This woman lives a stone's throw from my house, so close that I recognized the images on the television and thought "Oh! That's what that traffic was all about!"

And it's not that I think that the people in my state should be able to determine whether or not she's a fit mother or whether or not she can keep her children, but I do think that there should have been a point wherein a second doctor or a medical board looked at her financial stability and said "um, yeah, maybe you should think about this a little more" before she was allowed to go through with it. Ultimately, I have no problem with people having as many children as they want, and I have no problem with people exercising their reproductive rights, but when a woman without health insurance who is in significant debt and has no stable home in which to raise her children wants to talk about having seven or eight or fourteen total kids through infertility treatments? I would have liked to know that she was forced to talk logistics with someone besides her one crooked doctor before implantation occurred. I would never say no to someone who wants a large family via infertility treatments, just as I cannot bar someone from creating a large family naturally, I just prefer to know that they've at least considered that they may not have sufficient resources to successfully parent that family.

Also, no matter how much I disagree with her choice from a personal standpoint, I keep coming back to the fact that it's done. What's done is done and that's all there is to it. I'm beginning to increasingly feel like my responsibility as a member of her community is to support more than it is to criticize, just as it is with any other mother, if not for her than for the sake of her children.

This woman is despicable. I'm sorry...she is. She seems totally mental and selfish, and self-absorbed. Both her and the doctor acted incredibly irresponsible. She's not at all representative of the couples out there trying to conceive. She's single, not infertile, as someone else pointed out. She didn't want, nor would she have been satisfied with, one child. She's stated over and over she wants a large family...and she doesn't care about how they will be taken care of. She just wants them. Her poor mother is who's taking care of them...it's sad. When asked about losing her home, she said, "yeah. that's their problem." Well, lady, they are losing their home b/c they can't pay their mortgage, all their retirement money is going to raising your children, and you need to get off your ass and get a job. Yet somehow has money for expensive makeup and cosmetic surgery. If she's so concerned about her kids, she should use her disability benefits and actually take care of her children and family.

Sorry to rant. But this lady makes my blood boil. She's not at all a symbol or representative for infertility. People should stop even linking her to that. She's just a selfish, strange woman. And because of the outrage about her...someone will probably suggest making restrictions that will end up hurting real, infertile singles or couples who want to experience the joy of raising a child.

@ L.
"Also I'm a little confused how she could actually afford the treatment if she's living at home with her mother?"

The first I heard of this situation was that the woman did not want to be identified.

A few days later, she starts showing up in the media through her agent/publicist.

WHY OH WHY do I think the "Doctor" in this case is working on commission????

I am glad you posted this and I mostly agree with you. I have found much of this news coverage offensive: female anchors who are not spending any time with their own children, emphasizing sound finances as if that's all it takes to be a good mother. Maybe this woman will be a great mother. As someone else noted, there have been no reports of neglect.

Also, I could care less if my taxpayer money goes to support her. It already goes to many less worthy causes.

However, I do take issue with:

1) your reference for reproductive rights for "couples." maybe you just mispoke but it sounds as if you have your own bias about whether the same rights should extend to singles

2) i believe fertility should be regulated to the point that no doctor be permitted to transfer six embryos. it is just too many and unnecessary. if a woman is likely to conceive, she should be able to do so with a maximum at four. the analogy to attaching an extra arm is excellent.

All I know is that if that guy on GMA is really the father than he should stop faking the tears about these children and talk to Nadya Suleman about it instead of offering his two cents to America.

I think Sarah before me summed it up perfectly in her last paragraph. What's done is done.

What a horrorshow all around. Negligent doctor, a severely mentally troubled woman, bankruptcy, and 14 blameless children.

So utterly depressing.

I myself have struggled with fertility issues and had the help of science in order to conceive my son, for which I am eternally grateful.
But there's a line, and these people have crossed it and now the ones who suffer are the ones who had absolutely no say in the matter.

When this story first broke, I thought, "Wow, she's a collector."

I have a friend who used to work in animal wellfare, and she would often come upon people who collected more pets than they could care for. Unfortunately, these people usually come to a place where their animals overwhelm them, many die due to neglect or lack of funds for proper health care and food. The owners usually get fined and go to jail. And some of the pets are euthanized because of poor health or lack of good homes.

In "octo-mom's" case (gawd, the media marketing machine is disgusting, isn't it?), I believe that it's very likely that she is mentally ill. I feel much empathy for her, for her parents (who raised her, by the way, and are now blaming her) and especially for her 14 children.

I often watch Jon and Kate Plus 8, and I have no idea how that family survives, but they do. They have two strong parents, a crew of family members, friends, neighbors, people from their church, paid helpers and a TV show helping to pay for it all, and they still struggle. Kate has become bitchier and bitchier over the years to poor Jon, but I don't fault her. I'm sure they are both exhausted. I have one daughter and she's exhausting.

I don't know what should be done in this case. If she doesn't have the money to pay for their healthcare and qualifies for public health plans, then yes the taxpayers will get stuck with that bill. But then, we're talking about HUMAN BEINGS and not dogs and cats. They cannot be euthanized because they can't find a loving home.

I find it horrible that people are saying that this is a great example of why IVF is bad. I think this is a great example of being human. IVF is a medical miracle.

WOW!

I happen to agree with freedom of choice for reproduction. I also agree that IVF candidates get the same scrutiny potential adoptive parents must undergo.

I also agree this woman is completely off her rocker. She is bat shit crazy. Those who disagree may possibly need their head examined as well. This "Octopussy" (LOVE that term!) needs professional help.

Octopussy was staying with her mother, whose home is now $23k dollars in arrears? Yet she (OP) had the money to get more IVF treatments? I call BULLSHIT!

The doc performing all this? He definitely needs his license yanked!

Something on FOXNews yesterday about OP making up stories on why she wanted the IVF to begin with. That would make this, uhm person, a LIAR.

She is delusional as well! She gets all this state funding yet denies she is on welfare? WTF, over?

Yes, these babies need to be taken care of... OP needs to pull her head out of the sand (or her ass) and face reality and get the help she needs. Her children are going to need it as well.

She is a STUPID. SELFISH (can't emphasize that word enough). BITCH.

I am not sure that I can add anything new to this conversation but my husband and I are currently expecting our first baby this summer thanks to IVF. There is no way that we could have become pregnant without IVF so I am extremely grateful for the medical technology that made it available and I am also grateful that I have not encountered anyone telling me that what I did was unnatural or given me any flack for the decision to use IVF. (Yes, we strongly considered adoption, both international and domestic, but based on our medical circumstances IVF was seen as a very viable option. Adoption would have been more expensive, more emotionally draining and taken much longer.)

On a side note my mother is a retired lab director of a fertility clinic and I remember her cringing any time a large multiple birth was on the news, she even went on the local news a few times to defend reproductive medicine when these stories were in the news. She saw it as always being the doctor's responsibility to help the patient make a wise decision about how many embryos to implant. This is a decision that effects the health of the mother and the future child/children so it is the doctor's responsibility to set limits to protect everyone's health. My mother's lab set a limit of 3 embryos and she frequently saw that as being too many.

Yes, it can be a very controversial subject with most everyone having a different point of view and different opinions. I must admit that in the situation of the octuplets I blame the doctor for letting the patient go forward with implanting 6 embryos. The mother seems to have been making her decisions purely based on emotion (and those can be very strong when you are jacked up on all the hormones for the egg retrieval) and it is the doctor's responsibility to ensure that health of everyone is being protected.

I don't have a stance on fertility treatments as I have never been in that situation, but I do have a stance on having babies that you know have a high likelyhood of being born prematurely. As the mother of a child who spent 7 very long weeks in the NICU as a result of coming 12 weeks early I cringe every time I see her tiny little babies in the hospital. I always thought preemies were just cute, tiny little versions of real babies (thank you cabbage patch) until I had one of my own. I never knew what obstacles they faced or what grief a mother and father could experience in place of the happiness that is supposed to be there when a baby comes into this world. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a woman who has twins or even a higher number of multiples after undergoing fertility treatments is willfully having babies that she knows will be born prematurely or that they are horrible people. As Kate said on John and Kate Plus 8, (yes I watch that damn show I can't stop) the birth of their multiples is a fertility nightmare, worst case scenario and not what most couples who suffer from infertility hope for. They were a mother and a father, both employed with a solid support system with only two children at home unlike the lovely lady at the center of this post. This woman is clearly insane and I pray for her children. I fear all of the news coverage and even my typing this comment is giving her exactly what she clearly wants - more attention.

It is interesting to me that the right-to-lifers have not jumped on Nadya's bandwagon in her defense. She keeps stating that those embryos were life and she refused to have them destroyed so she chose to have them all implanted to give them the chance to grow. Could it be that the right-to-lifers are keeping quiet because she is single? I suspect that if a married couple were on the television stating the same reasons as Nadya for implanting six embryos when they already have six children, that the right-to-lifers would be coming out of the woodwork with words of support and plenty of fundraisers to buy everything those 14 children will need.

Full comment here: http://www.blogosaurusvex.com/2009/02/23/reproductive-rights-the-octuplets/

Edited excerpt:

I have noticed a really disturbing trend in the comments and critiques that are being leveled at this woman on many blogs lately (speaking in general here, not targeting Heather). On the one hand they are saying a woman should have complete reproductive control in her own life, meaning she should carry, birth, or abort as many children as she wants in whatever manner she wants, with the support of the medical infrastructure. On the other hand, they are harshly criticizing the doctor who performed the IVF for his unethical behaviour.

Does anyone other than me see the contradiction in there? A woman should have total control… as long as her doctor says yes? Is that really what they mean? Or do they mean women can’t make a reasonable choice so we must rely on doctors to tell us whether our choice is ethical or not? Because that’s what you’re saying when you say that the buck stops with the doctor, that he is horribly unethical for performing the procedure. How can it be that he’s unethical for *doing* it, but she’s not unethical for *asking* for it?

(Note - I've assumed she was informed and consented to the number of embryos. If that's not the case, then that's a whole other kettle of fish!)

This is what I think: if you really support a woman’s right to be in control of her reproduction, in control 100%, then you should be pleased as punch with all concerned in this little scenario. Woman makes a choice freely, seeks medical aid, receives it. Hooray for everyone. The fact that this doctor is riding heat is a clear signal that many folks are not in fact in support of a woman having 100% control over her own reproduction.

Again - this only holds if the woman knew how many were bring implanted and freely consented. It does bring up a whole different issue though, which is informed consent and the role of the physician as an expert advisor who is himself beholden to regulatory bodies and ethical standards. Barring mental illness, should a woman have full say in her own treatments? Or should doctors be able to tell you what to do with your body, well intentioned or otherwise?

For me, the real issue that sends people reeling isn't so much that she has 14 children. It's that she is a single mom who doesn't have a job with 14 children. One person cannot possibly provide the kind of care and attention those kids need. IVF is really the least of my issues with it all. Also, I think I saw somewhere that she set up on online account to take donations? She just doesn't seem all that stable to me.

However, the Mom who said all of our opinions are really invalid... that is 100% the truth. We can rant and rave and bitch and moan but in the end, it's just conversation for us. It's this woman's life.

My husband and I are infertile. After undergoing three rounds of artificial insemination we decided we couldn't take on the emotional pain in risking IVF so we moved on to adoption where our money was a sure bet. We have a gorgeous, rambunctious 18 month old today and plan to adopt again.

I wholeheartedly support other infertiles who choose ART in helping them create a family but I do not support idiotic reproductive endocrinologists who transfer six, SIX eggs into a woman who already has six children. Frankly, that should be illegal.

And I am also one of those few liberal women who do believe that there ought to be some kind of legal consequence for pregnant women who use drugs (gasp!). To use your argument regarding not punishing Nadya's kids, let's not punish these unborn children for something their moms (or birth moms) are doing to them in vitro.

I have worked in early childhood daycares and as a public health nurse. What the doctor did is irresponsible, and I believe the mother is mentally unwell.

Here is the reality...the two grandparents and her cannot care for all these children at one time. In a licensed daycare in BC, the staff ratio for all of her children would be a minimum of 8-10 at this time (the disabled children may need one to one care, and preemies with lung problems are a huge challenge).

I see hi-risk families parent but it is with lots of support. I see families in shelters but there aren't any I can think of set up for 14 kids. I see some families chose to give up their children but 14 kids (some with disabilities)...how do you foster/adopt them out so that you don't destroy their relationships with each other?

I think the doctor should pay a significant portion of the care for this. I want those children to have the best chance in life and I think people should pull together. I don't think it is too much to legislate that no more than two embryos be inserted at one time. This isn't about parents only...there are children too!!!!

I am being judgemental, but rather than see those children suffer, I would love to see someone close to her family start co-ordinating all the efforts to see some success. Abused and neglected children may have a difficult time as adults and parenting their own children.

How many generations do you want to suffer?

P.S.;
This is # 631 here and I also wanted to respond to 297 as well - adoption is NOT an easy process. It places you under the microscope and invades your life with all kinds of questions that those who can conceive or use ART to conceive never have to answer. And, unless you want to adopt from foster care where new borns are rare and/or the majority of children have serious mental and emotional issues, there are not tons of needy kids waiting for a home. It took us 2 years to get our child. Finally, we did not adopt to save a child but to create a family. No infertile couple should be relegated to "saving children" because they can't naturally conceive a genetic child.

I'm not so concerned about what posters here are saying regarding the craziness of the mother; what I am most concerned with are the posters who say there should be some screening process. Sure, some questions should be asked but do we really want some regulations on who gets pregnant? One could argue that we DO need regulations (hell, in that case, we need regulations on who gets pregnant the old-fashioned way!), but do we really want the government to tell us if we are suitable candidates? It's not black and white!

So, if someone comes into my office and they already have 6 kids, should I, as a doctor, screen them and tell them they can't get IVF because they have enough kids? What if they have 6 kids, make millions a year, have the means to raise and support the children, etc., etc.? Is it right to screen them out of the process? What if they have no children but also have no job? Should they be screened out? Who decides? The way I see it, there can be no blanket rules who gets treatment and who doesn't.

Having said that, however, I feel the doctors should have regulations regarding how many eggs can be implanted. In this case, the doctor went way over-board. Why aren't we questioning his mental status?!

Mostly, I feel for these children who had no choice in the matter. We don't really know whole story (the media only tells the sensational part, remember!), but we do have to be careful that someone doesn't run with this and get some sort of legislation that makes it difficult for others who really need fertility treatments. It's not black and white.

Do I judge Nadya? Yes. I think what she did was completely irresponsible and not even considering how she would take care of these children, especially considering she already had several with special needs and a high possibility of more with special needs. Honestly, I fear she was looking for a way to get on TV and cash in on some of these reality shows, which I feel are pimping out their children (sorry John & Kate plus 8 but that's my feelings). The dr. should definitely be investigated and barred from infertility treatments. Should this in any way affect others rights to such treatments, absoluletly not! My husband and I struggled for many years to have a baby and we choose to try infertility drugs but not IVF. Thankfully, we were able to conceive eventually and have a beautiful 12 year old daughter. We have since adopted two adorable boys - again, our choice. I would never deem to determine that someone else has to adopt or cannot have IVF, etc. That is such a personal choice and so many people have been truly blessed by such alternatives. However, what has happened in this case is unresponsible and it will be very sad if this has any effect on others choices.

Re: Comment #632

"Yikes. And the other dolts on there are just as bad. What is all this self importance and pretending you actually have a brain in you head. God are you annoying!"

Three thoughts:

1. Learn to use question marks.
2. "your" head. I think you meant "your" head.
3. Don't like it? Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

Lol - I cannot believe you opened posts on this one!

I'm sorry if this is has been said multiple times, but there are just too many comments to read each one. I tried, really I did. My husband and I have been facing infertility for a couple of years as well as a good friend of mine and we're both in our 20's. Infertility is very expensive! Insurance companies don't really cover infertility treatments. At the beginning of my treatments, my doctor was constantly disguising them as something else so my insurance would pay. You can't disguise IVF as anything else. I haven't done IVF yet, but my friend did it 3 times and each time failed. And each time cost $10,000 to $15,000. That's an out of pocket expense that they scrimped and saved for. My husband and I would like to do IVF, but with him going into medical school this fall living off of student loans, there's no way we'll have money for anything extra. We've been wanting to start a family for over 2 years and now because of complications in my body and school we'll have to wait another 4 before we have a chance at IVF. It's hard knowing that money, or the lack thereof, is standing in the way of children. Insurance covers pregnancy and childbirth, it doesn't cover infertility and adoption. Suleman is living through financial hardship and has been for years from what I understand. Where did she get the money for multiple IVFs? What about me? Why don't I get it and Suleman does?

That said, I don't want to jump through more hoops than there already is to pursue fertility treatments because of one irresponsible doctor and mom. One thing I've learned is you must treat an individual as an individual, which means that person and their needs will be different from the next. Putting regulations and laws over millions of people based on one or two individuals is wrong and will only hurt the reasonable people who simply want one or two children of their own.

Another point that I don't understand is how there's a stronge voice that thinks these 14 children are destined for a horrbile life and that we shouldn't allow it. Take all the kids away and give them to people who will actually take care of them. I say growing up in a home where you didn't have much in belongings or mommy time is much better than growing up the victim of physical, emotional, verbal and sexual abuse. There are worse crimes than having 14 children! What about the parents that only have 1 or 2 kids, but commit unspeakable crimes against those children? Where's the strong voice for them? I believe Suleman isn't grounded in reality thinking that love will take care of everything, but love is certainly a better place to be. Look around and put your energy towards helping a child or family that may be struggling silently. Lift where you stand and let that child know that they don't need to have 13 siblings to qualify for saving.

I agree with Heather. You can't attack reproductive rights on a case-by-case basis just because she made what most would deem a bad personal medical decision. I question her mental acuity and think her choice was likely made with selfish motivations, but it is the doctor who transferred so many embryos who is at fault. His ethics failed. It is not unethical to be crazy and a parent. It is not my place, or anyone's place, to judge what she wants for a family.

What bothers me the most is people calling her Octomom and referring to her children as a litter. That only serves to dehumanize her so that people feel justified in spewing out vitriol on her and judging her fitness to parent these kids. The intense hatred that is being voiced says way more about our attitudes about race and class in this country than it does about her or her parenting skills. The idea that octuplets would be more socially acceptable if she were white, married, and rich is despicable. The doctor who transferred so many embryos without first getting her to agree to selectively reduce should all implant is the one who should be up for judgment professionally and in the court of public opinion, not her. As for the cost of rearing them, I fail to see how it makes much of a difference whether taxpayer support is given to eight children in eight different families or eight children all under one roof. People saying that the children should be removed from her care without any evidence of abuse or neglect for her other six children would quickly change their tune if that type of reasoning could be applied to them based upon, say, how many drinks they have with dinner out and then drive their kids home, or whether they smoke around their kids, or whether they force their kids to sit in proper car seats and buckle up. It will be interesting to see how public opinion on this issue changes over time, if at all.

One of the things I keep seeing in my work and my political life is that people are afraid to speak out, or do, or make a decision, based on fear that some loud, obnoxious people will throw a hissy fit. I am constantly repeating this to my peers and my constituents, and frankly, the assumption that "now regular infertile couples will have a hard time because of Octa-mom" is the same irrational terror of a few loud voices. Most people -- the quiet ones who never speak up -- are REASONABLE and have a bullshit meter about what is, and is not, the truth. It is NOT the truth that any couple who is trying to conceive with fertility treatments are morally wrong, and obligated to adopt. Just because a few vociferous people out there say so doesnt make it true, and as someone said in your video, people make judgments about every aspect of pregnancy anyway.

The problem with this mother, and her choices are numerous. She carried the pregnancy without any means of supporting the children on her own. That means she *chose* to bring, and keep, children in this world with the *expectation* that government, taxpayers, the Internet, and the community would take care of her. And we are obligated to do so, because they are children. But what is a greater need, a woman who could afford infertility treatments but not diapers, or a veteran who needs medical care? Or the teacher who needs school supplies? Or any number of other people who need society's help because of circumstances NOT of their own choosing and voluntary creation?

And while having a child is a personal choice, it becomes a matter of social interest when the burden of the consequences of your choice falls to society. Government has the absolute right, and responsibility to step in to protect the health and welfare of children, and if an assessment shows that she is incapable of caring for the children, then while it is tragic to take them from her, they should be taken--for their own good. The standards for her should be no different than any other parent who may have difficulties, and who are relying on society for help.

I also think part of the reaction is that fertility treatments have traditionally been seen as only available to the well-to-do. Fair or not, at least the wealthy have the means to support multiple births, hire nannies, provide adequate housing (fire codes anyone?) etc. The offense comes in when someone who can NOT do these things gets the treatment as well. Should a woman who has six children and is on welfare spend $10k on a boob job? Obviously not. It is offensive in its very idea. So why then is it ok for that same woman to undergo a different optional medical procedure, one that results not in fake boobs but instead 8 human beings?

I think what it comes down to for me, is that my interest is not in the mother's reproductive "rights," or infertile couples' "problems" or anything you mentioned in your article. That is, to me, entirely missing the point.

Its about what is best for the children born into our society, to whom we owe an obligation of care, because they are vulnerable, and need us. And I can't help but think that Octa-Mom had no right to do this to the Children. Period.

I'm all for women having choices when it comes to reproduction. And when there are incidences of multiple embryos, and I don't think it's right for us to judge the parent(s) on the number they chose (or didn't) to bring to full term. And I don't think its right to judge a person's parenting skills based on the number of children they have; some parents of single children do a horrible job, while parents of large families seem to do very well (ie. Jon & Kate +8 or the Duggars).

My only concern is when "the system" becomes involved in raising those children. Or more acurately, when the system is taken advantage of. I don't think it's fair of Nadya Suleman to be putting the burden of paying for her childrens' care on the shoulders of the California tax payers.

Recently, a 60 year old woman in Canada conceived & had a child via IVF. She couldn't get IVF in Canada b/c of her age so she went to another country to get it, but had the child here in Canada. So even though she went elsewhere for her treatments, the cost of the birth and medical care for the mother and child is on the Canadian taxpayers.

Something about both of those situations just rubs me the wrong way.

It's contradictory to be pro-choice on female reproductive issues and then say that the doctor is the only one to blame in this situation. The mother made the decision to have this procedure done, and she knew that it was possible to have multiple children as a result. She made an informed decision with the assistance of her doctor. It sounds like this mother wanted more children and found a doctor who would give her that choice.

My husband and I stopped having children after two beautiful boys, simply because we could not afford the fertility treatments, as well as affording college educations for more than two children. We were acting responsibly.

So here I sit, wanting another baby, but I wont because I have to help pay for someone else to have 14???

Although I must say...if you can afford to have 20 children...GO FOR IT! I see the family on television who has 18 children, a house large enough to house them, income property that supports them, family that is supportive, I might not consider that normal or what I would want, but at least I am not paying for their diapers, formula, doctor bills, not to mention plastic surgery and fingernails.

Heather - I'm so glad you made the point about adoption. If I had a penny for every time I've had that old chestnut thrown at me ....well, let's just say I wouldn't be scratching my head about how to pay for my fertility treatment.

How I choose to build my family is mine and my husband's choice - nobody elses. Unfortunately, the minute you mention you're undergoing assisted conception, people seem to think they have the right to judge you or that you are solely responsible for every homeless child out there. How and what I spend my money on is nobody else's damn business - anyone who has ever undergone any kind of fertility investigation and treatment knows it's not the kind of thing you do for kicks! Yeah I like my Gynae doctor but not THAT much....

I think that what NS has done is criminal. If a person decides to have 14 kids and has the financial means to do so, GREAT, have fun! You're out of your mind, but you're free to do so. But this woman's decision to have 14 kids doesn't just affect her and her family - it's irresponsible and selfish and in my opinion, criminal. When I hear that she's unemployed, behind on mortgage payments over $23K, has possibly had $20-$30K worth of plastic surgery and spent what little money she did have on IVF and is accepting welfare?? It makes me crazy!! She knowingly and purposively has chosen to have FAR more children than she can financially care for - I don't understand why there isn't any kind of repercussion for that. Shouldn't there be? This is total and complete abuse of the system and it makes me furious.

"Yes, how about we give a multiple choice test to women and let a committee decide who is and who isn't fit to be a mother." Indeed. Welcome to becoming a parent through adoption.

I think the doctor who implanted the six embryos should be reviewed by the AMA and then barred from practicing. But the fact that he should be held responsible for his role in adding 8 innocent children to a family of six others, does not exclude Ms. Suleman from blame. While I believe that she suffers from mental illness, she did exercise her choice and must be held to account as well. Making excuses for her isn't productive. (As an aside, I can't help but imagine how this conversation would be different if Suleman were a black single woman with six children.)

I am an adoptive mother and though I "suffered" infertility, I chose to skip IVF because doing so aligned with my personal philosophy and belief system. That being said, I would never suggest that a woman should be limited in her reproductive choices, from in-vitro fertilization to abortion. I include Suleman in this group of women whose right to choose I defend, even though she's a person I view to be little more than a pathetic, self-centered opportunist who planned the exploitation of her children for her own future gain. But her radical choice affects all of us, not just financially but socially and environmentally, as well, which is why the debate is raging as it pertains to her specifically.

In the bigger general picture, however, women who deal with infertility---and I'm not sure that Ms. Suleman falls into this category---need, at some point, to ask themselves the hard question of whether it's more important for them to be pregnant or to be mothers.

It is my feeling that if Nadya Suleman wanted to be a mother to a whole bunch of babies (beyond her first six, several of whom are special needs kids), then she should have looked at adoption. Of course there are those questionnaires and home visits and essays and background checks and financial disclosures and classes and humiliating amount of white-gloving that she would have had to endure before being able to take in any child. Frankly, I'm not sure she would have been approved given her circumstances.

There are more than 800,000 children languishing in the U.S. foster care system right this minute and there are lots of babies born here every single day who need loving parents capable of raising them. In November, voters in Arkansas shamefully decided that gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt, effectively saying it's better for children to have no home, no parents and no stability than it is for them to be living in a non-traditional setting with all three of those necessities. We are bass-ackwards here people, and Suleman is just one more exclamation point on the discussion of who becomes parents and how.

There is so much wrong with this sensational story and as an adoptive parent, there is admittedly a bit of a sting to it, because I know how many wonderful, beautiful babies there are already on this planet without a mother or father to love them.

Thanks to male-factor infertility, our only option was IVF. We are now new parents to a 16-day-old baby girl, who was born after 2 - TWO - embryos were put back. The other 5 are frozen for a future sibling. Believe it or not...we had a baby without putting in 7 embryos! I agree with you - this is not an "infertile people are baby-crazed" issue. This is a mentally imbalanced mom issue. Leave the rest of us responsible couples who can't have kids without medical assistance, alone.

I too am dealing with infertility treatments and do not like it that one person can shine such a negaive light on the treatments that make so many women into mothers.

It's just bad medicine. We need some legislation controlling IVF.

With all due respect, a really lame momversation on this topic. I think the interesting thing is that the pro-choice dogma of the past 30 years or so makes it absolutely impossible to "judge" this woman. So you yammer about about how, who knows, maybe this will work out great, and by the way it's all the doctor's fault. So -- unbridled freedom to "choose" but no responsibility associated with the choice? I think you all failed to grasp the central and rather obvious ethical question because you have been used accustomed to absorbing dogma all these years. I am pro-choice too but part of letting people make choices is the risk that they will make bad ones. It is interesting to me that none of you could find any way to find fault with what I would suggest is an obviously bad decision.

I just think it's really sad that a woman who already had six children could be so selfish. I read in an article that she said she only really wanted one more baby (which in my opinion was still one too many), but when there are people out there who are trying desperately to have just ONE baby, it's heartbreaking to think that this woman's choice has the potential to make it even harder for them to do so.

Regardless of the ethics behind her choice and the doctor who helped her, the truth is that this woman could have a baby without help if she chose to. There are many women out there who can't. I honestly hope that people can see the distinction between the two and be smart enough to realize that this woman's choice should not be allowed to affect couples who cannot have a baby of their own any other way.

I didn't read all of the comments above, so sorry if this is a repeat, but it seems to me that the problem with an irresponsible fertility doctor is the same problem people have with, say, an irresponsible psychiatrist. Sure, there are psychiatrists out there who would probably prescribe anti-psychotics for someone who sweats while speaking in public, but this doesn't mean a) there aren't more responsible doctors in this world and b) that people don't need medication. But how do we better regulate? Who gets to decide? When you think about it, we have a problem with this sort of excess all over society--for example, for every Bernie Madoff, we have a ton more responsible investors.

This might be getting a bit too philosophical, but obviously this whole story is only a small example of the many things that are wrong with our society right now--excess and fiscal irresponsibility being at the top of that list. With things going as they are, it's hard NOT to resent someone like Nadya Suleman. She's a living, breathing example of what got us into this mess to begin with.

So, how do we fix it? More regulation, probably, coming from INSIDE the respective industries. But I think we also need better role models in the media. (For instance, I think the Obamas are probably the perfect people for the White House right now, but I don't want this to be too political.) Clearly we've reached some sort of social breaking point, along with fiscal. It'll be interesting to see what comes next...

A few points:

- I actually don't think the uproar has anything to do with IVF, at least for me. If she had 14 kids via regular old intercourse in the same circumstances I'd still think she was f'ed up.

- That said, I think the one thing that bothers me about the fact that it was through IVF was that it allowed her to have 8 tiny, delicate babies in her body at once. I'm not a doctor, but 8 babies fighting for room and resources can't be the healthiest way for a fetus to develop. (Although, yeah, I guess I would have liked to have seen the plastic surgery and IVF money be put toward the kids SHE ALREADY HAS.)

- The whole "these babies might have a wonderful life" is complete crap. The 6 she already has don't have a wonderful life (per the grandparents) and adding another 8 is just going to make it profoundly worse.

- She has absolute reproductive rights, and I think that's wonderful. I also think it's wonderful that I have the right to be pissed about choices she's made and voice my opinion. And my opinion is that it's f'ed up to pop out kids like some sort of sow in a barn - kids that you can't possibly care for - and then expect taxpayers to pay for your irresponsible behavior.

Heather, you are a rational person and obviously a good parent. If anyone told you that you shouldn't have kids it was a tiny minority - and unfortunately there is ALWAYS going to be that tiny minority of a-holes out there. In this woman's situation we have what I'm guessing are millions of people incensed by what she's gone and done, and I think that says something.

We can't defend someone who is obviously unstable and say it's to protect the rights of folks who are stable and make rational life decisions. It HAS to be OK to say this is wrong, or suddenly NOTHING is wrong. It's a slippery slope both ways, people.

I did IVF one time. We transferred 2 embryos and cryopreserved the 3rd one. At first, I figured if I got pregnant with the 2 embryos, we'd donate the 3rd one or give it up for science. I'm pro-choice, after all. But after having had TWINS and seeing how they thrive and interact together, I can't imagine not TRYING later to get pregnant with the 3rd embryo on ice. I can't imagine giving the embryo up for adoption, knowing someone else was raising my baby.

Had it been me in the Octomom's situation, particularly at her AGE, maybe I wouldn't have wanted to 'discard' those embryos, either. but I would have thought LONG AND HARD about the financial responsibility of raising them. And even if I still wanted to take that risk, I would have never transferred them ALL AT ONCE. EVER.

I just blogged about Octo-Mom this morning on my site. I'm not sure what's worse, the media's coverage or the fact that child protective services hasn't been called yet.

Oh hell no! This woman should not be forced to give up her children! LOVE is not the question... obviously this woman loves her babies.

The doctor who foolishly implanted a single, jobless woman with 14 embryos should be held financially accountable, by the courts. He should have to pay child support for those children!

I can guarantee you we would never see octuplets born via invitro fertilization ever again!

Personally, I don't like children, won't have children, and think that procreation should be a privilege since all of the natural selection measures are now erased with laws designed to protect (and sometimes reward) the idiots clogging up the gene pool.

But. I am not dictator of the world (YET) and I recognize that everyone has the right to have babies. I don't really question IVF or whatever fertility methods were used on Nadya Suleman, I question her desire to bring more children into an already desperate situation. I think it the fact that she's on welfare and yet spending money on fertility treatments and plastic surgery that's got people pissed. If she wanted to adopt 8 babies in her situation, there is no way the state would grant her the right. Adoption is a very good barometer she could have used to evaluate her situation and make her decision to have another baby.

It is also my personal opinion that she may not be psychologically fit to raise her children.

The only problem my wife and I have with fertility is trying to find the time to have sex.

Every medical breakthrough or new science has both a positive and negative to it. If we the people as a whole can reap the benefits we also need to shoulder the burden of the negative aspects.

Glass houses and stones and what not.

People really don't understand the medicine behind this phenomenon, and the best thing that could come out of this media coverage is that people comprehend a little better how IVF works and what the complications are. I'm not advocating for governmental regulation of reproductive technology, I'm advocating for self-regulation among the medical community. This doctor acted irresponsibly, by implanting 6 (NOT 8) embryos, but with the high failure rate of IVF this is probably more common than any of us realize.
Nadya probably has some form of mental illness as evidenced by the fact that she seems sublimely oblivious to the challenges of octuplets in interviews. However, she does appear to genuinely want and intend to take care of these kids. If we took the children of every mother that didn't have financial or other resources, then every other American would have to line up to adopt/foster those kids, because the system would be absolutely overwhelmed.

I think it's clear to everyone that this woman has issues. These issues have unfortunatly put a cloud over fertility treatments and those who use them. I think any woman who uses fertility treatments should be reminded, told and educated that your chances of having multiples increase signifcantly. I also think women should undergo some type of mental evaluation before going through similar fertility treatments like the octuplet mom. It takes a strong woman and family to raise one child, let alone 14.

Being a person who IS infertil, I hate the woman. I hate that she has used resources and has brought up the thoughts of even THINKING about taking away my chance of having a child naturally. To think that she did this simply out of selfish reasons and basically COULD have had children naturally makes me want to vomit in her placenta smoothies and grind it up again so she would never know that I even DID vomit in her smoothie.
My heart goes out to those children for the life of neglect they are going to face, the life of wanting they will lead and the emotional toil it will cause all of them. If she is up to putting them up for adoption, my husband and I would sign up in a Jiffy!

Women are in far more danger from an infertility doctor on a power trip (they start handing out psych tests at the door, ain't nobody actually making it inside) than they ever would be from one strange case being overblown by the stupid morning shows.

But this is how we do, right? We govern the lives of everyone by the most outlandish anecdote we can find, and the person over in the corner screaming ANECDOTES ARE NOT DATA is the crazy one, not the rest of us who think it's just fine to start, as you put it, Heather, making up qualifications for who gets to parent.

Fact of the matter is, though, when you're infertile you're bombarded with everybody else's ideas of what you should be doing. You're treated like a circus freak and everyone has to say something, give you advice, tell you do this and not that, question your choices ... Half my family doesn't know what I'm going through and it's because that half as well as most of the country apparently is a bunch of nosy, carping, gossippy assholes.

This woman and her 14 kids will not consume in their lifetimes half the resources consumed by a U.S. Senator, financial and otherwise, and so if you're going to use the responsible taxpayer argument, I'd much rather pay for Nadya Suleman to get knocked up with as many "litters" as she likes than pay for a cup of Sam Brownback's coffee.

A.

What happened in this specific case is outrageous, indeed. No one is arguing that the mom and the doctor were extremely irresponsible, if unethical.

That being said, THANK YOU for writing what you did. Many of us out here who have struggled to become parents
have been very responsible, and have gone to very responsible doctors.

There are ethical questions to be explored, but no one need make sweeping judgements against families struggling to try to conceive! After years of heartbreak with unsuccessful interventions, IVF gave us our 2 beautiful SINGLE-BIRTH daughters....allowed us to enjoy what too many take for granted.

IVF is draining emotionally, physically, and financially. The staggering costs of IVF cycles & other huge obstacles stand in the way of typical couples hoping to try to have the hopes of carrying their baby.

she needs psychiatric help. Octomom, I mean, not Dooce.

I do not doubt that woman with large litters of children can indeed be a good mother, not neglect their kids, etc etc. No doubt. HOWEVER, when you have a PLANNED multiple pregnancy and are already a "parasite" of society (parasite in the most basic of definitions, not like an ugly bug or anything)...why oh why would you have eight children? Seriously? Yes, this woman can do anything she wants, whatever. But what POOR judgment. Period. It is irresponsible to bring 14 children into the world without having the financial means to take care of them. Any by financial means, I do not mean the government. So, she will be judged. Actions are not without consequence. Fine, I will pay my taxes and fine some of my taxes will go to the financial needs of this woman. Fine, fine, fine. But I can still grumble about it. This is ridiculous.

I don't think infertility should have anything to do with the core issue. Think of it this way, if a single person (man or woman) already had six kids and wanted eight more all the same age, whether it be foster parenting, adopting, giving birth to, stealing, whatever, natural reaction is to think, "What are they crazy!?" That's why most people call her crazy. If folks today have issues with IVF, and I don't understand why, they likely did even before this.

I can't help but remember the words and feelings her oldest kids spoke in an NBC Interview with Anne Curry. You could tell the oldest ones who could understand what was happening weren't very exited about the thought of it all.

This sort of goes back to that old saying, "You have to have a license to own a dog, but you don't have to have a license to be a parent."

While I don't want government to control reproductive rights as I'm pro-choice as well, it's odd thinking about reproductive rights from an opposite angle than what we're used to.

With that said, would an adoption agency allow a single person to adopt and parent eight infants at the same time when they already have six young children? Highly unlikely. Even if there were two parents it would be unlikely. I don't even think they'd let Bradgelina adopt eight infants all at once. Their decision is not controlling reproduction, but it is ensuring the best possible home and parent(s) to a child.

If you were single, had six small children and wanted to foster eight infants all at once, the foster system would for sure come back with a flat out no. Again, the decision is not controlling reproduction, but it is a government decision to ensure the best possible home and foster parent(s) to a child.

The purpose of reproduction is to be a parent. The purpose of IVF is to become a parent. The purpose of fertility drugs is to be a parent. The purpose to adopt is to be a parent.

So maybe there should be some sort of council or board to ensure doctors are making the right decisions before they load up eight embryos in you, me, our sisters, our best friends. Have them use guidelines similar to what adoption agencies use. Not in a way to control someone, but to ensure the baby is welcomed into a stable home and also ensure its parent will be ready to be a parent and can wrap their head and pocketbook around the possibility of multiples in their future.

In every system there should be a form of checks & balances, it just seems something very important was missed here.

When I adopted my rescue dog I had to have someone from their rescue group come to my home, investigate the fence, ensure the dog would get enough attention that the breed needed and interview us before they would consider us to adopt one of their rescue dogs. They even waited for the right dog to come along which suited our personalities and living arrangements to ensure the best fit for the dog and us. That's how responsible they were! I didn't care because I wanted a dog so much I was happy to let them in and ask what they needed.

Why is it that dog ownership becomes more of a responsible process than becoming a parent?

How can anyone concentrate on this topic when there's a photo of Coco humping Chuck just a click away? So many questions ... I don't understand ...

It's a slippery slope. It seems obvious to most of the world that there is no way that Suleman, alone, can care for the physical and emotional needs of 14 children in our society. But what are the standards by which we measure the "fitness" of a parent or the eligibility for infertility treatments? If there are two parents? If they are the opposite or same sex? If they have no more than two children already? There is no measure.

Given the inability to apply a standard, I see the argument for an "all or none" approach to infertility treatment; however, I'd find it incredibly unfortunate if that option were taken away from so many decent, loving and able parents desiring to have a child of their own, but needing a little extra help.

I think you said it best Heather, there are now 14 little innocent children who are a product of this woman's glutonous and insatiable desire to be a mom and the doctor's complete irresponsibility. That situation needs to be addressed and discussed to prevent it from happening again because one child that can't receive sufficient nuturing & care is one too many.

I can't help but think how great it would be for the
neighbors and local church groups to show their love
by pitching in an helping. Fund raisers for diapers,
babysitting, help with the laundry, bottle time,
nap time, etc. And I can't help but think of when I
was in China in 1999 and hearing stories about the
government making women take pregnancy tests and if
they were pregnant with child no. 2 ---- they MAKE
them get an abortion. I can only imagine how awful that
is. They are not even allowed to have two children.
We live in a country of tremendous
freedom and we should be proud of that and treasure
that. I would NOT want my tax dollars to pay for her
brood, but this is her family and I pray she does not
get paid for interviews or write a book to sell about
her multiple adventure. People, wise up. DON'T BUY THE
BOOK. I can't wait to get home from work and watch
Oprah and see what her father has to say about all of this.

Tiffany #699. RIGHT ON! BEING A PARENT IS A RESPONSIBILITY AND A PRIVILEGE! NOT JUST SOMETHING YOU JUST DO!!!

Thank you Heather for opening up comments on this. You asked for comments from people struggling with infertility, so I'd be happy to give you mine.

My husband and I have been struggling with infertility for over 5 years now. We have done countless rounds of Clomid, followed by 6 IUI's. Last year we had our first IVF which was successful, but ultimately ended in a miscarriage at 11 weeks. I cannot describe the physical and emotional pain these procedures have produced. Yet, we are about go through another IVF in the coming weeks. Why? Because we choose to. Because we live in a country and society that allows us to have that choice. I do not believe that choice shoud be taken away from me or any other woman. Nor do I believe that the fact that my reproductive organs don't work like they should mean that I should have to pass some type of "competency test" in order to choose IVF. I've heard several people comment that you should be subjected to the same standards as adoptive parents. Fine, but why only infertile couples. If you follow this twisted logic, shouldn't everyone be subjected to it. Just because your ovaries work normally, you are automatically considered fit??

Having said that, I feel that this case is quite unusual in every way. I believe that Nadya is not completely mentally stable. My personal opinion. I don't believe that she transferred 6 embryos expecting all of them to implant and produce 8 babies. However, based on her economic situation, I do NOT believe that she made a good decision. Whatever her reasons were, they were wrong. When you can't support the 6 childrent you have, why would you attempt to have even 1 more at that time. I cannot wrap my brain around that. And I do not feel it fair that other people will be footing the bill for her irresponsibility.

I am saddened by the "black eye" this case is giving the IVF community. Most of us are normal, rational loving couple who simply want the ability to have a child like every other couple.

And to the many, many people who feel that those of us with infertility issues need to accept that God doesn't want us to be parents and we are being selfish....doesn't God also say something about not JUDGING others?

To #692 (rb) I have this to say: the attention this story has received has nothing to do with the fact that this woman is "strange," nor does it have to do with feeling morally superior to someone else! What a stupid thing to say! I don't even think this story is drawing attention because a woman received IVF to have 8 babies - after all, she's not the first to do this. I think the main reason people are so upset about her and her story is due to the fact that she's unemployed and broke!! And in debt! And already has 6 kids she can't financially care for!! Nadya Suleman is not using welfare as a temporary arrangement until her financial situation improves. She'll be on welfare for life - and people SHOULD be outraged about this! Not to mention that it is physically and emotionally impossible for one person to care for 14 children under the age of 7. Impossible. I think it's completely fair to say that the lives of her children (and her own life) are in danger. Especially since she's unstable to begin with.

I do not think of this story as an "infertility" story, but as a story of child neglect. It only makes me sad, not angry.

I think the big difference here between the Octomom and the Duggers/Jon & Kate is very clear. I have no problem with the Octomom being a single mother. Nothing says that should prevent her from having a few kids. (And kudos to any single moms out there -- ya'll are way strong.)

However, the Duggers had their brood pretty much one at a time and at least one of them had a job. Jon and Kate went in for fertility treatments wanting to have "one more" and got sextuplets. But at that time, they both were working.

In contrast, Octomom is jobless, on welfare, gets food stamps, lives with her mother (whose house is about to go into foreclosure), and ALREADY had six kids. At least two of them have disabilities, for which she also collects a check.

While the others have TV shows now, the were not (and are not) financial drains on society. They contribute. They work, pay taxes, etc. In the Octomom's case, my tax dollars probably went toward her IVF treatments and puffy lips. Not cool.

Now sometimes people need help, and that's cool. That's what the system is there for. But she took major advantage of that system. And if I have to help subsidize her existance, that money SHOULD HAVE GONE TOWARD CARING FOR THE SIX KIDS SHE ALREADY HAD ... NOT TOWARD ADDING TO THE BROOD.

Woman is like the freaking 'Alien' queen.

And for the record, toss the book at the doctor. Sure, maybe the fact that he implanted 6 embryos isn't illegal, but the fact that he knew she already had 6 kids should have sent up some red flags.

Re. 488 IVF & miscarriage veteran...

No, I wasn't referring to you, or for that matter anyone in particular. And I am lucky enough to live in a socialist nation where even my low-income parents could afford to adopt (or get a limited amount of IVF cycles cheap on the state). It just bothers me sometimes to think that if they had chosen IVF instead, my brother and I might have grown up in an orphanage, and my sister might have been fostered in an institution instead of in a family.

I agree that adoption is a pretty gruelling process, but I think it's worth it in most cases, especially for the child in question. I guess in a way I kick up a fuss about it because I think that people somehow must value the relationship I have with my parents less than they would if my mother physically gave birth to me, that I am less worthy as a child to my parents than I would be if they carried me forth biologically. Which is not a nice thought, obviously.

Everyone has the right to make their own choices. My aunt, for instance, had I think three IVF cycles before she decided to long-term foster and not have children of her own. It's just that I don't think, sadly, that having biological children is a right, even when everyone else is doing it.

look, we ARE talking about ONE woman that went too far ...NOT every woman who needs help conceiving. Why can't we separate the two?

When I heard this story, I felt like screaming. Literally. I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs. Every scrap of fairness was thrown out of the window because this one woman decided she wanted many children, for some reason.

They talk about this horrible doctor doing this TO her. He did it FOR her. He obviously is very unethical, but she's not a victim, she paid him to do this. On that note, if she can't feed her kids, how did they pay for this procedure? Sounds very fishy to me. If I had six children, three of whom had special needs, and I had no job and lived off welfare and my parents, you can be DAMN sure that if I suddenly came into money, it would go to my EXISTING kids. Not on a procedure to have more kids and NOT to have plastic surgery. FUCK.

Reproductive rights. She has them. They should not be taken away. BUT

-What about the rights of her children? Her attention is now spread out over FOURTEEN CHILDREN and she is single! No father to be heard from! No doubt a few of them will at some point feel overlooked. Hell, it happens in families of five.

-What about the rights of her parents? They been stuck with the financial and emotional burden of giving her and her children a place to live up to this point, and now there will be eight more children stuffed into their home! They have been responsible for this woman and her well-being until she grew up (physically, anyways) and now they have to continue? When do they get a break?

-What about the rights of those who run/rely on the community programs this woman relies on to make ends meet? Are there other families who are making do with less or going without because this woman and her fourteen children are sucking up resources?

-What about the rights of responsible people who are looking at IVF as a means of having a child they are emotionally/financially ready for? IVF is under such scrutiny now. I sincerely hope this doesn't spark changes that will make it harder for rational people to have IVF, because that is not fair whatsoever.

What's done is done and I sincerely hope that these children are cared for and this woman gets that screw tightened in her head before she thinks about getting more IVF/plastic surgery done. My heart goes out to them, but I simply do not trust this woman's motives.

I will admit I haven't read all the comments, so if this has already been said I apologize.

One of the issues that I am not hearing much talk about is how fertility doctors can handle patients like Ms. Suleman who believe life begins at conception and are, therefore opposed to selective reduction. Ms. Suleman also did not seem to want her embryos to remain frozen after she was done having children, nor did she want them destroyed. Since this was her last go-round, she had them all implanted, assuming most would not make it.

I think the question of how a doctor discusses what requirements a patient's religious belief may impose on treatment, as well as how the treatment must be tweaked to accommodate those beliefs, is a pretty interesting one. What if the doctor refused to implant them all at Ms. Suleman's request, thus violating her religious beliefs? I think the only responsible thing to do here was to ask "If you have multiples, would you consider reduction?" and "If there are embryos left over what would want to be done with them?". If a patient isn't open to selective reduction, I think a doctor should implant very few embryos. If a patient would not want "left over" embroyos donated or destroyed, you have to harvest just enough for one responsible procedure.

I bring this up because, although I am pro-choice for all women and families, I personally feel the same way Ms. Suleman does. If I ever did do fertility treatments, these are issues I would have to talk with my doctor about. I understand her not wanting the embryos destroyed and having them all implanted on the basis that there is virtually no chance many will make it. I don't understand why she and her doctor created a scenario where that was the best choice given her religious beliefs.

Not that I expect folks to read all the way to the bottom here and see my little comment, but I recently read a great article in Newsweek that offers another angle from which to view this story. Just wanted to share.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185562

Someone said:

"AND she didn't CHOOSE to have 8 babies at once...8 babies HAPPENED and she CHOSE not to abort them."

How can you possibly think that? She DID choose to have 8 babies at once! SHE made the decision to transfer 8 embryos and SHE understood (if she was sane, that is) that transferring 8 embies could very well result in having 8 babies. Yes, odds are low that they would all implant successfully, but even if there's just a slight chance, why would any sane person make that decision? Good grief, many couples stress about transferring 2 embies! But 8?!? That's just freakin nuts, especially considering she already has 6 kids, no job, no house, no significant other to help...

She wasn't some innocent woman who was held down and forced to undergo treatment which takes months and LOTS of $$, then forced to implant 8 embies then forced to carry them. No, she CHOSE to have EIGHT babies. They didn't just "happen" - they were scientifically manipulated into this world and paid for with a great deal of money. Now they will be forced to endure what could very well be physically and emotionally painful lives b/c their mother is a self centered nutjob and her RE was a self centered, greedy quack.

Hey TOTALLY off the subject, but WHERE DID YOU GET THAT SHIRT. I love the white shirt you are wearing in the video, please PLEASE email me where you get it from and I will LOVE YOU FOREVER
Thanks!

Heather, I'm surprised to hear you say "the father" isn't involved. The children don't have a "father" in that sense--although they are from the same sperm donor, this by no means makes that donor a father. Fatherhood has to be mean much more than giving a microscopic cell with a even more minute protein strand which then combined in an egg (which contributes much more to a zygote) and then nurtured in a womb (in a woman's body) becomes a human infant--especially if you are going to make a case for women's absolute reproductive freedom. Essentialist fatherhood--which entitles someone who would otherwise be a mere sperm donor via intercourse rather than ARTs to parental rights (think of polygamous marriage and "priesthood" as the LDS analogue to "motherhood")--devalues the work of men who take fatherhood as a role seriously, along with the labors of women who are also mothers. Also, by making a man who gives sperm a necessary "father," aren't you implying that women don't or shouldn't have the freedom to reproduce outside of a hetero paired unit? (ie., lesbian couples would need to make sure the "father" has access to the kid.) If we are to not flip out about assistive repro technologies by holding them up to a socially constructed "natural" measuring stick, shouldn't we also denaturalize the nuclear hetero family unit as the only family unit?

Anyway, I haven't checked in on your blog for a while but it seems like things are good. Congrats.

OK, I think it's good to hold back from being judgmental in particular ways, but could you help me out by making fun of these people:
http://www.ayarising.blogspot.com/

I think you are the perfect antidote. Please, please help me.

Dooce, I find it interesting that you think that this story will cause other people seeking reproductive treatments to be frowned upon. I have never connected this woman's story to the (several) women I know who have required medical help to conceive. There are just too many bizarre factors about this case for me to make that comparison. Hopefully, most people can make this distinction. Also, where is the Dr's story in all of this? I know of no Dr. who would put that many eggs in somebody (even half that many, if they did in fact all split). How come he isn't being questioned at the forefront of all this?

Lord knows there are plenty of irresponsible parents out there. How do I know this? Cause Nancy Grace never lets me forget it! But I agree that getting righteous about parenting choices is easy to do. And it's a dangerous thing to fall into in this case.

But I do think the extreme multiples trend is a little alarming and we can't just ignore it. Nadja may be an extreme situation. But I do think there is a question of medical ethics when babyballs are implanted in far greater numbers than need be in order to keep the success stats of the fertility clinic high.

Nice post.

2 points:
1) how can i begin to make a decision for others that i can barely make for myself. to have or have not, i can't decide.
2) you guys were on NPR, OMG! i felt so validated for whatever reason when i heard you talk about wiping hard drives.

I don't want to sound like a fascist or anything but I'm in favor of a brief 10 question test for any and all perspective parents either biologically, adopted or otherwise before you can bring a person into this world. As a child protective services social worker I’ve seen the worst of the worst that parents can inflict on their children I don't think it would be too much to ask for the same level of intent as say getting a driver license, hunting license or hell even plumbing license. Actually for all of those things you actually have to take a course to be able to do them...but hey we'll forgo that in my perfect world in favor of something like say #1- If your 2 month old baby is crying inconsolably and you're frustrated do you A) Beat their face against a door frame until their skull fractures and they are quiet B) Put the baby in the sink and leave it alone for a few hours to get a few drinks with your buds C) Put the baby down in its crib for a minute until you calm down.

See not too difficult. You don't have to be wealthy, of a certain ethnicity or sexual orientation or even that smart to pass. You just have to give a shit about the kid. I’m all for freedom of choice up until that choice leads to the serious and long term screwing up of a child to put it in “clinical social work” terms. Ok getting off my soap box, great discussion carry on.

I liked hearing your thoughts. It made me think about the other side of this situation...It also made me realize how quick I was to judge. Thanks.

Ok, reproductive rights aside...the real issue here is that of medical ethics. Basically, did the physician do what's in the best interest of the patient (and her future children)as the Hippocratic oath states (and has He/She most likely pledged to do?) We are not designed to carry 8 babies (we are not cats, after all), and most halfway reasonable physicians will tell you that bringing, or attempting to bring, 8 children to term poses considerable risk to the mother as well as the children. Sometimes the physician has to act supercede the WANTS of a patient regardless of their mental faculties in order to preserve life. This was an irresponsible thing for the physician to do, Ms. Suleman's desires aside.

That physician did caste a negative shadow on all of IVF by choosing to do this, but once the sensationalism of the event is gone, and people's relatively short attention span has been diverted elsewhere, hopefully couples will be able to pursue IVF again without fear.

My last comment wasn't fully finished-- I totally forgot to mention that I really don't feel it's a matter of the 'right' to procreate vs the feeling I get that more and more of the US population is feeling that they are ENTITLED over being PRIVILEGED.

Heather,

Kudos to you and all the womyn of momversation for having women of color on your panel. It means a lot to me, and I'm sure to a lot of other people. You rock, grrrrl!

Always a fan,
Christie

Oh, LPE, I'm sooo with you here. And Purple shoes said something similar. This is a free society and lots of crazy shit will happen because of that. And honestly I think this isn't even remotely close to the worst of it. If she were an Irish Catholic married woman, not too many would flinch! What about that crazy family with the TV show? Yes, I'm being a bit silly, but still.

I can't comment on the fertility side because I've been lucky enough to conceive naturally twice (and hopefully just twice!). I'm probably just ignorant here, but I don't see how this ridiculous doctor could damn the rest of those who need fertility treatment. Unless we continue to get all excited, and the din becomes a "let's get her!" roar.

The bottom line is that, money aside, fertility aside, I would rather help these kids with my tax dollars so that they can stay with their Mother than use those tax dollars to rip them away and have them placed in foster care. And if she needs therapy...wait, what am I saying? I need therapy with just 2 kids. I just think we should be channeling some more positive energy with this whole situation ...it also makes me uneasy to think of the children being taken from the only mother they know.

And I'm sure many of you are thinking, "but she's crazy!" Eh. I don't know. Maybe. Who isn't? I doubt she's fucking them up as badly as, say, an functioning alcoholic who'll never get this kind of attention. Do you know how many parents there are like that out there? This is just all a very dangerous slippery slope to me.

I'm not going to say what she did was right. And, I'm not going to say what she did was wrong.

But, I do sometimes wonder if maybe she is addicted (in a sense) to being pregnant.

I only hope that the children have as normal a childhood as possible given the situation.

My daughter was born in 2007 after I received treatment for infertility. It makes me sad to think that one extreme case may result in limits being set. I think you said it perfectly when you talked about the heartache of infertility... how having the government all up in your biz is not another thing infertile couples need. yeah i feel bad for the 14 suleman kids, but I'm sure there are plenty of other kids out there who have it worse.

and all this crap about welfare...people need to get a grip.

People are saying these things? Really?

What I've mostly heard is that she belongs in a mental institution (getting some much needed help), and the doctor who did it belongs in jail. Or at least, not practicing any form of medicine anymore.

I may agree with both of those sentiments. You know, as an observer who only knows what she's seen on TV.

Any more blanket statements about fertility in general are ... stupid, like most blanket statements are.

I completely agree that this woman is an outlier and there should not be restrictions on reproductive choices.

What I believe stokes up so much fury is that she *chose* to risk having all 7 embryos implanted at once. She already had 6 children, they could have transferred fewer and should have. Period.

You can't compare this situation with other people who have large families - i.e. the Duggars - who make a point to live frugally and have one/two children at a time. It's just not the same thing. Not at all.

I believe that the decision to have or not have a child is an extremely serious decision to make. I don't think Miss Suleman contemplated the many aspects of adding to her family before she chose to do so. As many have said in these comments, if she could barely afford to take care of the six children she already had, choosing to have more, regardless of whether she had one more or eight more, was a very, very poor choice indeed.
I agree that the doctor should be investigated; if, as a previous comment said, he was trying to up his positive results, then he, too, made a poor decision.
I sincerely hope that this incident does not have a negative effect on other people who wish to use IVF to conceive. Many people have compared the need for a background check or some sort of ethical investigation to the rigorous checks that must happen in order for a person to adopt. I agree - it is much harder for a single woman to adopt a child than for a couple. Why wasn't it much harder for this single woman to use IVF to conceive a child than for a couple seeking IVF treatment?
I think some kind of shortcut must have been taken, whether in policy or the treatment itself, for this to have happened. Someone cut a corner on this one.
I hope that, if she is not capable of raising the children, whether because of her own mental stability or her financial situation, that they are able to grow up in loving foster/adoptive homes and do not suffer in their own lives because of her decision.
As I said, it was a poor choice on her part, but it WAS her choice, and I'm not sure I understand why she is begging for TV deals and ways to get money when SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE FINANCIAL RISKS of adding one or more children to the six she already has, long before she walked into the doctor's office.

I think the fertility doctor should be held financially responsible for this mess. He/She? has established such a horrible name and reputation for a service that so many people desprately want and have the ablility to pay for. Sure, people could adopt. But if they have the sufficient funds to facilitate the process, then why not? She had enough on her plate...probably too much already. I think what she has done is discgraceful for mothers, for infertility specialists, for people that might need a hand once in a while.

I haven't read all the posts. I'm on a margarita bender and thought it would be appropriate to comment on dooce.com. I felt that most readers would relate, and if not, then f&*k it! I'll state my opinion anyway.

Some good points have been made. I'm saddened that any couple would be made to feel badly for doing everything medically possible to have children.
If you live in California and are angry that your tax dollars will go towards supporting Suleman and her children, I'm sorry. Just as sorry as I am that my tax dollars go to pay for the THOUSANDS of children born in my county hospital to parents who can't afford to have and support their children. (I live in the state, county, and city that is home to the second busiest maternity ward in the nation...most of the people having babies there don't pay for the delivery nor do they support their families without government help...oh, and the majority of them aren't American citizens either.)
It's a shame that our society has turned people's lives into entertainment. Gone are the days of the Cosby Show, Full House, Knots Landing, Dynasty...Now we can't turn on the TV without coming across "reality TV". It's not entertaining enough unless we're watching someone else's life unfold before our eyes...often a train wreck. And we love it! I'm just as guilty as the next person, but at what point do we stop, look at ourselves in the mirror, and ask, "What have I done to contribute to this?" The interviews we turn on to hear her side, the parent's, and the doctor's...the magazines we buy plastered with her face and those of her 8 babies that line the grocery store checkout line...and the water cooler talk this woman's life has become. If she wanted publicity, she's getting it and we will continue to buy things from the people who are paying her. And we'll likely do the same thing when the next person comes along.

That woman is clearly mentally ill and the doctor should be put in jail. He is a horrible disgraceful asshole! He clearly knew he was bending ethics!!!

"becoming a mother is an intensely personal decision" - said by one of the other moms on the video... I understand this statement but it's not a personal decision anymore when you are asking others to take care of your decisions. This is a woman who had six children before undergoing yet another IVF treatment, is unable to pay for their upbringing, relies solely on her family and disability payments and government funds to pay for them and yet she was able to pay for IVF? On her end I feel she was totally and completely unethical in her thought process in regards to the children's welfare. I understand wanting children but I also understand wanting to be able to take care of the children I bring into the world, and shouldn't that be the first and foremost thought in any parents' mind? I just feel this woman put her own desires and wants before her children and to me that doesn't scream "mother of the year." It screams "selfish!" Either way the children are here and deserve a good life... I'm just curious how that will happen. In the end I feel this will be a case of "it takes a village."

You can't possibly still be reading this far down the list, but as much as she is a baby hoarder, the deed is done, her uterus is now out of business. Let's move forward to help and protect these helpless babies, some $$ and some mentors could go a long way in helping rescue them.. god forbid she end up in an abandoned bus, run out of smoothie ingrediants or make a porno to feed them.
and thank you for caring,
steph pdx

1. This lady must have some sort of mental instability.

2. Taking children away from their parents because you are pissed at their parents for being odd or having odd tendencies is not always in their best interests. However, if she is truly nuts and can't take care of them that is an entirely different story.

3. It is horrible that this situation will make it more difficult for women who cannot easily conceive to get medical assistance...hopefully, only minimal requirements, like a questionnaire and evaluation by a mental health doctor, can help to alleviate these situations.

The issue here, for me, is not about judging a person who clearly has bad judgment - there are many of us who've made all kinds of huge mistakes that have let many people down and required many people to clean up after - but how this fits into the economic situation we're finding ourselves in. In a more boom time, we might have found this interesting, even quaint, and following the story would be certainly better than following a serial killer or war, or other horrendous stories of the day. We might even take this woman and her children into our hearts. It's the fact that she was irresponsible for herself and her children, and deliberately so, so that now WE have to take responsibility for her and her children. (She may still be able to do okay with a reality series - or a book - or something that would financially sustain her and her family, and we may yet be let off the hook for a while - but mostly we're just fed up to here with irresponsibility.)
We feel let down and frustrated to the point where we have zero tolerance for picking up someone else's pieces - and the awful part for me, here, is not that the whole IVF issue will now be scrutinized and commented on, but that our whole feelings of charity and understanding are going raw. Thank you for the sensitive video conversation, Rori

I don't see why anyone would want to take her children away because she's on welfare under the justification that their tax dollars are going to the care. What do they think happens to children who get taken away? Do they think they go to a fantastical magic cabbage patch where they're raised off sunshine and dewdrops by faeries? No, they're put into foster care, which is state-funded by tax dollars too if I recall properly.

Of course my first instinct on the prospect of reproductive rights is to go, "Ooooh, that's tricky." So I'll try to give some coherent thoughts without that. The only concern society has in the end will be making sure these children are well-cared for, and everything else is just secondary bullshit. These lives are going to come into the world no matter what, and restricting reproductive rights should not be an option for a government.

Fertility treatments in general are used responsibly. I think there are tough choices involved in choosing to pursue it and for me that would include selecting down the amount of viable embryos to ensure as much as possible full-term healthy kids who can expect parents who are able to give them the attention and care they need. That means no litters.

I don't want the exception making the rule. This woman is clearly nuts and the people who supported her in having all these kids are clearly irresponsible and ethically void. The trend is already moving away from celebrating the extremes, and I think people definitely need to cease altogether this rewarding of people who go forward with such pregnancies. Why do they get free cars, houses and years of diapers for pushing the boundaries of biology and luck? How messed up is that really?

This woman did not struggle with infertility. Why is anyone making this an issue about infertility? She was single, wanted multiples, and didn't want to be bothered to do it the old fashioned way.

I am totally for reproductive rights. 100%.

BUT, this woman had a litter of babies on top of a litter of babies, hired a publicist and told the public she wanted to become a "Child Expert" talk show host. She caused her parents to lose their home, as well as their golden years, because they are the ones chasing around the six children that Nadya became bored with. They are also in danger of losing their current home, because feeding six kids (some with special needs), clothing them, keeping the heat and water on for 9 people, is EXPENSIVE. AND THE NEW BABIES ARE NOT EVEN HOME YET.

Her father is going to risk his life by becoming a truck driver in IRAQ to help support this family and to try to keep a roof over their heads. All because Nadya was "lonely" growing up.

She claims that she holds each of her babies for 45 minutes a day. 45 x 8= 360/60= 6 hours. During this time, who is holding her other children?

When she gets home, do you think she will be able to spend 6 hours rocking babies?

This woman had a bunch of babies and hired a publicist. That speaks a thousand words when people line up to their televions to watch the Gosslins and the Duggars. Here's a new twist:

TONIGHT ON TLC, ONE WOMAN, FOURTEEN CHILDREN! SUPER MOM!

But it comes down to this: It doesn't matter anymore why she did it, but as per usual, someone else is going to have to clean up this mess for her. I don't think her children are okay with her. Not because she is crazy or because she is an attention whore, but because she cannot provide for them.

These children are on the verge of becoming homeless. Her parents are being worked to the bone trying to keep up, and Nadya is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

As I have said before. IF this was a poor black woman, living in the ghetto, having baby after baby, that she cannot take care of, nobody would bat an eye when CPS comes in to take the children to foster care.

I think the fact that she cannot care for these children and that she cannot provide for them, is the reason that these children, especially the special needs kids, should be put into foster care.

Patty, Jon & Kate used IUI.
They had no idea how many of her follicles would actually spit out an egg and get fertilized. Different scenario altogether.

Whether you are a person who cannot have children or chose to not have sex to have a baby, IVF is your choice. The problem is when you have FOURTEEN done this way! Common sense should prevail if not in her - then in the Dr. who did this. During these trying times of people losing thier jobs left and right and the country going through a recession, who can afford this many children? Yes, it's her right, but not when welfare (You and I) pay for them, not when the children will be neglected (and you know to a certain extent they will be no matter how hard she tries). These children did not have a say in the matter. When people get ready to adopt a child who NEEDS a home and loving parent(s), does the system let you adopt 14? I don't think so. I know this country is being wrung from one end to the other with taxes and new laws, but doesn't this fall under a "shouldn't this be a new law" category?

I think all the media debate is a mute point. These children have been born and need to be supported and validated. Imagine all the crap the other six children are hearing at school. How are their opinions of their new siblings being shaped by everything they're hearing in the very public discussion about their family going on around them? Neither they nor the new eight babies need to grow up shouldering the burden of others' opinions of their mother's choices. I also humbly think that we don't have quite as much control over things as we think we do and that these children (whether we would've made the same choices or not) were meant to be.

Had Nadya been adopting a puppy from the animal shelter, they would've asked more questions about her home and lifestyle than (it appears) this doctor did when she told him to implant all those embryos. No person should dictate another's reproductive choices, but this was simply irresponsible 'medicine.'

Let me put it this way: In my early twenties, I seriously thought about having my ovaries removed because I didn't want to have kids (or use birth control my whole life). But doctors were hestitant because of my age--"you have so many child-bearing years left, you might change your mind down the road."

They considered my situation and provided professional medical counsel based on that. Why shouldn't the same have been done for Nadya?

I think the situation was totally crazy and everyone involved should have re-evaluated before doing this on tax dollars. That being said, I think women very much have a right to infertility help. I myself needed that help in conceiving my ONE beautiful daughter. People love to stero-type, point fingers, and make a good thing hard for people who need it because of one fruit cake. Yes the eight babies are going to cost tax payers a bundle, but is it fair to take away the option of fertility treatment for the hundreds of thousands of people who need it for growing their family and are smart about it. No.

Thank you for speaking up about this and opening it up for discussion.

Thanks, Heather, for trying to draw the line between the abuse of IVF between Suleman and, especially, her doctor and the ordinary, sane person struggling with infertility.

I grew up in a poor but loving home. I worked my butt off in high school and was accepted and graduated from an Ivy League college. I spent my early 20s working to pay off my mountain of college loans. I spent my late 20s helping my mom achieve her dream of buying a home, and paid for half of her down payment. Would I trade of this for an easier life? Never. It made me who I am and I'm proud of what I was able to accomplish and how I was able to help my family.

Finally, in my early 30s, I met my soulmate. We married at 35 and started trying to have kids at 36. It has been 2 long, hard years filled with 4 surgeries, one miscarriage and too many doctor's appointments to count. How does this make me less entitled to have a biological child than someone for whom everything has always come easily? I thank God everyday that we live in a time where my husband and I can actually pursue medical options to help us out, rather than give up on the dream of having a biological child. I would be thrilled to have one teeny, tiny child at this point and would NEVER endanger myself or my babies by transferring more than 2 embryos during an IVF cycle.

There is no doubt in my mind that Suleman's doctor should lose his license. He did not have the best interest of his patients or her embryos at heart. There should be legal guidelines over the number of embryos that could be transferred, like they have in Europe. But I also have no doubt that Suleman is a famewhore and completely immature. No, those lips are not post-pregnancy lips, they are botox (look at her photos from a few years ago to compare). Yes, she has been photographed spending her time getting manicures instead of spending time with her babies in instensive care or, oh yeah, those other 6 kids at home. She lies about not being on public assistance until the LA Times easily exposes her. She doesn't seem to care that she is driving her poor mother into an early grave.

She is NOT the posterchild for infertility. She is the posterchild for selfishness and the me-mentality that so many people seem to suffer from nowadays.

I agree that people are awfully quick to lump Nadya in with everyone who seeks IVF. I am also someone who believes that IVF is a *miraculous* medical procedure, something that ought to be available to anyone infertile anywhere, and not something to be stigmatized.

Most people who have children NEVER have to explain why they wanted biological children, why they didn't adopt, etc. -- but those who do IVF usually have to explain that again and again, even to strangers who find out about it. I do think the social discomfort with it has a little to do with wanting to control women's reproductive choices.

But this Nadya woman's situation isn't strictly about reproductive choices in my eyes. She made the decision to seek multiple births at the risk not only to her own health, but to the children's health, as the chances of fetal / infant complications and death skyrocket with this many kids.

The doctor shouldn't have put the embroyos in NOT because she was poor, or single, or because she had bats in her head -- but because it wasn't in the best medical interest of the patient or her future children.

Doctors *do* get to make these decisions, after all. People who ask for crazy, unwise medical treatments do not automatically get them. Doctors take a vow to do no harm, and most ethical doctors wouldn't make a decision that would significantly risk harm on their patient -- and, it turns out, eight other people.

I'm okay with giving doctors this much power without feeling like they are controlling women's reproductive decisions. After all, if a woman decided she wanted to have her baby two months early so that she could recover her figure before Christmas, most doctors would not agree to induce labor or perform a C-section. I feel comfortable with doctors making that choice.