my opinion) I am happy to see my tax dollars go. Both women are lovely people who just happen to be emotionally and intellectually children. But it does make me question choosing to concieve children where there is significant risk those children will be disabled.
(I also have a distant cousin that was disabled as a young man, and his parents were fairly well off. They’ve scrimped and lowered their lifestyle significantly to provide him a trust that will maintain him in an excellent private facility for his expected lifespan. Its been a sacrifice, but they feel particularly fortunate to have had the resources to be able to do this).
