Octuplet case has states considering legislation (early, women, rate, result)
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.
Having gone through the process, it's not quite as cut and dry as it sounds. We were using a surrogate/egg donor, and when we sat down with the doctor, she showed us the fertilized eggs (a picture) - I believe there were 5. I don't know how, but they rate them, and she said two of them were "high quality" and very likely to implant. The others weren't. We implanted two, and got two children. We also wanted two children and were financially prepared for that.
I've heard of other women (who I know) who went through this and it took multiple tries before any eggs implanted. But it seems to me that a qualified doctor should have been able to tell that all 8 of those fertilized eggs, or at least most of them, were likely to implant. But there needs to be some standard, IMO.
I agree that there needs to be some standards, but not cut and dry legislation. Reproductive rights go both ways. If a woman can "choose" to end her pregnancy, then a woman should be able to choose, with the help of her doctor, how many embryos to implant. I would guess that 99.9% of couples going through in vitro are truly wanting the healthiest possible outcome, and are not trying to manufacture babies for the sake of having a litter of kids. They deserve to be able to make their own choices.
Since a woman's medical history needs to be considered, since it's hard to tell how many implanted embryos might take, and since "guidelines" already DO exist for IVF, I wonder if anyone has even considered going about this from a different angle. How about a restriction that if you already have a certain number of living children, perhaps 3 or 4, that you can't be a candidate for IVF?
Let's make the "guidelines" actual laws...whatever the guidelines may be. And I like your idea jaindow of preventing IVF if you already have a certain number of children. I worry though that a law like that could be ruled unconstitutional.
Aren't there actual medical issues with implanting an excessive number of embryos? Doesn't it cause an increased risk to the mother and to the potential children? If so, there absolutely need to criminal laws preventing it. The risk of action being taken against a medical license is clearly not enough.
I agree that there needs to be some standards, but not cut and dry legislation. Reproductive rights go both ways. If a woman can "choose" to end her pregnancy, then a woman should be able to choose, with the help of her doctor, how many embryos to implant. I would guess that 99.9% of couples going through in vitro are truly wanting the healthiest possible outcome, and are not trying to manufacture babies for the sake of having a litter of kids. They deserve to be able to make their own choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
Having gone through the process, it's not quite as cut and dry as it sounds. We were using a surrogate/egg donor, and when we sat down with the doctor, she showed us the fertilized eggs (a picture) - I believe there were 5. I don't know how, but they rate them, and she said two of them were "high quality" and very likely to implant. The others weren't. We implanted two, and got two children. We also wanted two children and were financially prepared for that.
I've heard of other women (who I know) who went through this and it took multiple tries before any eggs implanted. But it seems to me that a qualified doctor should have been able to tell that all 8 of those fertilized eggs, or at least most of them, were likely to implant. But there needs to be some standard, IMO.
I agree. I had to do IVF multiple times to finally get pregnant but every cycle was accompanied by careful and deliberate discussion with the RE about possible outcomes, etc...
As there are already guidelines that are in place that probably 99.9% of IVFers follow, I really don't want to see IVF legislated. However, I think it would behoove RE's and patients to have some kind of psychological screening performed for those doing multiple IVFs with successful, live births.
The truth is, I really don't know of anyone - either IRL or on IVF support boards - where anyone is considering doing multiple IVFs to get pregnant multiple times. It's just not done - the financial, psychological, physical & emotional toll is just too great. Most of us are absolutely grateful to get pregnant and have live births of 1 or 2 children!
I think Octomom is a total joke - an irresponsible, immature, narcissistic nut-case - who has placed her children's welfare in jeopardy by her lack of good judgment. But I don't think legislating IVF is the answer because she and her doctor are a rarity. People who actually need IVF shouldn't be penalized because of their actions IMHO.
Let's make the "guidelines" actual laws...whatever the guidelines may be. And I like your idea jaindow of preventing IVF if you already have a certain number of children. I worry though that a law like that could be ruled unconstitutional.
Aren't there actual medical issues with implanting an excessive number of embryos? Doesn't it cause an increased risk to the mother and to the potential children? If so, there absolutely need to criminal laws preventing it. The risk of action being taken against a medical license is clearly not enough.
But the guidelines don't necessarily apply to all situations. I personally know someone who is 28 yrs old and has done 4 IVF cycles - transferring 4-5 embryos per cycle - and she has never gotten pregnant. The decision to transfer more than stated in guidelines was based on the quality of the eggs and resulting embryos as well as information from each previous unsuccessful cycle.
As far as limiting the number of children you can have via IVF - if you set a limit of 2 children, well, what IF someone did another cycle in the hopes of having one more child and they end up getting pregnant with 2 or 3 more. Are they then "required" to selectively reduce the pregnancy? Do you set up a limit based on income? Based on psychological screening? Seriously - do we really want the government telling us how many children we're allowed to have?
Yes - there are dangers to transferring multiple embryos IF the patient gets pregnant with HOM (high order multiples). But that's why doctors and patients are supposed to be making careful and considerate decisions based on a patient's individual situation.
Clearly that was not the case here with these 2 brainiacs.
As far as limiting the number of children you can have via IVF - if you set a limit of 2 children, well, what IF someone did another cycle in the hopes of having one more child and they end up getting pregnant with 2 or 3 more. Are they then "required" to selectively reduce the pregnancy? Do you set up a limit based on income? Based on psychological screening? Seriously - do we really want the government telling us how many children we're allowed to have?
The restrictions I suggested don't exactly work this way. I was proposing that if someone has X number of living children already no matter how they got those children (natural reproduction, previous IVF, or adoption), then they can't be a candidate for future IVF treatment. This is NOT the government telling you how many children you can have seeing as there are still other options... adoption, surrogates...
IF they are a candidate (having less than the designated living children already) then the treatments should proceed responsibly with current guidelines. That would also mean that the doctor and patient have a discussion about selective reduction beforehand. IF multiples happen, then that is the risk and the mother has the right to decide what is to happen in that case. I don't believe anyone should be required to have selective reduction.
My proposed restriction is only whether the woman gets in the door for the treatment. It doesn't pose regulations after treatment has begun. That should be between the doctor and the patient. And hopefully they both have a good head on their shoulders!
Not a fan of government regulation being part of women's reproductive health.
There are guidelines & most ethical & professional doctors do follow them for the sheer fact that those guidelines are in force for the mom & baby.
Octolips & her doc are two unethical & selfish people who found each other for their own personal needs & wants. It's really quite a shame.
I do not think they represent the majority in the field of IVF.
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.
