Hot on the heels of the now infamous birth of octuplets, Georgia is the first state to introduce legislation that will prevent doctors (and their patients) from inserting so many embryos all at once. The octuplet birth was as a result of the insertion of six embryos.
Senator Ralph Hudgens (R) of Georgia admits the Nadya Suleman controversy was his inspiration in the introduction of his bill that is trying to limit the number of embryos to two, per woman, per time if the woman is under 40 years old. The number would go up to three if the woman is over age 40. This bill is being touted as the "Octomom Bill".
The recommended number of embryos to be inserted in women under 35 is two and a maximum of five in women over 40, according to the The American Society for Reproductive Medicine.
In light of the Suleman case, many people agree with the premise of this bill. They believe that not only is it of very high risk to both the babies and the mother to have so many embryos implanted, but the cost to the taxpayer is also ultimately too high.
But not everyone is happy. Many believe that women and couples, desperate to conceive, may lose out on their chance to conceive if they are limited to the number of embryos they can use.
Others believe that the choice should be left to the prospective parents and their medical professionals and that the government needs to stay out of the private lives of private citizens.
Tell Us
Do you think a woman should be limited to the number of embryos she can have implanted? Is it our business? Does it make a difference if she can or cannot afford to raise potential multiples? Should it make a difference?
All user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.
Add a Comment7 Comments
In many European countries, only one embryo is implanted. If the pregnancy doesn't take, then another is implanted a few months later. This makes the most sense to me. Unless it happens naturally, I believe that it is risky for mother and embryo/s, to have more than one or possibly two implantations.
June 10, 2009 - 12:21pmHealth care in Europe, particulary France is very helpful to the patient and offers much more financial aid for this method of implantation.
This Comment
How interesting! Sounds like we could really learn from other countries....
June 10, 2009 - 12:49pmThis Comment
Here's a twist that I haven't seen discussed here yet...
Who pays to take care of all these children? Where do we find the balance between a family's right to produce as many babies as they want and the taxpayers who often bear the burden of care?
As a taxpayer here in Southern California, I can tell you first-hand that the "Octomom" story made us angry here. This is a woman who has been on state disability and Medi-Cal for over a decade. The taxpayers have been paying for her care, as well as the care of her children, for years now. Here she is on the state doll, but still managed to find a way to pay for embryo implantation. While so many families are struggling to make ends meet, Suleman's out making more babies ... many more babies.
Personally, I have no problem with families seeking infertility treatments and having as many babies as they think they need - as long as they are paying for it themselves. As long as they, and their infertility specialists, are being responsible.
But when taxpayers are paying for your health care, then the taxpayers have a right to dictate that care. For better or for worse. If you don't want taxpayers (and the legislators who represent them) in your personal business, be ready to pay cash, and don't lean on the state doll for help unless you really need it. Instead of looking for work, Suleman was seeking infertility treatment when she already had SIX children!
BTW, I am a pro-choice, feminist, left-wing Democrat.
This issue comes down to responsibility. Any law that's going to be put on the books about limiting embryo-implantation needs to be very clear about who is/isn't going to pay - not only for the service itself, but the rippling costs such as: prenatal care, (often specialized and in the hospital because the woman is so high risk), labor and delivery (expensive just due to the amount of people needed to carry it out), postpartum recovery, NICU care for the babies, pediatric care, and any special needs care that may be required for the kids as they grow up. When you think simply about the $$$ amount that was placed upon the people of California just for this one pregnancy, it becomes a staggering idea.
In Sulemon's case, I hear she signed a contract for a reality TV series, which will go a long way towards providing the funds needed to take care of such a huge brood. So hopefully, she'll be able to be taken off Medi-Cal, get her own insurance, and be successful doing what she's always wanted to do ... be a mommy.
June 10, 2009 - 10:10amThis Comment
Aquanatal, you bring up a very valid point. I feel that there are a lot of people out there making multiple babies simultaneously who don't even begin to fathom the cost involved, or how much they may end up leaning on their insurance company, their state and the federal government. Especially when the babies are born premature.
Many of these parents don't see past the cost of baby furniture, clothes and diapers. They don't think about the additional consequences/costs.... the hundreds of thousands or even millions of $$ that NICU will cost, the slew of specialists over many years' time (developmental pediatrician, eye doctor since many premies have eye issues, occupational therapist, physical therapist, speech therapist, psychiatrist, psychologist, neurologist, etc., etc.), not to mention the entire team of school administrators and teachers that will be required once children are of school age. And there are also the various medical devices that may be needed (feeding tube, heart monitor, bone and joint braces, medications, etc.) You're right -- the cost is staggering for just one premature baby, let alone two, four or even eight. It's a little insane.
June 10, 2009 - 11:38amThis Comment
Interesting post! And boy, this is a tough one. There are so many competing interests -- the would-be parents, the doctor, the insurance companies, and society.
But it does seem that there's a basic safety issue involved. And the doctor's credo, "First, do no harm" would seem to come into play. At its root, it is a doctor doing a procedure that will hopefully lead to pregnancy and childbirth. It seems that by inserting six embryos, an argument could be made that you are quite possibly doing harm.
However, this doesn't seem something that should be legislated. One state it's going to be ok to implant two, another state four, another state will have no regulation? And the laws made by lawmakers in 50 different states will decide what is appropriate for doctors and their patients to do? That seems worrisome at best. Will the next issue be that parents who already have a certain number of children may not try for more? That seems ridiculous now, but I can see how arguments could be made. Much of the outrage over the octuplets is that the mother already has six young children at home.
Much of what went wrong in this case happened between one doctor and his patient. I'm not sure that legislation would ever have prevented one doctor from going over the line, especially when the line is fuzzy. (Concievably, no pun intented, even inserting four embryos could result in six or eight births if they split once in the womb).
Very very difficult issues. I can see arguments on both sides.
March 9, 2009 - 8:12amThis Comment
Where are the "keep your hands off my body" proponents?
March 9, 2009 - 7:25amThis Comment
I do believe that this is an ethical issue and that a woman should be limited to the number of embryos she can have implanted. I've seen the problems that a multiple birth can entail firsthand, from when my twin boys were born 3 months premature. Multiple births are so incredibly risky, both to babies and to the mom. With twins, only 50% of the time do both babies survive a twin pregnancy. Most people don't realize this. This stat is worse the more babies you have at a time. Women's bodies simply aren't built to carry more than one baby at a time. My son who spent two months in NICU ended up with a bill of over $1 million. Fortunately, we had great insurance at the time and had pretty decent coverage. That was back in 1995. I can't imagine the cost of care today for the octuplets.
There's a couple in my neighborhood that had quadruplets about a year ago. They have to lean on friends and neighbors quite a bit as they raise their babies, and each one of the babies has obviously had developmental issues. I look at those babies and think it's so sad that their parents knowingly brought them into the world even though they would most likely have prematurity-related developmental disorders or worse. The father often touts his babies as a miracle.... I call it a freak of science. And a dangerous one at that.
March 6, 2009 - 10:35pmThis Comment