Baby Boom
by JoyI presume everyone here has heard about the birth of a litter of eight to a 33-year old woman in California who already has six children ranging in age from 7 to 2-year old twins. The babies – 6 boys and 2 girls – were delivered 9 weeks prematurely and weigh anywhere from 1 pound 8 ounces to 3 pounds 4 ounces, all but one are breathing on their own. All are receiving fluids, proteins and vitamins intravenously, and all are expected to survive.
The mother, who lives with her mother, had been hospitalized seven weeks ago and ordered to bed rest, the babies will spend at least seven more weeks in the hospital. A team of 46 physicians, nurses and other staff were on hand for the delivery by cesarian at Kaiser Permanente Hospital Bellflower, of what they thought were seven babies, referred to by alphabet. Baby H was a surprise. All the babies have their own neonatologist and two full-time nurses.
A man who lives at the home is soon leaving for contract work in Iraq to help support the family, but it is unclear (by news reports) whether than man is the husband or the grandfather. The woman had fertility treatments to achieve this feat. It is not known how all this is to be paid for.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, the Senate yesterday passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program [SCHIP] to provide health insurance to 11 million low-income children, and for the first time since its inception will also cover pregnant women who are legal immigrants and their children, plus an expansion of coverage to 4 million more children. The vote was 66 to 32 largely along party lines. President Obama is expected to sign the legislation as early as next week.
It is estimated that about 5 million children will remain uninsured despite this action.
For discussion purposes, here are some questions related to these events:
1. Does a woman with six children really need artificial help to have 8 more?
2. Is it ethical to implant that many embryos in a woman under the age of 35? (note – most fertility clinics will not).
3. What are the moral/ethical issues involved in the concentration of medical and social resources to a litter of 8 while millions of women (who got pregnant the good old fashioned way) and children in this country have no access to medical care at all?
4. Is it reasonable for society to insist on tighter regulation of the assisted fertility market so as to prevent this sort of thing? Does your answer have anything to do with the high likelihood that in such a situation several of the fetuses will be aborted (naturally or purposely) to ensure the survival of the rest, or that there is a high probability none will survive?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
1) No. I suspect she has some mental illness giving her a compulsive desire to have more children.
2) Absolutely not. Do we know that she was treated by a fertility clinic? I've heard rumors this woman may have used unlawfully obtained fertility drugs.
3) That same money could have saved many more lives if spent in other ways and is an abhorrent waste of resources.
4) If societal money is spent keeping these babies alive then society has a right to decided how best to spend its limited resources. If the family is paying for it completely on their own then they can do what they want.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 30, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Todd B.:
I doubt it's considered mental illness, though it is true that some women become 'addicted' to having babies. Other women have less choice in the matter.
I have not heard that rumor. I did see speculation that the 2-year old twins were IVF. I am not at all sure that "fertility drugs" could readily accomplish 8 fertilized embryos – is there history on that? The woman obviously has no problem producing eggs or she wouldn't have six children already. Reminds me of the septuplets several years ago, again IVF for a woman who had given birth just a couple of years before and had 4 children already. What's up with that? I thought IVF was supposed to be for women who can't otherwise get pregnant.
They're here and real, of course they should receive the care they need. My issue is with the ethics of IVF in this instance (and the previous septuplets). Where are there regulations or regulatory guidelines for these clinics? The government's already in their business by forbidding them to sell or donate embryos for research.
I agree. Perhaps the woman or her parents are multi-millionaires and this 1 or 2 million dollar expense is pocket change (along with the couple of million it'll take to get them to the point where they can eat solid food).
I have known families with 12 to 15 kids. There's usually teenagers to help out, but you don't need more than 2 extra bedrooms to turn into dormitories and an industrial-style kitchen. 8 infants is a real stretch, but can be done. A litter is cheaper overall than one at a time (minus medical costs), at least until they get to college, but I imagine somebody's ministry will pay for that if Mom and/or grandma can't.
Still, we don't have details on this other than Mom and grandma gushing about "miracles." It's not even clear that the mother is married. Again, I question the ethics involved in the making of this "miracle," and about necessary regulation of IVF clinics made obvious by this sort of thing.
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Todd:
Which brings up another issue. Why would fertility treatment be subsidized and who would do it? Since I have not looked into this the question is not rhetorical.
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2009 @ 3:38 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Bradford, some insurers cover IVF. Most do not. Heck, these days we've got insurers who cover Viagra without batting an eye, while denying coverage for birth control pills. Go figure.
IVF isn't cheap. The male figure here works for a contractor in Iraq, and if that's Blackwater or Haliburton or KBR, he probably has Cadillac coverage for IVF as well as necessary pregnancy, delivery and neonatal – to a certain limit, usually a million overall on any policy.
Or maybe Mom and grandma are just rich. Still waiting on the whole story…
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Over here all insurance companies have to cover it (insurance is mandatory, thus universal, to the tune of about $150/month), and they pay for 6 attempts, maximum legal payload 2 embryos/attempt.
I understand 46 health care professionals have been taking care of these idiots for weeks. That must have cost a fortune. I can't believe Uncle Sam would pick up that tab.
Comment by Raevmo — January 30, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Joy:
A study of coverage policies is itself interesting. If I were to speculate on motives for viagra they would include the magnet option (attracting customers through this high profile option) or the possibility that viagra is a cheaper option than alterntives. But I do not know a great deal about insurance policy formulation.
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Bradford:
Why are you so interested in viagra?
You will like this: over here disabled people (well, men) can get subsidized visits to prostitutes, seeing as they are unable to attract sexual partners in a more orthodox fashion.
Comment by Raevmo — January 30, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Raevmo:
That's why I'm suspicious of what happened here. 2-4 embryos per attempt is standard, accounting for the dramatic increase in multiple births over the past couple of decades since IVF became popular. This woman was obviously fertile enough to suspect prime chances for implantation, so the clinic that implanted 8 (probably more) at one time should definitely have to answer some hard questions. I think it's grossly unethical.
Meanwhile…
Octuplets' Family Filed for Bankruptcy
Seems even IVF 'experts' are troubled by this case. Grandma, by the way, confirmed these babies were all IVF and not the result of the mother simply overdosing on black market fertility drugs.
The Iraqi man is the grandfather, no mention of a father anywhere other than that the family (presumably with father) declared bankruptcy a year and a half ago. If the contractor guy is indeed grandfather, it is unlikely his daughter is covered on his insurance at all, much less with 'perks' like IVF and extended multi-million dollar care. No wonder he's going back to Iraq!
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Raevmo:
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Joy:
I'm reminded of The Boys of Brazil. Could it be that the babies are clones of Saddam? Ok, maybe not the girls.
Comment by Raevmo — January 30, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I loves me some babies!
Comment by chunkdz — January 30, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Bradford:
Sharia is obviously not here yet. I think it's actually a great idea to cover sex for otherwise deprived individuals. Probably cheaper than anti-depressants, which are covered too.
Comment by Raevmo — January 30, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Raevmo:
Imagine this scenario. The prostitiute looks at the customer and says:
He is traumatized as he thinks he is normal. Ends up on anti-depressants. The government ends up paying one way or another. Socialism at its finest.
Comment by Bradford — January 30, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Bradford:
The government doesn't pay for medication. Private insurance companies do, from the premiums of their customers. Capitalism at its finest.
Comment by Raevmo — January 30, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
chunk:
If humans were meant to have litters, women would come with more than two mammary glands (and more than two arms).
It occurs to me (in view of a dearth of actual information) that this woman may have had twins two years ago via IVF, since declared bankruptcy and the husband/boyfriend left, so she moved in with Mom and was persuaded to try and 'save' her excess frozen embryos by having all of them imput at once – then letting God and Medicaid sort it out.
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Joy wrote:
There are websites where you can get pictures…
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 30, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Joy,
LOL!
If science can make eight babies I'm sure they can figure out how to feed 'em. I'd offer to do it but, you know, my nipples get so sore.
Comment by chunkdz — January 30, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
January 30th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Octuplets' Family Has Bankruptcy History
Selected quotes on identified issues…
Page 1
Single mother of six. Did no one ever counsel her on the merits of birth control? Abstinence?
Who paid for the fertility treatments – the woman or her mother? And what sort of doctor would provide such treatment to a single mother of six who lives in a 3-bedroom house with her recently bankrupt mother?
Page 2
Selective reduction. That's abortion. So while many on the religious right are crying about frozen embryos, here is strong evidence that fertility treatments increase abortion of developing fetuses… both superovulation by hormones and IVF with multiple embryos leads to multiple pregnancies and a dramatic increase in multiple births. For each 'extra' baby the risks grow exponentially. Respiratory issues, cerebral palsy (two of one recent sextuplet birth ended up with cerebral palsy), birth defects, sensory disorders and death. Among other things.
Should IVF Be Regulated?
Page 1
We take considerable social umbrage at women who smoke, drink and do drugs during pregnancy because these things endanger their child. Even if you believe a single mother of six should be able to undergo fertility treatments so she can have more out-of-wedlock children she can't support, and that she should carry them all to term and let God decide who dies, all these deliberate and cruel acts greatly endanger the lives of the babies. Is THAT moral?
Do YOU recall hearing about 68 sets of 5 or more babies in 2005? The reason you didn't hear about them is because most of those babies died. Many of those desperate parents (you don't get fertility treatments if you're not desperate to have more babies than God was willing to give you) went through all the pain, expense and drain on health of the mother only to end up with six or seven dead babies and not a single living child. Worse, if the couple was infertile before, they're just as infertile afterwards.
Sheesh! This woman will likely end up with a free McMansion with 15 bedrooms and two full-time maids, 7 nannies, a nice new short-bus and gadabout, free diapers, baby food, formula and paid college tuition for all the kids. And a high triple-figure income from The Family Channel for letting a film crew live in the garage for the reality TV show her life of single mother to 14 is sure to become.
…that is, if three or four of the kids aren't dead before they're a year old and the rest don't end up in reclining wheelchairs for the whole of their lives with cerebral palsy. Or some of them don't go blind, or have to wear colostomy bags, or live in bubbles because they can't breathe real air, or…
I find this whole system rather psychotic, but then, I never was infertile. My problem was with how NOT to get pregnant! But at least I had a hubby. Perhaps if we were infertile we'd have tried fertility treatments, but I sort of doubt it. Our genes were never that important to us. There's no shortage of humans, many of them young children nobody wants. People who love kids enough to think 14 is no big deal should consider adoption. It's very much worthwhile and doesn't add to the population overburden or seriously contribute to infant mortality, abortion and/or disease rates.
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 3:35 am
Joy,
Statistically we're talking about a few hundred births (quints or more) out of a total of roughly 4.3 million total births in America. Very, very rare and exceedingly wonderful.
Love dem babies!
Comment by chunkdz — January 31, 2009 @ 3:35 am
January 31st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
chunk:
I dunno, chunk. It's getting a whole lot less rare, I think it's seriously pathological rather than wonderful because humans really are NOT meant to have litters. Of those who do have multiple births, more than 86% used fertility treatments, half used more than one. Women who took superovulation hormones not counted. The medical problems these infants face (if they live) are considerable as well as very, very expensive and resource-intensive.
Our reproductive system just isn't designed for litters, thus nature has to be specifically and painfully thwarted in order to accomplish it. It is done so often (don't forget triplets and quads) because infertile people know it's their best chance of getting even one Mini-Me to take home in the end.
They create these babies knowing most will die. I think that's more callous than a 13-year old aborting an accidental one so she can at least have a small chance at life for herself. Sure, the end result is the same, but if you believe a fetus can suffer, the lesser of evils is a morning after preventative or early abortion instead of carrying five, six, seven or eight (or more!) as long as possible and losing all or most at or after birth.
The CA woman's mother told the LATimes the embryos were implanted via IVF…
Can She Afford to Raise 14 Kids?…
Looks like a case of having produced a mass of embryos for later use. In this last pregnancy, she apparently wanted to use them all (perhaps they were scheduled for destruction after long-term storage).
For the many hundreds of thousands of dollars these babies will cost the taxpayers, a lot of children of the working poor could get basic health care throughout their dependency. Heck, maybe their parents could get basic health care too.
So no, I do not consider this grotesque display of selfish genes to be "exceedingly wonderful."
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
By the way, in my state there are rules for mothers on public assistance per how many children out of wedlock they can have in order to increase their monthly take (from the state or from the fathers). I know of one who is pregnant with her fourth (never married, four different men), she will be sterilized when the baby's born. If she wished to avoid that, she could stop taking support from the state, support herself and her children, maybe get married if she wants her own tribe. Or, she could have tried birth control at any point along the way.
I know of others who ended up on public assistance after just a couple of children. They must agree to implantation of under-skin birth control, good for three years. If the support situation is temporary, the woman can have it removed, and can have all the children she wants. As long as she and her children are supported by the state, she is not allowed to produce more to increase the size of her checks.
California apparently has no such regulations, or this mother would have been stopped at 4 and the state would not now have to shell out vast amounts for her total of 14.
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Joy,
Okay, so 15 years ago it was .0001 percent of all births, today it's .0002 percent. I just can't seem to get alarmed about this.
Reckless? Probably. Eventually it'll get regulated and legislated. Then women will start having dangerous "back-alley" IVF's. Then the supreme court will rule on a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her eggs. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Whatever. I'm just glad the babies are doing well. Go Babies, Go!
Comment by chunkdz — January 31, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I know a woman who tried IVF several times and failed. The final try she had 4 eggs left so she said "let's go all in". She was so heartbroken from all the failed attempts she just wanted to go for it.
Two of them took and she had twins. Was this reckless?
I'm going to predict that IVF will find a stable set of rules to follow, guidelines will come forth, and legislation will follow.
I have to say this is more appealing to me than the semi-forced sterilization
you mentioned in NC. That is a slippery slope to me.
Comment by chunkdz — January 31, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
chunk:
Well, it's a whole heckuva lot better than actual forced sterilization of state wards, as was legal here until about a decade ago.
The simple fact of the matter is that if it's the state's money (i.e., the taxpayers who work for a living) providing food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care and income to these people. Larger families get more support, but it's supposed to be a 'safety net' for hard times, not a generational way of life. If the woman doesn't wish to have her benefactors tell her she may not produce more babies for the purpose of getting more tax money, she can get a job, a life, a roommate and/or husband and provide for her own support. Then nobody cares how many children she has.
The sterilization in question will be done by the state (as medical provider), but was decided after her father petitioned the state because he and his wife are actually raising the kids – the girl's not a good mother, just likes being pregnant. The situation was investigated, the case reviewed, and the ruling made. If the state can take already existing children away from unfit parents, they can also limit the number of children unfit parents are allowed to have while they're being supported by the state.
For these octuplets, I also hope they all live and don't end up with life-limiting debilities from their ordeal. There is no reason or right to withhold the best of care for them now that they're here, and I wouldn't suggest such a thing. But the overall situation – including the six older siblings – is quite bizarre, with some very dark corners that we should all hope are examined.
The proper response to this sort of ethical absurdity is to impose ethical as well as practical rules on fertility clinics and enforce them. No woman who already has 6 IVF children under the age of 10 and no visible means of support should be artificially helped to have more just because she likes having babies. This woman could not have adopted a puppy from the pound without demonstrating she could properly care for it, and would have to put up with home visits to make sure she had room, didn't have evil children likely to abuse it, and didn't already have too many pets. She'd also be required to get the puppy sterilized so as not to contribute to the canine overpopulation burden.
Why should human children not get at least that much consideration?
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Hi Joy. Doesn’t it just amaze you how little common sense seems to be at work in this situation? When this mother becomes overwhelmed with caring for these babies (assuming they survive and are released from the hospital) plus her six other children, will she then sue whoever made the decision to implant all these embryos? There are probably already lawyers lining up to help her.
I have to feel for these little ones coming into the world like this, they didn’t choose this.
Quoting Joy:
“The proper response to this sort of ethical absurdity is to impose ethical as well as practical rules on fertility clinics and enforce them. No woman who already has 6 IVF children under the age of 10 and no visible means of support should be artificially helped to have more just because she likes having babies.”
I agree totally. Where is common sense these days?
Comment by interested bystander — January 31, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Some answers and responses to Joy:
1. No.
2. No.
3. Irrelevant
4. a) Yes
b) Yes.
c) Yes.
Joy, I always thought you were all for the woman's right to choose and her right to privacy.
Your stand here demonstrates plainly the danger of the government involving itself so heavily in our affairs; as you and Raevmo suggest, he who pays the piper calls the tune. If it's on the government's dime – as the left insists it ought to be – then the government gets to say who gets to have how many babies, right? If Hillary is right that we must stop thinking of them as "other people's children", and enlisting the entire village to call the shots then reproductive rights and privacy go out the window.
I was surprised it took you so many comments and much indignation to get your digs in on the religious right. Do you have any posts here on TT commending the religious nut-jobs who think that fertility is God's business and have always opposed such measures on moral, not state budgetary grounds? Zach went to great lengths to get me to admit once what I proclaimed at the first, that such fertility services are immoral. I'm glad to see you and I agree on something off-topic.
http://www.mergerwatch.org/fer...
Why did you suggest anybody should have counseled the woman about abstinence? We all know that has no effect whatsoever, don't we? Eugenics, not moral responsibility, is really the way only way to go.
Yes, irony of irony.
Comment by Pez — January 31, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
January 31st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Hi, bystander. I'm afraid I am jaded enough to suspect something like this was inevitable once this particular application of scientific knowledge/technology went commercial. Worse, I expect the designer Mini-Me craze to explode once cloning enters the market. I personally will be glad to be gone (and I'm takin' my genes with me!) by then.
If what grandma has told the press is true all 14 children are the result of a single round of embryo creation 8-odd years ago, the same clinic that created the embryos implanted them. Six children, five pregnancies in ~6 years, now 8 all at once. WTF? Perhaps the clinic was preparing to discard them (maybe she couldn't pay for storage anymore), discarded them into her. Given her success rate, this probably qualifies as reckless endangerment at least.
The daughter of those overburdened grandparents I know? No amount of counseling would make a dent, as she has the babies so she can get more money to not work. Which is ideal for her, since she has no skills, never made it out of junior high, and has no further ambitions in life. It's not like she's got a triple-digit IQ to work with or anything. If she were amenable to having babies to sell she'd probably do quite well, so long as the buyers don't mind fetal alcohol syndrome or crack/meth issues. Very sad, but it's not negative eugenics. She has four children that she's unable to raise. That's enough gene-spreading for evolution's purposes.
On the actual topic, no one has suggested killing or sterilizing any of these 14 children or their mother either. 14 children is six+ times the average family output in the US today, no negative eugenics here!
Reproductive technologies have been in use for a long time in stock breeding, it was inevitable that it would get applied to humans. It is also very lucrative, thus isn't going away any time soon just because Catholic bishops and their allies in the Christian right don't like it. This case demonstrates dramatically that ethical regulations are necessary, including the kind of professional regulation that would make the physicians involved liable for malpractice when they do something outrageous.
Comment by Joy — January 31, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
February 1st, 2009 at 1:15 am
Hi Joy,
Something about those words sounds eerily familiar …
http://www.press.jhu.edu/books...
That's right – because we need secular arguments, not those based upon, of all things, religious morality. We need good solid arguments like "we the people don't want to pay for your reproductive freedoms and privacy … in this case". Maybe Obama will step up and ensure ethical procedures here as he is going to in ESC – I only hope if he does he isn't too much "more religiously motivated than [you] find comfortable".
Yes, irony of irony.
Comment by Pez — February 1, 2009 @ 1:15 am
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Joy,
Do you think that the state should sterilize her too?
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2009 @ 12:48 pm