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.
Bingo! That's exactly the point. In this scenario, the doctor would be on the hook to make up the difference. And therefore, they would never implant more embryos than the number of children the parent can afford to raise. And yes, that would reduce the odds of IVF producing children for poorer parents. Oh well.
I think the problem is that the embryos can split into twins... so technically you could implant two, and end up with four.
Although such splitting CAN happen, it is rare. I work in a peds office where we have a lot of twins conceived by IVF. We also have ONE set of triplets where an egg split, also IVF. Nadya's dr. said he implanted six and two split, but we have no way of knowing if that is true. In any event, the pt. is supposed to agree to a "selective reduction" if there are more than two. Obviously, not everyone does that.
However, as my DD said, you may agree to the reduction in theory, but when the time comes, . . . .
There's that. However, there's also the problem that selective reduction poses a risk to the remaining fetuses. It's quite possible you could end up with no baby at all that way. That's the larger reason you cannot mandate selective reduction.
I have an idea. They should pass a law that says fertility clinics are financially responsible for the babies they produce ahead of welfare if the parent(s) can't pay. That would force the clinics to institute a policy of making sure that the parents have the funds to raise the kids. Mortgage companies scrutinize your finances today before they'll lend you the money for a home. There's no reason fertility clinics couldn't scrutinize the finances of their customers as well. An honest mistake is fine. But knowingly impregnating women with no financial means of support should be considered a crime and treated as such. Causing the doctors to pay up ahead of welfare would put an end to this nonsense pronto. After all, the doctor is just as responsible, or even more responsible for the pregnancy as are the other parties involved.
My wife and I were expressing the same thing, make these doctors responsible if the patient can not afford them.
Considering all the crap a couple/person have to go through to adopt, I think some background investigation into people doing IVF is a good idea. Of course, as an adoption agency once said to my husband and I, they found they could not predict whose marriage was going to fail and whose wasn't, etc. And life certainly CAN throw some curve balls re: employment and the like.
Considering all the crap a couple/person have to go through to adopt, I think some background investigation into people doing IVF is a good idea. Of course, as an adoption agency once said to my husband and I, they found they could not predict whose marriage was going to fail and whose wasn't, etc. And life certainly CAN throw some curve balls re: employment and the like.
I am reluctant to agree because this suggestion is crossing a line I'm not comfortable with...regulating medically assisted family building practices while basic, traditional reproduction is still sacred...BUT, since I am still freshly reminded of all the vouching, documentation and verification my husband and I had to go through prior to adopting (to make as certain as possible that we were sane, responsible and could afford to add), I'm starting to think a pre-implantation Psyche evaluation and credit check may not be as bad an idea as I would have thought a month ago.
Urgh.
I don't know...I don't have an easy answer to this.
Last edited by 33458; 02-13-2009 at 02:45 PM..
Reason: rewording - hard to make sense...
Although I really believe that a person has the right to live as they choose, when that choice involves the taxpayers, then I do have my right to speak out. It defies logic what this woman did, to already have 6 children, 3 who are disabled and the family receiving public assistance, to make the choice to have 8 more children is (imo) irresponsible to say the least. I could have cared less, if she was able to provide for these children for herself, more power to her. However, the lay the burden of raising these 14 children on the taxpayers of California is insane.
This morning it was reported that the same doctor who is responsible for the 8 babies, has implanted 7 in another woman who is now pregnant with 4 babies and has NO HEALTH CARE INS.
Later it was said that they couldn't confirm if it was really the same doctor but it was also in the same area....how many more babies do we have to pay for?
So, then -
Would you abort the babies?
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.
