Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, implanting 8 embryos put her life at risk. She did not sign a waiver stating she would get rid of half if they all took. That is part of the doctors job to make sure that just because you WANT something, if it endangers your life, it won't be done.
I have known of some friends who did have to sign a waiver to selectively reduce in the case of HOM. Luckily, none of them ever had to deal with it. For the most part, REs & patients can have intelligent dialogue regarding the dangers in transferring too many embryos or continuing a cycle that is showing too many mature follicles (IUIs).
I wanted to add that regardless of signing a waiver, no doctor can force a woman to have selective reduction. The solution? You just don't go there or put yourself into this position in the first place!
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
There needs to be a law created that says no more than 2 embryos can be implanted EVER regardless of whether the mother can financially support a litter of children.
I must disagree with this because each patient comes to the table with different circumstances. Embryo quality due to age is a large deciding factor in how many embryos are transferred. The guidelines are clear and very rarely have I ever heard of a doctor veering away from those guidelines (until now).
I would rather see a psych eval being required before proceeding in cases likes this - but this is rare. The woman clearly has a mental illness which should have been seen years ago.
It's so frustrating that one stupid woman and one unethical doctor are putting IVF in such a negative light.
Embryo quality due to age is a large deciding factor in how many embryos are transferred. The guidelines are clear and very rarely have I ever heard of a doctor veering away from those guidelines (until now).
However, it's been widely published that for HER, the guidelines called for a maximum of 2.
If the guidelines call for a different maximum for a different age group, that's what should be the law.
At the end of the day, though, I don't know if the maximum should ever be more than 2 because there's, what, a 40%-50% chance than an embryo will take and there's always the chance of an embryo splitting. So this way statistically there'd likely be one child and virtually never more than four. People should not be allowed to use IVF as a means of producing "litters" of children. If, however, the reason the guidelines are different for older women is that there is less of chance that an embryo will take, maybe 1-2 more should be allowed but only once the woman is in that age group.
And I agree with you about the psych eval.
As far as selective reduction and aborting fetuses, I am completely against that as I am pro-life.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 02-13-2009 at 12:37 PM..
However, it's been widely published that for HER, the guidelines called for a maximum of 2.
If the guidelines call for a different maximum for a different age group, that's what should be the law.
At the end of the day, though, I don't know if the maximum should ever be more than 2 because there's, what, a 40%-50% chance than an embryo will take and there's always the chance of an embryo splitting. So this way statistically there'd likely be one child and virtually never more than four. People should not be allowed to use IVF as a means of producing "litters" of children.
And I agree with you about the psych eval.
I see what you're saying but there are still cases in young patients where putting 2 embryos back still will result in a BFN (big effing negative) due to severe medical complications.
Ms. Sulema however, falls well within the guidelines for putting back 1, 2 at the most. With her previous successful cycles and live births the guidelines should have been followed.
When I first started IVF in my late 30s, I was given a 30-40% chance of getting pregnant based on 3-4 embryos being transferred. 5 cycles resulted in BFNs. In IVF, those are terrible odds. I had an IVF friend who was 28 when she started IVF a few years ago. She's had no success - even with transferring the max her RE would allow - 3 embryos. Would transferring more ensure pregnancy? Probably not - the problem for her was in the quality of the embryos and not the numbers. There's just a lot to consider outside of the number of embryos that are transferred.
Splitting embryos occurs 1-2% of the time - not very high probability but when you're part of that 1-2% it's devastating because of so many complications that can arise.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that IVF should not be used as a means to create "litters".
As far as selective reduction and aborting fetuses, I am completely against that as I am pro-life.
And in those cases, REs and patients discuss very seriously the ramifications of transferring more than a patient is willing to handle. If you, as a patient, are against selective reduction/abortion, then you do have a responsibility to yourself (& the resulting lives) not to transfer more than 1 or 2 embryos.
But, *sigh* - we're not talking about a responsible woman in the first place.
With her previous successful cycles and live births the guidelines should have been followed.
Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make. The doctor should have followed the guidelines as they pertain to her case and should have actions taken against his medical license for an ethical violation (but it is NOT a crime, he should NOT be fined, and he should NOT be forced to pay child support).
And I don't have a problem with IVF or look down on you in any way for having had it.
Everyone seems focused on the financial aspect of this case, which, of course, is tremendous. But I keep wondering about the physical toll on the mother, which of course will result in problems for the children.
I wonder how many nurses are currently involved with the care and feeding of these 8 babies? And there are 3 shifts of them. This moron mother expects to take over 24 hour care of 8 premature infants. Even if the grandmother takes over the 100% care of the other six, (which doesn't seem likely) the mother would never survive the physical toll 8 babies would take on her. I also don't think she would get help over a long enough period of time (like 18 years) from outsiders. People have things going on in their lives, and they won't be able to donate extended periods of time for this train wreck she has gotten herself into.
When I think of how tired I was when my son was 6 weeks old, I can't imagine how this farce is going to be played out.
Everyone seems focused on the financial aspect of this case, which, of course, is tremendous. But I keep wondering about the physical toll on the mother, which of course will result in problems for the children.
I wonder how many nurses are currently involved with the care and feeding of these 8 babies? And there are 3 shifts of them. This moron mother expects to take over 24 hour care of 8 premature infants. Even if the grandmother takes over the 100% care of the other six, (which doesn't seem likely) the mother would never survive the physical toll 8 babies would take on her. I also don't think she would get help over a long enough period of time (like 18 years) from outsiders. People have things going on in their lives, and they won't be able to donate extended periods of time for this train wreck she has gotten herself into.
When I think of how tired I was when my son was 6 weeks old, I can't imagine how this farce is going to be played out.
Everyone seems focused on the financial aspect of this case, which, of course, is tremendous. But I keep wondering about the physical toll on the mother, which of course will result in problems for the children.
I wonder how many nurses are currently involved with the care and feeding of these 8 babies? And there are 3 shifts of them. This moron mother expects to take over 24 hour care of 8 premature infants. Even if the grandmother takes over the 100% care of the other six, (which doesn't seem likely) the mother would never survive the physical toll 8 babies would take on her. I also don't think she would get help over a long enough period of time (like 18 years) from outsiders. People have things going on in their lives, and they won't be able to donate extended periods of time for this train wreck she has gotten herself into.
When I think of how tired I was when my son was 6 weeks old, I can't imagine how this farce is going to be played out.
And also, she will not need the same kind of help for 18 years. Towards the end of that period, she will need more financial help than anything else. In fact, even in a few years, she won't need near as much physical help.
Also, what about the kids going to college? Will she able to fund that at all or even help the kids pay for it?
And also, she will not need the same kind of help for 18 years. Towards the end of that period, she will need more financial help than anything else. In fact, even in a few years, she won't need near as much physical help.
Also, what about the kids going to college? Will she able to fund that at all or even help the kids pay for it?
Actually, with 8 teenagers (not counting the older ones who will still be there), she would need some very strong medication.
Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make. The doctor should have followed the guidelines as they pertain to her case and should have actions taken against his medical license for an ethical violation (but it is NOT a crime, he should NOT be fined, and he should NOT be forced to pay child support).
And I don't have a problem with IVF or look down on you in any way for having had it.
I didn't get any negative vibe from you about IVF and my involvement but thanks nonetheless for expressing it.
Again - I completely agree with you that the RE shouldn't be fined or be responsible for child support. Supporting her children is Ms. Sulema's responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by colleeng47
Everyone seems focused on the financial aspect of this case, which, of course, is tremendous. But I keep wondering about the physical toll on the mother, which of course will result in problems for the children.
I wonder how many nurses are currently involved with the care and feeding of these 8 babies? And there are 3 shifts of them. This moron mother expects to take over 24 hour care of 8 premature infants. Even if the grandmother takes over the 100% care of the other six, (which doesn't seem likely) the mother would never survive the physical toll 8 babies would take on her. I also don't think she would get help over a long enough period of time (like 18 years) from outsiders. People have things going on in their lives, and they won't be able to donate extended periods of time for this train wreck she has gotten herself into.
When I think of how tired I was when my son was 6 weeks old, I can't imagine how this farce is going to be played out.
That's just it! She won't be able to handle it unless she has a posse of nurses/caregivers and who's going to pay for that?
Even with twins, it's a bit of a wreck the first few weeks, especially when 1 remains in NICU. I had to give up BFing after 1 week because I fell asleep at the wheel while on my way to visit my son in NICU. BFing was not worth me killing my daughter & parents because I was up all night feeding, changing, pumping for both children and getting zero sleep. How is she going to juggle visits to/from NICU when the babies start coming home at different times? Plus didn't she say that she was planning on BFing all of them? It took me 15-30 min per baby & then burping. I can't even imagine trying to do that with 8 - even with help for burping.
She simply didn't think about any of these things, IMO. All she saw was the "glamor" of being a mom to many children - fulfilling some cockeyed fantasy. Well, it takes a lot more than carrying those babies and delivering them to truly be a parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
How premature were they?
They were born at 30 weeks which is actually quite remarkable all things considered.
I know that for twins, 37 weeks is considered "full-term" (although the goal is always get close to 40 weeks but when carrying more than 1 - well, 37 weeks can't come soon enough!). I have no idea what full-term for octuplets would be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
