Octomom: 'I Screwed Up My Life. I Screwed Up My Kids' Lives.'
June 7th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Now she tells us. Six months after giving birth to octuplets to go along with her already existing six children, Nadya Suleman regrets the whole thing, according to this article (Huffington Post, 6/4/09). She also feels "so much guilt for" not informing the sperm donor of her decision to have more of his children. He apparently told her he didn't want her to have the remaining frozen embyos implanted, but she did it anyway.
So the piece of work also known as Nadya Suleman has now officially joined the vast horde of people, that includes her own mother, who think her decision to have eight additional children was wrong. What feminists like Patricia Williams at The Nation think about this recent development, I don't know. I suspect they won't change their view that any criticism of Suleman's choices constitutes, in Williams' words, "a perfect storm of eugenics."
One other thing. Many people have blamed the doctor or the fertility clinic for Suleman's octuplets. That's wrongheaded for one obvious reason. As I understand how fertility clinics operate, women undergoing IVF almost invariably have more than one fertilized egg implanted. That's because implantation is not successful in all cases, so it make sense to try several in the hopes that at least one will become viable. If more than one does, all but one can then be removed. Doctors and clinics explain that procedure beforehand for obvious reasons. Of course, I don't know if it was explained to Suleman, but it's a routine part of IVF, so I'd bet it was.
But once implantation has occurred and the embryos are developing, no one but the mother has any authority about how many are allowed to continue. In Suleman's, as in every case, the clinic and the doctor have no control over what transpires once implantation is accomplished. If Mom wants eight children, Mom gets eight children. Most moms don't, but this one did and there was not a thing the doctor could have done about it.
So let's all agree to stop pretending that anyone but Nadya Suleman is responsible for Nadya Suleman's choices.
"));
19 queries. 1.246 seconds.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
"She also feels "so much guilt for" not informing the sperm donor of her decision"
Why? What difference would that have made- merely to inform him, and then go ahead anyway? Is there something he could have done to intervene? Perhaps she's sorry she can't dump more of the guilt/blame in his lap?
June 7th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I suspect a lack of leadership in the Suleman family.
We get to read about and a later forget, The children are influenced everyday by Ms. Nadya Suleman.
The USA and the hope of her future, single moms.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
"That's wrongheaded for one obvious reason. As I understand how fertility clinics operate, women undergoing IVF almost invariably have more than one fertilized egg implanted. That's because implantation is not successful in all cases, so it make sense to try several in the hopes that at least one will become viable. If more than one does, all but one can then be removed. "
I disagree with this.
1- RE's take prior fertility into consderation when treating women. Nadya was clearly the type that responded well to treatment so it could not have been medically necessary to transfer all 8 embies.
2- docs do not have to perform procedures that they object to on moral grounds (some perform abortions, some do not, some treat single women or lesbians, some don't, etc)
3- I don't know that there are official rules set in stone for docs but there is some type of code of ethics. If not, should we excuse a doc who gives an rx his/her patient is clearly addicted to?
4- Number of transfers also depends on the age of the woman. Nadya was 32 if I'm not mistaken...I think the max for her age is 2 or 3.
Nadya is ultimately responsible for her choices, but the doc was clearly out of line.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Yeah, I'm with LorMarie. I work at a fertility clinic and transfering that many embryos at once is unconscionable. It is definatly not standard practice. (In Australia)
June 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
LorMarie is correct. Suleman is ultimately responsible, and I think her choice to be reprehensible. However, Robert, reputable REs in the US do not, as a rule, implant more than 4 "good" to "excellent" embryos at a time. Period. Sometimes, when the quality of embryos is very poor, or marginal, REs will opt for 5 or 6, but in these cases, it is highly improbably that all will implant. In fact, it's a very low chance that even one will make it with that kind of situation.
I just can't fathom why this RE would ignore the standards of practice in his field, unless all he cared about was financial considerations. But then, I can't fathom Suleman's particular brand of insanity either, so I guess their partnership was only "logical."
June 7th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Yeah, but she makes for a great poster child for federal entitlement programs... and besides- think of all those children in the foster home racket when she becomes overwhelmed and starts...
well...
Read the US DoH&HS/ACF CMRs.
Gunner Retired
June 7th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I have to laugh at this part: "She refuses to identify him, saying she wants to protect his privacy"
The state will find out who he is and nail him for child support.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
So she regrets the choice to have eight children long after the fact.
I don't wish her any ill will, but I can't respect someone who ignores potential consequences and goes all out for whatever reason or grounds. She hungered for more than the rational number of children a single parent can take and finds the challenges overwhelming. Welcome to the reap you've sowed.
Then came the constant media coverage she approved personally, treated like a miracle mom and lavished with money. In exchange, people got to hear all about her personal life and that of her kids.
And her entire reasoning behind conceiving that many kids in the first place: Because she loves kids.
Hey, I love kids too. Doesn't automatically make me the poster child for good parenting. Parenting isn't just about love and affection. It's about instilling values, mentoring, guiding, discipline, and providing a stable, safe, and healthy environment for the children you choose to have. And don't forget sacrifice!
I'm not going to pass any more judgement on to her, except provide my opinion on all this: The whole thing was a circus act and the kids are the unfortunates in all this.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:07 am
This reminds me of the guy with 21 kids and is a clear example of the discrimination men face in the family court system. This woman has more kids than she can support, and she's not supporting them. While it may be a pyschologial hardship, she'll never go to jail for having more kids than she can afford to support. The same is not true for the guy with 21 kids, who to my knowledge has been in jail over child support.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Okay. She screwed up! Now the BIG QUESTION! Who gets to bail her out of her poor decision? John Q. Taxpayer who had nothing to do with it? Sperm donor?
We know its not going to be her.
This is what happens everyday with the welfare queens out there. I'm going to get pregnant and expect someone else to pay.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:48 am
From a number of press accounts including this one, the sperm donor is known to Suleman, not anonymous. She said at one point that she had paid him for the sperm. In similar situations in the US and elsewhere courts have ruled that the donor is liable for child support. And since one donor fathered all 14 children, look out.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Robert, I disagree on one very salient point, "Nadya Suleman is responsible for Nadya Suleman's choices. " It is going to be everyone else that is responsible for Nadya Suleman's choice. It appears that this woman doesn't particularly enjoy working outside the home, she doesn't appear to be particularly stable emotionally, and she, from what I've been able to observe, particularly enjoy parenting. Guess who's going to pick up the tab for all of this. Everyone else besides Nadya Suleman.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Wow, maybe it was a bad idea to have 14 kids with no job and no support?
Really!?!?!? Ya Think? Where's the irresponsible dead-beat dad to blame for this?
Not her doctor - this was Suleman's *choice* (and he's pretty creepy, too)
Not the donor - this was Suleman's *choice*
The kids are asking about their dad because, deep down, they *know* that Suleman is an incompetant parent and they're wanting some security, and they *know* mom's the reason why dad isn't around.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I see no problem with this. She is the perfect incubator.
We need more women like her....LOL!!!
June 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Mr. Franklin writes: " ... women undergoing IVF almost invariably have more than one fertilized egg implanted. That's because implantation is not successful in all cases, so it make sense to try several in the hopes that at least one will become viable."
Sorry, Mr. Franklin, you're wrong here. Multiple embryo transfer is NOT the only in vitro fertilization (IVF) approach, and the multiple gestations that can result are, arguably, not in the best interests of maternal and fetal health.
For example, in Europe doctors performing IVF treatment routinely use "single embryo transfer" to implant one embryo at a time, while the other embryos remain frozen. If -- and only if -- the first implanted embryo fails to gestate, will the doctor then implant a second embryo.
The advantage of the "single embryo transfer" approach is that it avoids, by definition, multiple gestations. This in turn is better for both maternal and fetal health, because a singleton baby has much better survival rates than multiple babies, and a singleton birth puts less stress on the mother.
The main disadvantage of serial embryo transfer is that it can takes several months longer to complete the IVF regimen, and obviously this will require multiple visits to the doctor. However, most European nations have national health care systems, so multiple visits are less costly or burdensome to the patient there.
(As an aside, it was previously thought that single embryo transfer had lower live birth success rates tham multiple embryo transfer. However, with improvement in techniques and better research, medical professionals increasingly agree that single embryos have comparable success rates, and that the benefits of singleton birth outweigh the risks of multiple gestation.)
In the United States, the primary reason for multiple embryo transfer has nothing to do with maternal or fetal benefit. Rather, the benefit accrues to the insurance company, which wants to pay less -- for one procedure with multiple implantations -- rather than paying more money, for multiple procedures for serial implantations. The entirely predictable result: insurance companies save money, but maternal and fetal stress is increased, as are multiple gestations and multiple births.
Mr. Franklin wrote: "If more than one does, all but one can then be removed."
You are making a huge assumption that the mother will, in fact, agree to "fetal reduction". This is, quite frankly, an abortion, and is typically done at 10-12 weeks pregnancy. We all know how charged this decision can be, influenced as it is by hormones, ultrasound sonograms ("Oooh, I can see their hearts beating!"), personal preferences, and religious or family influences. As such, the medically advisable decision -- fetal reduction -- does not occur, even though it is arguably better for maternal and fetal health.
In this context, Octomom and her babies are an extreme example of the problems inherent with multiple embryo transfer, compounded by the failure by the mother (and doctor and clinic) to perform fetal reduction.
Conclusion: Multiple embryo transfer is NOT intuitive, nor is it beneficial to maternal or fetal health. In fact, multiple gestation in an IVF context is seen by many medical professionals as an undesirable complication, in terms of maternal and fetal health. The preferred outcome of IVF treatment is the live birth of a single child, and many health services in Europe have adopted policies designed to limit multiple gestation and encourage singleton births.
In the future, Mr. Franklin, please do a bit more research before you accept or stipulate something as "making sense", especially when, in fact, it arguably does not.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I wrote: "As such, the medically advisable decision -- fetal reduction -- does not occur, even though it is arguably better for maternal and fetal health."
Oops, I meant to write:
"As such, the medically advisable decision -- fetal reduction -- may not occur, even though it is arguably better for maternal and fetal health."
(Sorry about the error. It somehow slipped past proofreading.)
June 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
So let's all agree to stop pretending that anyone but Nadya Suleman is responsible for Nadya Suleman's choices.
Yes, but I know who is going to pay for it.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Let's just go ahead and blame the sperm-donor for all of this. You know that is going to happen sooner or later. Surely a woman can't be held accountable for her own decisions and her own actions, can she? It must be a man's fault. We just have to find him.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I thank the writer for the last part of the article. I always wonder what the fertility clinic was up to allowing all of those kids in one woman. But as the rest of the story goes and like everything else the woman gets final say so and no responsibility.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
It's amazing ... A woman can ruin a man's life with a false rape accusation, and nothing is done. A woman (like the one in this story) can have 14 kids and then admit to having screwed up their lives, and nothing is done. A loving father can have his kids stripped from him, simply because his wife got "bored", and not only is nothing done, but he gets to pay for it - plus, it's all legal.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Knock Knock - If you wish to criticize what I write, kindly read it first. If you had, you'd know that I didn't say multiple implantation was the only form of IVF.
Your digression about European practices, while interesting, obviously has nothing to do with Suleman's IVF which was not done there, but here.
You say I made "a huge assumption" that with multiple implantations the mother would choose to remove all but one. I did no such thing. Again, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd know that. With multiple implantations, the mother may choose to have all but one removed, or all but two, etc. I said nothing to indicate that she would do so. That's what I said and that's what I meant.
The fact that Suleman chose to carry all eight to term was her decision and no one else's and, again as I said, I'd bet money she was told of her options before IFV was ever done. The doctor and the clinic are not responsible for her irresponsible choices.
That's the point of the piece. It's simple, but you have to read what I wrote to get it.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Nadya Suleman is an extreme example of what happens when people's *rights* exceed their responsibilities. With no common sense limitations to what she's doing, she's going to dump as much as possible on other people as she can.
Yes, most people aren't like that, to that degree. But, when you start demanding public money to help out a little here and a little there, soon, you find yourself blowing millions on idiots like this. The people that you *meant* to help lose out because idiots like this blow the entire budget. People who were marginally able to meet their own needs now have to do without, since they have to cover the costs for these selfish, narcissistic people BEFORE they're allowed to meet their own needs.
I've read estimates that place this selfish idiot's medical bills at anywhere from $675k to $3.4 million. This does not count her pre-natal care, nor the ongoing care provided at her home.
Yes, she needs to face up to what she's done to her family, but she owes the citizens of the bankrupt State of California an apology.
This is not some self absorbed airhead that decided on yet another liposuction, lip plumping, or some rediculous amount of breast augmentation that only she bears the consequences for. She screwed up 14 other people's lives (the children), plus her parents, plus the person who donated his DNA in good faith, plus the population of the State of California.
There is no more clear cut case of "the tragedy of the commons", and no more clear cut reason to say "NO" to any form of socialized medicine. The only way to prevent people from doing this is to start rationing health care, and having the government make decisions about the care you deserve.
For all of the women who were up in arms about the government intruding on their reproductive decisions (hands off my body, women's choice) I would shudder to think when the government becomes a monopoly payor of health care. Picture all of the political correctness, and imagine if some real right-to-life retards gain power at a federal level.
Hell, even worse, imagine if the government decides that your .01% chance of passing on some congenital disease or defect is too expensive of a risk, or the government decides that your preferred form of birth control isn't cost effective, or they feel there's plenty of other options, or that for 'cost reasons' your exam needs to be postponed until next budget cycle because some irresponsible idiot blew the budget.
Or, because of racial / ethnic / gender / minority staffing concerns, the qualification test results had to be thrown out because too many of one protected group didn't pass the test, and you've got Spastic Stanley doing your surgery. Competance wasn't the criteria that won out that day, but someone's political contribution or minority scorecard was what made the difference.
Yes, corruption is bad, now, but if our elected officials wont even send their own kids to public school, what the hell kind of mess do you think they're going to make out of a healthcare monopoly?
All the competance of the post office, all the compassion of the IRS, all the graft of a union shop. Socialized medicine! It's so good for other people!
June 8th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Mr. Franklin wrote: "I didn't say multiple implantation was the only form of IVF."
True. When you wrote, "it make sense to try several in the hopes that at least one will become viable." I interpreted that to mean that "it makes intuitive sense to try several...". I.e., it was unclear to me if you were aware of the single embryo transfer approach, and its medical benefits and risk reductions, and hence I described it.
So if I misinterpreted your words, I apologize. I respect your writings and agree with your point of view much of the time, and I did read carefully your words before posting.
"The doctor and the clinic are not responsible for her irresponsible choices."
I'm going to have to disagree in part with you there.
You are 100% correct that Ms. Suleman is now solely responsible for her babies, and society (and possibly the sperm donor) will have to help support her.
However, Ms. Suleman wasn't making ethical choices in a vacuum, all by herself. Doctors, clinics, and hospitals have an important ethical obligation to advise and act (or refuse to act, if necessary) in the medical best interests of their patient, and arguably that ethical standard was not met in this case.
Furthermore, I would argue that the IVF industry in the United States -- including the insurance companies -- also bears some responsibility because they are the ones who created the the systemic risks of multiple gestations in the first place (by preferring multiple embryo transfer for cost reasons, instead of single embryo transfer).
This is stacking the deck: Offer an IVF approach that creates systemic risks, but then blame individuals who, like Ms. Suleman, are unable or unwilling to navigate and mitigate those risks.
So yes, Ms. Suleman does indeed bear the lion's share of the responsibility of caring for these babies now that they've been born.
However, the doctors, clinic, and insurance companies also bear some ethical responsibility for creating and preferring an IVF system that allows these systemic risks and multiple gestations to exist in the first place.
If you're not convinced, look at it this way: Do you think Ms. Suleman would have ever contemplated having eight separate singleton pregnancies and births in a row, if the doctors, clinic, and insurance companies preferred single embryo transfer? We will never know, of course, but somehow I doubt it.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Offended_Dad, I hope you're just having a bad day. You're railing against the perceived ills of "socialized medicine", but what does national health care have to do with Ms. Suleman and her babies, anyway?
If anything, industrialized countries with national health care systems tend to encourage singleton births (through single embryo transfer) not because it saves money -- it actually costs more for multiple doctor visits over multiple months -- but because singleton births present less risk to maternal and fetal health.
Reality check: There are plenty of countries with national health care systems, and sure, people in those countries have complaints about their medical services, but hardly anybody in these countries is railing about their national health care system.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:34 am
At least Suleman is prepared to acknowledge she has done the wrong thing. This is in contrast to a lot of single mothers I have known, who are heavily into self-justification and weasel words.
Acknowledging that one is not a good parent is the first step to ensuring that the children created won't be completely screwed up.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:04 am
Nick S - Don't give her too much credit. She's said all along that this wasn't a mistake and there was nothing wrong with it. She's not getting the kind of attention she hoped for in the media (plenty of people are talking about her but it's all negative) so she's trying to improve her image now. She's saying what she thinks people want to hear and making herself the victim..."I made a mistake but I'm doing the best I can...please send me money!" This woman is just wrong on so many levels!
June 9th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Letting the doctor off the hook by saying it is common practice to ASSUME the failure rate justifies multiple eggs is rediculous. Thats just dandy if you don't want responsibility. The doctor sells a procedure to bring forth a contracted child. Thats the same as a couple has or in many cases wished the had plans for, so when a doctor decides he has to leave more eggs than contracted for he is in fact in breach of contract.
If you want to look at traditional marriage, a purely natural fact emerges. The success of the parents to either produce everything the child requires, buy through gainful employment what can not be produced or require PUBLIC assistance. Any attempt to dispose of marriage as a guarantee that a decision to create a child will also be accompanied by a social demand that said child be provided for by them not the community. Hardship assistance is one thing but turning the business of family into a business for profit that can simply be shifted to the public when the expenses are beyond the capacity of the parentS is just plain wrong. Shame and guilt are neccessary in creating responsibility, don't diminish them for profit.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
The issue that I have with socialized medicine, especially as it applies to Nadya Suleman, is this:
Ms Suleman could not do what she did on her own funding. It took access to other people's money before this disaster could take place. This is an outright abuse of the public's interest. The repercussions of this is that people who have emergency needs for 'public' health care funds will have their access curtailed.
I have to pay my own medical expenses, or a significant portion of them. My employer pays the rest, as additional compensation for what I do. My employer is self-insured, so it pays all of the medical expenses through a third party administrator.
Ms Suleman does not have any responsibility to her medical bills. There is no disincentive for her to make rational choices. Yes, I understand that they way insurance pays for IVF causes some doctors to implant multiple embryos, but Suleman and her doctor (Dr Michael Kamrava) decided to implant at least 6, and with her already in charge of 6 children, and no means of support. People who would have to pay their own expenses would stop. (FWIW, it appears that Dr Kamrava has another patient with 7 embryos implanted, has one of the worst success rates, and isn't even a certified specialist)
Socialized medicine removes the common sense limitations. I understand that you have a complaint with the way insurance pays for IVF having an influence on the likelyhood of multiple births. These people are welcome to pay for their own care, if they disagree with what their insurance plan covers.
If the multiple implantation of embryoes, due to the insurance coverage, bothers you, look what happens when the government sets the standard. Medicaid coverage for dental work on children causes those few dentists who do accept Medicaid to do shoddy work, or unnecessary work, (on children) to maximize their income. If they're maximizing the payoff, they're going to be a bit skimpy on the anesthetic, too. Are you glad to know that the criteria is in some beaurocrat's hands, yet? They're not being paid enough, so those few who take the care are chop-shops, and not out for their patient's best interest.
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=100963
I think we see a few spin offs of this in regards to VAWA and child support, yes?
As far as I'm concerned, IVF is an elective process, not an entitlement. Further, Ms Suleman's difficulty with conception is not a problem with her reproductive system, but her insistance on being a 'single' mom. What - is this some 'immaculate conception' fantasy taken to an extreme?
It goes back to a larger argument - we have a 'single mom in poverty' problem because we keep paying women to do this - and the amazing part is that we don't get mad at the women that decide to have a child they can't support, we get mad at the man she had sex with, when all of the decision for the outcome lies with *her*. The result is that the state is picking up the medical care for the her and the baby, plus paying welfare, and then goes after the 'deadbeat dad' for being irresponsible. Amazing. Her choice, our responsibility.
We are a generous nation. We anguish over people who really need help, and I like helping people - When I'm able to do so. But I'm not going to demand that the government have a monopoly on care, demand and collect money with the full threat and force of the law, and allow a political process dictate how that money gets spent - because you know damn well that it will be corrupted, no matter how well intentioned.
Roe V Wade was a decision that said that reproduction and medical procedures were a private issue between a woman and her doctor. That was fine, but when you have a finite amount of "other-peoples-money", there will have to be some criteria for limiting the spending. Someone will eventually have to say "NO". The Sulemans of the world don't care - they feel they're entitled to whatever they can get - paying for something is an abstract concept.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Barbara, you may be right. She probably isn't genuine. What can I say? I'm terribly naive :-)
June 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I agree that Miss Suleman is ultimately responsible. OTOH, the doctor who implanted embryos in a mother of six (6) who was already no stranger to the local child protection system bears some responsibility for the upcoming train wrecks that are these kids futures.