Meghan Daum at The LATimes and I are in agreement: Implanting eight embryos in a possibly deranged woman who already has six children, no husband and no visible means of support is MALPRACTICE.
Adventures at Midlife
msmeta’s musings on the meaning of life at middle age — and beyond.
About me
I, msmeta, am a middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow writer, reader, wife and mother languishing in a dusty corner of the Great American West. I have spent several years lurking online, but I'm ready to join the conversation. I just hope I have something to say. I'm particularly interested in issues facing women at midlife. Look for posts on books, American culture, middle age, thrift shops, shoes, family, politics, religion and maybe even the occasional rant if I'm irritated enough.
Thanks for stopping by!
-
-
-
-
February 2, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I agree as well. The whole story is appalling!
~*
February 2, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Wouldn’t happen in the UK. Guidelines say doctors should not implant more than two embryos and wherever possible they should only implant one.
But even so, now that they are here, I am glad all the babies are doing okay at last report.
February 2, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I was APPALLED when all of the details came out. I still am, as a matter of fact.
February 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I’m appalled, too, and while I also am happy the babies are doing well, I am UNCOMFORTABLE at the thought of them going home with that crazy woman!
February 2, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I guess what appalls me, Ms. Meta, is that this was allowed to go on for as long as it did. This young woman, who apparently has no problem conceiving, was allowed to abuse a procedure designed to help the truly infertile because she is “obsessed with having babies.” This was what, her fifth pregnancy via IVF?
And you’re right – she is obviously unbalanced, but even if she weren’t, she still has no husband and no other means of support other than her parents who are reportedly having financial difficulties. Let’s face it – she would not be allowed to adopt.
I suppose if she really wants to be the welfare mother of 14 kids that’s her business, but by golly, let her do it the old-fashioned way – 1 kid and 1 father at a time.
February 2, 2009 at 3:18 pm
And, Jan, WHO is going to pay for her and her ill-gotten brood? We are, of course. Certainly not the fertility clinic.
February 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Jan, you are a Libertarian. Would you make a law against this?
In the UK we have a Human Embryology and Fertility Commission that effectively makes rules. I often disagree with them — I think they are intrusions in people’s private, medical matters. For instance, they get to rule on whether a family with a child with a life threatening disease can or cannot have IVF that would screen for an embryo that would be a donor for blood cells that would help treat that disease.
Or a family who had 5 sons and lost a daughter in a tragic accident could have IVF screening for a girl…
Okay, I have problems with the free for all that is apparently going on in the US — or we wouldn’t have this case. But I also have problems with a Commission playing God. If the technology is available, the real question is, who chooses who gets it — the government? the doctors? the individual?
In this case it was the individual. Probably bad in this case. But do you really want to hand the powers to the doctors or the government?
February 2, 2009 at 3:37 pm
No, Duchess, I would NOT make a law against it – but I wouldn’t have had a problem with someone asking her, “How are you going to pay for this procedure? How are you going to raise 8 (to say nothing of 14) children? Oh, you don’t know? Well, let me know when you do and we’ll talk.”
Like I said, she wouldn’t have been allowed to adopt.
You can’t legislate criminal stupidity but you certainly don’t have to be party to it.