<p>I don’t agree with the Duggars’ choice, but all their children were full-term. They were all singletons, except for one or two sets of twins. And I don’t believe there are any disabilities in the Duggars’ children. That makes a tremendous difference in terms of taking care of them.</p>
<p>Transferring 7 embryos from donor eggs into a 49-year-old woman?? The chances of pregnancy (and multiple pregnancy) are determined by the age of the eggs, not the age of the uterus. The chances of complications in pregnancy are determined by the age of the pregnant woman. </p>
<p>I hope this doctor has a lot of money, or good malpractice insurance. And I hope that some enterprising lawyers are calling Suleman and the 49-yo mother of quads.</p>
<p>Can physicians practice bare in California, esp one who holds no hospital privileges? My guess, there is no professional liability policy. Just a guess.</p>
<p>There needs to be an emergency meeting of the California medical licensing board. After reviewing the CDC 2005 report where he was listed as not providing required data, after the info on the little data available for 2006, the last year CDC has available (all data public and links already posted on this thread), after the review of his listing where he names hinself as Medical Director, Lab Director etc etc,holding all the offices and titles, and after the public info on the embryologist who left his clinic, the red flags are waving 1000X now.</p>
<p>We have a single woman in our town who has raised more than 20 children, but she has adopted kids who were hard to place and done it over a 15-20 year time period. And she had some money from her parents and worked part time. The kids helped to take care of each other and everyone in our town reveres this woman. A very different way to have a large family.</p>
<p>Could he have been doing all IVF procedures on an outpatient basis? Surely the egg retrieval would have to be done in a hospital, as it involves anesthesia. Didn’t he have hospital privileges somewhere?</p>
<p>Many IVF clinics now have it set up to do egg retrieval and then embryo transfer in the clinic. They usually have a CRNA or anesthesiologist who administers the necessary conscious sedation. It is set up with a room much like one at a plastic surgery office where anesthesia can be administered under the right supervision.</p>
<p>
Lovely. Lactation station. Maybe we should revive the breast milk ice cream thread. We could use a little levity and that thread was a hoot.
gladmom-
IVF is an elective procedure. I seriously doubt, given the publicity that this case has gotten, that any physician would agree to proceed with her.</p>
<p>
Whoa. They were peeved that they lost the Hudson River airline pilot scoop, so I guess they went after this. Yuck. The State of Calif. and/or Kaiser (did someone say she didn’t have Kaiser insurance but showed up at their facility? Is this true? I have not heard that…) anyway, they should put a lien on a her assets from these tv spots. Yes, the babies need $$ for adequate care, but I wouldn’t put this mom in charge of those finances. Perhaps it is time for a trust or gardian ad litem for the kids so the money and the kids welfare get addressed appropriately.</p>
<p>Maybe someone will make a film about this family. I hope the call it “Womb with a view”.</p>
<p>“Womb with a view” is very funny. </p>
<p>My sister-in-law is a gardian ad litem and that was just what I was thinking that should be assigned to this case.</p>
<p>Northstarmom, regarding the death threats, I heard on our news (L.A.) early this morning that the police were unaware of any death threats against Nadya. It seems that the publicists were “busy with other things”, and hadn’t yet gotten around to reporting the threats to the police.</p>
<p>Call me cynical, but I wonder if they made up the death threats in an effort to garner some sympathy.</p>
<p>Oh … and as for her diagnosis-- probably PTSD – Post Truncal Stretchmark Disorder</p>
<p>Nobody who advocates for a woman’s “right to choose” could possibly object to this woman’s behavior. If you do, it just goes to show that the right to choose when it comes to reproductive issues should not be absolute. The life of the unborn child must outweigh a woman’s right to choose. It’s not a choice, it’s a life. And now this is proof positive x8. Actually, x14. She should have been stopped and abortions should be as well.</p>
<p>I am pro-choice, but believe that the life of the child is precious. As most people are with this issue, I am conflicted. In this situation, if it were me, I would have opted for selective reduction. (Of course, I wouldn’t have gone in for another in-vitro, but that is beside the point.) What is more important? Eight babies who may all die, as well as mom? Or removing a few to improve her chances and increase the babies odds? We may not agree with this issue, but making 6 children orphans seems to be a bad idea, in my book. The risk of a ruptured uterus would have made this a highly likely reality. This was a Sophie’s choice type of decision, with few winners, in the end. </p>
<p>What Nadya Suleman and her doctor did was not acceptable, and Frankenstein-like. She put each of those lives at risk, including her own, for her own selfish and slightly mentally disturbed notion of parenting. </p>
<p>It goes against medical ethics to implant more than two embyros because, as I have heard often enough recently, having a twin or triplet or more pregnancy with in vitro is called a failure because of the risk factors to mom and babies.</p>
<p>Any of us who are parents knows how complicated it is to raise one child - but to intentionally set out to create an army of children without financial resources is both irresponsible and a whackjob. There is no way that one person could raise so many infants without a boatload of volunteers - and this need won’t go away in a year or two. No one person could work full time and take care of so many children on her own. She will need assistance, both with volunteers to physically help with the feeding, bathing, dressing and routine baby maintenance…and that is just the next two years.</p>
<p>I think it is the woman’s choice to ultimately decide. But in this situation, the effects aren’t just affecting this woman and her baby. They are affecting taxpayers, friends, families, complete strangers and those babies - many of which may end up with profound physical and developmental delays. Getting through the baby years are just the start. </p>
<p>This ride will last a long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This guy is insane! He needs to be prohibited from practicing what he is doing - he is endangering human lives. Disgusting!</p>
<p>I find it interesting that the pro-choicers here and everywhere are the ones with the most to say about this issue. There is no way to logically be pro-choice and anti-Nadya. The only path to take that argument down is distinguishing between the life of an embryo and that of a fetus, which in the end validates the pro-life stance that a fetus deserves rights (because you would have to extend them to both sets in a pro-choice stance). This all comes down to selfishness, plain and simple. She thought selfishly of her own desires, and one who seeks abortions selfishly places her own interests before the life of an unborn child. Unlimited access to abortions directly impacts taxpayers, families and everyone else just as Nadya’s actions have, so that also is an invalid argument form. Not to mention that it damages the soul and many women require a lifetime of counseling in an abortion’s wake. Again, none of these actions are about choice. They are about potential lives.</p>
<p>I really, REALLY hope this thread will not be redirected in to a debate about choice. That is not the focus of this thread. That discussion belongs elsewhere, IMO.</p>
<p>I do not know if IVF treatment includes psychological screening to see if a candidate is appropriate for the procedure (the way bariatric surgery and some other procedures do). Perhaps the case of Nadya Suleman suggests that psychological screening should be a part of this process</p>
<p>Many doctors that have been interviewed all say she should have been through screening, and that is common practice to do so, however, maybe that is why she chose this doc…could it be he was the only onw willing to take her as a patient?</p>
<p>If her church is so supportive, why wasn’t it helping her mom take care of her 6 kids --including the autistic child and 2 other special needs kids – under 8 for 6 weeks? The grandmom looks worn out.</p>
<p>I wonder if we will learn that other doctors refused to treat her as an IVF patient. Of course, it would not be appropriate or legal for any doctor to come forward with that information.</p>
<p>^^^ VH, Have to wonder if she’d be truthful about that if a reporter asked her that question.</p>
<p>As an aside, My deepest sympathies to the families of the Buffalo plane crash-- but perhaps it is time, with other events occurring, for Nadya’s family to move to page 2 of the news.</p>
<p>"
Earlier this week, RadarOnline, the reborn Web-only edition of the celebrity magazine that folded last fall, landed quite an exclusive: an interview with Angela Suleman, who castigated her daughter, Nadya, for giving birth to octuplets without having the means to care for all her children. The interview, which was posted on RadarOnline on Sunday night, was picked up by ABC’s “Good Morning America,” which paid what the network said was a “nominal fee” to license the footage.</p>
<p>Paying such licensing fees for photos and videos is a common practice among morning news programs, which use them to skirt news division policies that prohibit paying for interviews. But now it appears that ABC may have paid to license an interview that was purchased outright.</p>
<p>According to Joann Killeen, Nadya Suleman’s publicist, RadarOnline gave Angela Suleman $40,000 for the exclusive.</p>
<p>“I had to put a gag on Nadya’s mother, who sold her out to RadarOnline,” she told LA Weekly. “They paid her $40,000 to sell [Nadya] out, and she can’t talk about her daughter for three months.”
[RadarOnline</a> reportedly paid $40,000 to talk to octuplet grandma | Show Tracker | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>RadarOnline reportedly paid $40,000 to talk to octuplet grandma)</p>