The news has been abuzz with the news of the newly born octuplets to the point where I’m sure no one here has missed it. Just yesterday, the new mother’s mother said to the press that her daughter already has 6 kids at home, now making her total 14. Fourteen kids, all under 7. The mom lives with her parents and dad (ie: grandpa) is going to work as a contractor in Iraq to help pay for the new family. No mention of a father or fathers of the 14. A little over a year and a half ago, mom filed bankruptcy and lost a house. Grandma and Grandpa’s house appears to be a 2-3 bedroom home.
Grandma also said that her daughter was receiving “fertility treatments” and while that can mean any number of things (though grandma did say mom had embroys implanted), it begs an interesting question that I thought of over in this thread: how ethical is it for a doctor to do fertility treatments on a woman who already has 6 kids?
The primary concern that obviously jumps out from that question is: where’s the cut off? How does a doctor determine when. . . well, too many?
Agreed. And, while I’m not a medical professional in the least and I certainly don’t know what their specific ethical standards entail, I’ve personally always taken “ethical” to have a moral component into it. IE: you do what’s right and- based on social normals, at least- good.
Knowing this woman effectively has no home, no credit, and 6 kids already, how is right to intentionally implant 8 embryos in her? Even if she did have all the money in the world, no one (particularly a single mother, if that’s what she is) has the time in a single day to afford each of those kids the attention they need to be successful. It’s just amazing to me.
I realize there’s no straight standard of morality and I realize that I’m being judgmental, but good lord.
And I suppose that’s why I’m posting this thread. I’m curious about other views on this topic, because- while I’m generally a gray area sort of girl- my mind is just flatly made up on this one right out the gate.
I’m starting to suspect that the mom is crazy as a bedbug and lied like a cheap rug to get the IVF treatments. There’s simply no way she’s normal in the head–just having six kids under seven is bad enough without throwing a whole 'nother litter into the mix. I think the world would be best served if her uterus were to fall out on the floor one day. Shit, the thing would probably start slithering its way out the door in panic rather than take the risk of being subjected to yet another bout of mindless breeding.
Good question. In the first article, Kaiser says she came into them, already 3 months pregnant. So, that says to me it wasn’t her insurance (unless she has double insurance or some such).
I certainly think it is nutty, but to what extent is it a physican’s business to tell a patient they shouldn’t have any more kids for non-medical reasons, such as that she is too poor to support them?
I don’t think it’s all that ethical. That doesn’t sound very fair to the kids involved at all. I guess the argument would be that the doctors involved are not to judge her and are only to give her the help she asks for, but what she’s done isn’t right.
I can say with certainty that I would not have made the same choice as that woman did. However, I’m not comfortable with the idea that I have the right to an opinion about how many children someone (anyone) else can have.
Any policy we could come up with to limit her fertility will also affect the choices of other women who we might not think so obviously unfit for parenthood. That’s a line I don’t want to go down, and that’s why I believe that every woman should have sole control over when she does or doesn’t have kids.
However, everyone doesn’t have the right to fertility treatments. The question of who paid for it is essential. If she paid it herself, then more power to her. If an insurance company did, then that’s their business.
My question to the room: if what she did was in fact unethical, what is the remedy?
How much concern, in your opinion, should the doctor/clinic have over the potential health and well being of the children that are the result of the procedure? Does the doctors hypocratic oath extend down to them? Should he ignore them?
It’s up to the doctor, and I believe they have discretion to not treat patients if they feel the treatment is inappropriate. I cannot imagine why this doctor decided to treat this woman in this way and won’t defend it.
Of course it is unethical. Or at least immoral. I get those confused a lot.
But I don’t think there needs to be a solution. People fuck up sometimes. It isn’t the doctor’s fault (or at least, he shouldn’t be blamed). It is the mother’s fault, but that is no reason to place a limit on the number of children another mother is allowed to have. Frankly, I think 14 kids is punishment enough.
And it seems it was her family that lost their home, because they bought her the one everyone is living in. So, that’s a little different than what was being reported before:
I noticed that neither of the articles mentioned the birth weight of the babies. Is there any chance that any of them will survive without developmental disabilities? There was a single unemployed mom in town who had quadruplets several years ago. She’d tool around town with a quadruple baby carriage and was a minor celebrity. I found the whole thing pretty disturbing and and haven’t seen her in years.
Exactly. The idea of making policy about this is what I’m not comfortable with.
I agree that voluntarily becoming a single parent of fourteen children under ten years old seems absolutely batshit insane, but I don’t like the idea of setting arbitrary rules about who can and who can’t have fertility treatments, based only on their current family size and/or socioeconomic circumstances.
Suppose a woman knew several infertile couples who were desperate to adopt children, and wanted to give birth to children for them to adopt? Wouldn’t that be an acceptably ethical motive for having fertility treatments, even for a poor person who already had several children of her own?
In short, I think the rule for IVF should be like the rule for abortion: prior to the arbitrary cutoff based more or less on the point of fetal viability, the choice about whether to be pregnant or not pregnant, and what to do about it, is a private matter between the woman and her doctor.
After that cutoff point, then the government has a stake in protecting the life of the new individual(s), and may make rules to that effect. So if this family ends up being unable to cope with their fourteen kids and they suffer neglect, then yup, the government (via its agents in Child Protective Services) is entitled to step in and make decisions for the kids.
But the government has no business deciding whether the pregnancy should happen in the first place.
I suppose I should say that I’m coming from this in a bit more of a theoretical perspective. I’m not suggesting that we should mandate some new policy against a woman’s right to choose, but rather am questioning the theoretical, moral implication of such a decision.
While I suppose the “ethical” discussion might lead to the logical conclusion that an UNethical doctor should face punishment, I don’t know if that’s necessarily the case. I mean, at least if you talk about ethics a little more generally. There are plenty of things that are maybe legal, but still viewed as not a totally moral/right/whatever choice.