For those complaining about the woman having the children you believe she can not provide for and

[RB TexLa]

will require tax dollars, what problem do you have with the sterilization of recipients of government aid? None, right, I mean after a screening process where a doctor determines if they will be able to get off welfare and provide for children on their own or not.

[flvegan]

1. Oh yeah, this will go well.

:popcorn:

[tosh]

2. Yep, I can't decide....

:popcorn:

or

:hide:

[suede1]

20. Yes, it should.

Don't know the popcorn icon.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. Lots of people here are Fristing, as Chovexani pointed out.

We know very little about this woman but people are willing to make all sorts of wild assumptions.

[KittyWampus]

19. We know for a fact that implanting eight embryos is unethical and against medical standards

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Yes, but we don't know who did it or where it was done.

According to news reports, the mother was three months pregnant when she first showed up at Kaiser. So, not having a doctor to pick on, everybody is picking on the mother for daring to want a seventh child. There's no evidence she wanted octuplets. There's no evidence she and her parents cannot care for the children. The rush to judgement is troubling.

[ferrous wheel]

4. Not so much if -she- can provide for...it's who will end up doing it.

...

[KT2000]

5. Lots of hypocisy

to go around.
If a person does not have health insurance, they are legally denied medical care until they are in a life and death crisis. Even then - the law only requires they be stabilized, not treated for underlying illness.
Med. insurance affects level of care. You go to the dr with lousy insurance and you will not receive the same level of care as someone with good insurance.

I certainly do question using fertility treatments for someone who already has 6 kids but this is America. She must have been able to pay for the procedure. That is what really matters. :sarcasm:

[Orrex]

6. We should sterilize or kill outright all women of breeding age

Every last one of those uterus-toting baby mills should be done away with.



Is that the kind of answer you were hoping for?

[LoZoccolo]

7. I think there have been people here who have advocated that. n/t

[Oregone]

8. Wow. An issue that is fodder for both the left and the right wing!!!!

Left: Regulate fertility clinics and nanny down on the women!

Right: Welfare queens like this just steal money out of my pockets!

This is great. I hope Larry King has her on.

[Oregone]

9. Mandatory abortion for all welfare queens and CEOs

Thats how to be PRO-abortion and ANTI-reproductive rights. Bill Frist's head is spinning in circles.

[Sisaruus]

10. Back in the 70s

Sterilization used to happen to low-income, urban women often without their knowledge and consent (as routine post-delivery obstetrical care) back in the 70s. At the same time, as an economically-comfortable middle-class white suburban woman in my 20s, I could not be voluntarily sterilized because I only had two children.

People passing judgment on these very personal decisions of others makes me very uncomfortable - maybe because I so clearly remember having others make those decisions for me.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. Ah, but you come from a false asshole premise.

That to be outraged over that woman's utterly irresponsible decision and act is, somehow, to be in favor of sterilization of people who receive government funds.

Only in a clouded, bigoted, and ludicrously ignorant mind would those two ideas seem to be natural consequences of the other.

[Fleshdancer]

13. I agree

Criticizing the actions of another citizen does not equate to wanting government to control our bodies.

[aquart]

15. So true. And so very common.

[20score]

23. Good on you for that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Or maybe just showing how absurd some of the arguments about the other case are.

[NYC_SKP]

12. We should pay for all the babies everyone has. Forever. And, we should pay more..

...to women who have more babies!

It could be a competition, like a reality TV show thing!!!

Oh, wait, we already do those things.

Oh, never mind.

:popcorn:

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. Yes! And keep ramping up the tax penalties for the childless!

[NYC_SKP]

26. That would be me.

I don't mind paying taxes toward a school system in which I have no children, if feel it's my duty toward a better society.

Somewhere, however, I would think a line could be drawn. :shrug:

[aquart]

14. Sorry, but that woman needs mental health care, not more children.

And a doctor who gives fertility treatments to a woman with SIX children needs to have his license revoked and bill sent to him for the medical care for those implanted embryos.

There is something very sick in that woman's family and NOBODY bothered to treat so spare me your ridiculous sterilization lectures. Clearly, this very ill woman was not sterilized.

[crimsonblue]

16. sterilization violates a basic human right.

Child birth is a fundamental right, and no person, nor government, has the right to take that away. Only a person can choose. Sterilization is completely anethema to Pro-Choice ideology.

[jljamison]

22. legality vs ethics vs judgment

I don't believe a doctor may consider marital status or economic situation when deciding when a procedure is medically indicated, or when a patient wants an elective procedure performed.

A doctor may refuse to perform an elective procedure if the patient cannot pay for it.

So here you have it - any woman, married or single, can ask a doctor to perform IVF. The doctor may refuse if the patient is not medically fit or if the patient cannot pay.

The next decision point involves the egg retrieval - how many are retrieved and how many are fertilized. I don't believe the doctor can refuse a patients request to fertilize as many as are retrieved, assuming they are viable.

After fertilization, the next major decision point involving the doctor and patient ethics occurs if and when the embryos are ready for implantation. The doctor and patient then decide how many of the embryos to implant.

I don't know whether there are guidelines that dictate the doctors options here. I suspect at the end of the day, the patient can tell the doctor to implant as many as she wants. They are "hers" after all, and it is her body. So if there are 8 embryos available and she wants all 8 implanted, I don't think the doctor can refuse and say for example, no I will only implant 2 or 3. Nor do I think the doctor could say "I will only implant 2 because you already have 6 kids" for example.

There is no linkage between electing to have and pay for IVF and being able to pay for the eventual childbirth and neonatal care, if required. The reality is that these 8 newborns will be in neonatal intensive care for some time, and people let me tell you - that is big bucks. And I doubt there is any ability for any hospital to deny childbirth or neonatal services when medically required, not that we would want that.

So it really boils down to this woman's choices - to pay for the elective IVF but then have the children and all associated delivery and neonatal costs paid for by someone else (assuming she doesn't have the money). The fact that she had 6 kids does not factor into any limiatation on her rights, but comes down to her judgment.

[crimsonblue]

24. ok.... this isn't at all related to my reply... but whatever

I was just stating the the Government has no right to remove reproduction rights from any man or woman.

[Booster]

18. I think there are parts of this story that we haven't heard yet.

Today I heard the woman worked for a fertility clinic - haven't checked it out so don't know if it's true, but if it is....well, hmmmmmmm...Now, why would Kaiser Permante take her in as a patient? If my gall bladder goes on the fritz, can I just walk into Kaiser and ask them to fix it? Don't think so....another thing that makes me go hmmmmmmm...did Kaiser see the potential "feelgood" story of the week which might take the place of their other story - the employee who was allegedly told by a Kaiser boss that he should "blow his brains out". I'm waiting til all the information if out there before I decide what I think of this case.

[rvablue]

25. Good catch... hadn't realized Kaiser was the employer in that murder-suicide story n/t

[Rage for Order]

29. I don't think that's the case

"did Kaiser see the potential "feelgood" story of the week which might take the place of their other story - the employee who was allegedly told by a Kaiser boss that he should "blow his brains out"."

The lady had been in the hospital for about 7 weeks prior to delivering the babies, so unless Kaiser knew the guy was going to commit the murder-suicide about 5 weeks before it happened, I'm thinking your theory may be flawed.

[Booster]

32. I think the other case was ongoing for some time.

The employee and his wife had apparently committed fraud and that's the reason Kaiser fired him. Can I just walk into Kaiser and ask for treatment? I really don't think so. I have insurance and have to show all kinds of ID when checking into the hospital. I've never tried just walking into Kaiser, but I have a feeling they would treat me the same as every other hospital I've been to.

[Rage for Order]

27. Apparently she's little more than a "welfare queen"

The irony would be funny if it weren't so sad

[Horse with no Name]

28. I don't have a problem with the woman

I have a problem with the healthcare provider playing God.
He was unethical in his practice.
FWIW--to be fair--I also disprove of back alley abortions which IS the antithesis of this back-alley fertilization and both involve desperate women. That is the REASON that both are regulated so as not to exist as an option...or as I like to call it..."CHOICE".
The healthcare provider overstepped his bounds.
So there.

[MineralMan]

30. Well, since the OP hasn't bothered to revisit his thread,

I think I'll not take the bait.

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. It always speaks volumes when OPs never bother to come back to a thread.