IVF and multiples. Is it right?

[Mrs Bucket]

I am not talkin' about money to pay for expense unless, if you are talkin' about other thread that was created by other OP. I am talkin' about general to this OP's thread. If, a woman conceives many babies at one time and have a problem with health -- doctor can help to save them. We have an advanced technology to take care of that.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't mind how many embryos a woman can conceive as long as her health is strong enough with no ill.

Earth to Maria, earth to Maria.

There was a doctor helping a woman conceive 8 babies & it was illegal and immoral.

The physical body is not truly capable of carrying 8 babies to full term.

All 8 babies weighed less than 2 lbs and they still are at the hospital receiving medical care.

Advanced technology is taking care of the 8 babies all because of a foolish mother's obsession with babies.

We need to stop this!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I am not talkin' about money to pay for expense unless, if you are talkin' about other thread that was created by other OP. I am talkin' about general to this OP's thread. If, a woman conceives many babies at one time and have a problem with health -- doctor can help to save them. We have an advanced technology to take care of that.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't mind how many embryos a woman can conceive as long as her health is strong enough with no ill.

Again, Maria...

Not the point. She can't take care of the babies; ANY of them. She's on public assistance and she has a PR person trying to broker financial deals so she can afford caring for the children.

How is this fair? It isn't. The woman has poor decision making skills and the ones who are going to pay for it are the children she bore.

That's sad.

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

I agree.

I've seen many foster kids taken away from homes because their parents couldn't take care of them. I've seen mothers who have so many kids that those kids keep ending up in foster care. It's surprising those mothers didn't even stop. They just kept having more kids.

What's worse is that they keep having kids and the government gives them more money to support those kids. If they want kids, then they should be able to deal with it on their own.

This reminds me of my friend JT and her brother MT who were in the same children's home as I was in back in 1997. They were twins, so they stayed together. Anyway, their mother and her friend decided to have a "race" to see how many kids they can make, and, when one of them won, she would win the money, JT and MT's mother lost and she decided she didn't want the kids, so she turned them ALL over to the state. There were 9 kids. The friend had 12, I believe. I was :jaw: when JT and MT told me this. They felt so abandoned, and JT has Lupus, so I don't even know if she is still alive today. I don't know where MT is. It's been years.

Another girl I knew at the children's home was one of 17 kids, and she was the youngest, so her parents are in the mid to late 70s now. She's about my age or a bit older than me. ALL the kids ended up in foster care, I believe, due to child neglect. Last I heard, she has a house in Milwaukee and has two kids of her own and is working, and that was back in like 2000, so actually I have no idea what she is up to now.

Most of the kids at the children's home that I knew from back then, I have not kept in touch except for only one girl, and she has no kids of her own yet.

 

[jillio]

I am not talkin' about money to pay for expense unless, if you are talkin' about other thread that was created by other OP. I am talkin' about general to this OP's thread. If, a woman conceives many babies at one time and have a problem with health -- doctor can help to save them. We have an advanced technology to take care of that.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't mind how many embryos a woman can conceive as long as her health is strong enough with no ill.

The point is, Maria, that she did not conceive them. They were conceived in a petri dish in a laboratory, and then implanted into her uterus.

 

[dreama]

I am not for it at all, but I don't think it should be banned. I think it should be expensive as hell, which it is. But not as much as I'd like... maybe add 20% to give to foster care or something!

My friend works in a IVF clinic... it's a lucrative job for sure!

Yes, it is expensive but I heard some people on Medaid get it free. That can be stopped for a start.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Yes, it is expensive but I heard some people on Medaid get it free. That can be stopped for a start.

It should be. You should also know that not every state in the US pays for IVF treatments. I was actually shocked to learn that California medicaid did pay for it. That's NOT the norm.

 

[dreama]

This reminds me of my friend JT and her brother MT who were in the same children's home as I was in back in 1997. They were twins, so they stayed together. Anyway, their mother and her friend decided to have a "race" to see how many kids they can make, and, when one of them won, she would win the money, JT and MT's mother lost and she decided she didn't want the kids, so she turned them ALL over to the state. There were 9 kids. The friend had 12, I believe. I was :jaw: when JT and MT told me this. They felt so abandoned, and JT has Lupus, so I don't even know if she is still alive today. I don't know where MT is. It's been years.

That's sad.

It is right for all cats and dogs to be spayed/neutered because there is no way you can perswade them to use contraceptions.

I sometimes wonder about humans who act the same way. Maybe they could do with the snip also. Child abusers could anyway. I know this isn't a popular believe but there really isn't any other way to stop an iresponsible parent from having too many babies. If you just removed the child benifits, the child would just go hungry and I can't see that as really helping anybody.

 

[dreama]

It should be. You should also know that not every state in the US pays for IVF treatments. I was actually shocked to learn that California medicaid did pay for it. That's NOT the norm.

I agree. I'm glad most states don't pay the bill. I don't think any state should. They should only pay for neccessary proceedures that a person NEEDS due to ill health and not any added extras.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I agree. I'm glad most states don't pay the bill. I don't think any state should. They should only pay for neccessary proceedures that a person NEEDS due to ill health and not any added extras.

Totally agree with you ... Ofc, there ARE exceptions to rules. This has nothing to do with this topic, but a few years ago, I needed a surgery that was considered to be plastic surgery. I needed a muscle flap surgery to close a massive pressure wound on the back of my upper thigh. In this state, Medicaid would NOT pay for it because it's considered plastic surgery and therefore not medically necessary. In my case, I needed the surgery or I would have died.

I think any surgery or treatment deemed necessary to save someone's life, should be paid for. In this case, though, I have major issues. Even if this woman was infertile (which she wasn't), I have a problem with taxpayers paying for it. If you're not able to care for one child, why on Earth would you consider something like this?

It's INSANITY.

 

[Babyblue]

As for me, I don't mind as long as her health is strong enough with no ill. I would prefer to LET it take its course naturally until then, if anythin' goes bad, then this woman will find another option to take care of. We have an advanced technology nowsdays.

Let the course take naturally??? nothing natural about IVF.

It is all done by doctors and medical professionals.

so all of a sudden advance technology is O.K. with you??

I find that odd for someone that is against the other medical technologies that is out there for other purposes.

 

[dreama]

Let the course take naturally??? nothing natural about IVF.

It is all done by doctors and medical professionals.

so all of a sudden advance technology is O.K. with you??

I find that odd for someone that is against the other medical technologies that is out there for other purposes.

I don't agree with Maria. However, she's entitled to her views.

As for my own views on this the reason I'm against implanting too many embryo's is because it leads to too many dead babies. When things don't work out. But since we only get to read about the live babies not the mothers who miscariage multiple births or go for selective reduction. So in this way I'm thankful that Nadya's case has at least brought the faulty practice to light.

 

[dreama]

Totally agree with you ... Ofc, there ARE exceptions to rules. This has nothing to do with this topic, but a few years ago, I needed a surgery that was considered to be plastic surgery. I needed a muscle flap surgery to close a massive pressure wound on the back of my upper thigh. In this state, Medicaid would NOT pay for it because it's considered plastic surgery and therefore not medically necessary. In my case, I needed the surgery or I would have died.

So that would make it a neccessary proceedure. Did you have to pay the bill out of your own money?

In Nadya's case we should just be paying for Nadya's shrink to give her councilling over her replacement baby obsession.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I don't agree with Maria. However, she's entitled to her views.

As for my own views on this the reason I'm against implanting too many embryo's is because it leads to too many dead babies. When things don't work out. But since we only get to read about the live babies not the mothers who miscariage multiple births or go for selective reduction. So in this way I'm thankful that Nadya's case has at least brought the faulty practice to light.

They actually already have protocols in place to prevent this. Nowadays, they will only implant a limited number of embryo's into a woman's uterus. I do not want to see this procedure outlawed because it does help many unfertile couples. However, what I want to see happen in THIS case, is the doctor brought up on ethics charges for doing IVF on a woman who didn't need it! She was capable of conceiving on her own, so she didn't NEED his services. This doctor probably just saw $$ and went for it. That's the tragedy in this.

 

[Babyblue]

I don't agree with Maria. However, she's entitled to her views.

As for my own views on this the reason I'm against implanting too many embryo's is because it leads to too many dead babies. When things don't work out. But since we only get to read about the live babies not the mothers who miscariage multiple births or go for selective reduction. So in this way I'm thankful that Nadya's case has at least brought the faulty practice to light.

If you have read my previous post.. I am for IVF.

I just do not agree with implanting so many embryos that a woman has to have a litter.

More than she can care for so to speak.

 

[dreama]

They actually already have protocols in place to prevent this. Nowadays, they will only implant a limited number of embryo's into a woman's uterus. I do not want to see this procedure outlawed because it does help many unfertile couples. However, what I want to see happen in THIS case, is the doctor brought up on ethics charges for doing IVF on a woman who didn't need it! She was capable of conceiving on her own, so she didn't NEED his services. This doctor probably just saw $$ and went for it. That's the tragedy in this.

I think the rules in USA are limiting it from 2 to 5 embryo's but 5 is still too many. So it should just be one or two. In england they are going to limit it to 2 and then only 1 embryo in 2011. However, I think 1 is too strict. There is nothing wrong with twins. Just higher multiples because human women aren't meant to carry litters.

 

[Babyblue]

They actually already have protocols in place to prevent this. Nowadays, they will only implant a limited number of embryo's into a woman's uterus. I do not want to see this procedure outlawed because it does help many unfertile couples. However, what I want to see happen in THIS case, is the doctor brought up on ethics charges for doing IVF on a woman who didn't need it! She was capable of conceiving on her own, so she didn't NEED his services. This doctor probably just saw $$ and went for it. That's the tragedy in this.

I agree! She did not need it. She already had 6 kids! She was not deprived of having kids. She already had 6!!!! of them!

 

[dreama]

If you have read my previous post.. I am for IVF.

I just do not agree with implanting so many embryos that a woman has to have a litter.

More than she can care for so to speak.

Then we'd agree on that. Although I do have missgivings but I don't think it should be banned. Just more tightly regulated.

 

[Jiro]

Then we'd agree on that. Although I do have missgivings but I don't think it should be banned. Just more tightly regulated.

nobody is saying it should be banned.

 

[Babyblue]

Then we'd agree on that. Although I do have missgivings but I don't think it should be banned. Just more tightly regulated.

I never said it should be "BANNED" I simply stated that it should be "LIMITED"

Do you understand now?

 

[LuciaDisturbed]

I think the rules in USA are limiting it from 2 to 5 embryo's but 5 is still too many. So it should just be one or two. In england they are going to limit it to 2 and then only 1 embryo in 2011. However, I think 1 is too strict. There is nothing wrong with twins. Just higher multiples because human women aren't meant to carry litters.

I prefer 2. That way, if one of the embryos doesn't make it, the other one still has a chance. If it was limited to 1, half the time, the woman won't have a chance at having a baby. That's why they implant more than 1, to give the woman a better chance at a baby. I just think anything more than 2 is too much. Twins are fine. But, having 8 babies is fucking ridiculous. Women are not dogs. Nadya must think she's a dog. I wonder if she barks?