Bad for the Infertiles

I think that the notion that infertility doesn't affect your ability to function in society is mistaken. It may not appear to do so as dramatically as a more visible physical problem, but the implications of infertility or childlessness can be severe.

My own experience--my husband is not a US citizen, and he came to the US on a fiance visa to marry me (we met when I was living in his country). After we were married, he received a provisional green card good for two years. He was then eligible to apply for a "permanent" green card. We had to send documents of an unspecified nature "proving" that our marriage was real. I visited the local USCIS (the former INS) office to ask what kinds of documents to include, and the first question that the agent asked me was if we had children. She said that if you have children together, then the granting of the permanent green card is pretty much automatic, but otherwise, your documents are really scrutinized. I said "well, what if you're infertile?" and she cringed and said to include lots of photos, legal documents, etc., as well as additional affadavits from friends and family. Now is this policy written into US immigration law? Of course not, but according to this agent, it is the policy nonetheless. And how is not being able to keep your husband in the same country as you supposed to not affect your ability to function normally?

The happy ending--he did get the permanent green card, and I got an extra frown line and many new gray hairs along the way.

You can't assume that because these children made it through childbirth that their mother is now capable of taking care of them. And in fact, from what we've seen from her to date, many have serious concerns as to her ability to give them the love, attention, care, guidance and healthy upbrining that all children deserve. ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... )

MamanAndGourmand ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ): just when exactly do you think she is going to have time to become a millionaire? You say that like it's easy to do. In this economy, it's going to be harder and harder to be a millionaire for quite some time to come, good idea or not. 

The bottom line here is not this woman's right to choose, but the EFFECT of her choice on not eight, but FOURTEEN innocent human beings. I come from a family of eight children. I had two very capable, intellgent parents and it was tough, REALLY TOUGH, to give all of us what we needed. My parents would be the first ones to say they failed miserably, that it was a mistake and they don't recommend having that many children to anyone. It doesn't mean they don't love us all, but it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. And that was a married couple, working together to raise the children. Have you stopped to think realistically what this woman is going to go through? Personally, I predict a mental breakdown at some point, and the children will be sent off to state institutions, most likely never to be adopted. Wow, what a happy ending, huh?

These children are going to suffer, and from the looks of it, pretty horribly as a result of what this woman and her so-called 'doctor' have done. It's an outrage and this kind of irresponsibility can and should be stopped. She has brought shame, misunderstanding, fear, loathing, anger and outrage to the Infertility Community -- as if we needed more of that?

Few octuplets have been born and survived to date. Mother Nature doesn't allow for octuplets very often because it's NOT A GOOD IDEA. Human beings weren't meant to care for that many children at once. If we were, it would happen a lot more often.

And don't even get me started on all the Angelina Jolie BS. This whole story is a freak show.

I agree that household income should not be a factor in a woman's right to her own body for other treatments, but judgement is prudent when it comes to children.  Adoptive parents, single or married, must prove household income and ability to be financially responsible for a child in order to adopt a child.  Should not some sort of similar standard be applied when conducting infertility treatments and the amount of embryos to be implanted?  Or do doctors just want to avoid discrimination lawsuits and still be able to charge their fees for these treatments? 

This story bothered me from the very beginning and has just angered me even more since it continues to unfold.  Melissa you hit the nail right on the head, she is bad for infertiles, ART and SMCs.  To think I agonized over having a child alone, went to therapy to work out my issues, considered the costs and decided that even though I wanted two children, even with a relatively high income I could only afford one.  Then wham, all of a sudden it wasn't so easy to have a baby and had to confront infertility.  Then this woman comes along and makes the decision to use ART or parent alone seem as though it came from the mind of a crazy person with no regard for society and the child.  She has trivialized a difficult decision to parent alone, trivialized infertility and the risks involved in carrying multiples, while the media like a rabid pack of dogs runs along with misinformation instead of delving into the real issues of infertility and single mothers by choice for that matter.  I am also incensed that any doctor who considers themselves a professional would transfer 6 embryos into a woman who, by having already had 6 children, proves she had no implantation issues and therefore the odds of conceiving higher order multiples was virtually guaranteed.  I also think about that slippery slope of saying who can and can't have children but also about reason and logic.  Reason asks who can care for 14 children alone, 8 of whom are babies, and you have no job.  Maybe the issue here is the fact that in order for this aberration to have taken place, it required outside intervention which can be guided by ethics, unlike the "natural" process.  For most of us infertiles one child is all we ask for, pray and hope for, and the idea of putting ourselves and our babies at risk is inconceivable.  What's worse is for that one child we are often chastised for being selfish, for going against nurture for playing god.  Then this woman comes along and seems to reinforce all the negative stereotypes of ART.  Yes I'm angry and judgmental about this.  It also occurred to me that if there were studies which unequivocally said that by being a single mother using an unknown donor you will destroy your child's life, rest assured I would not be pregnant right now, and knowing that I would have sacrificed my need to parent breaks my heart when I consider the implications of what this woman and her doctor have done.

What, single women aren't allowed to have lots of kids? what kind of crap is that? Frankly, that is irrelevant. Like us single people are incapable of being good parents. Would I have 14...even in a row? Not likely. But it is her decision, not mine.

I understand peoples' concerns about what happened, but frankly it isn't anyone's right to tell this woman how many kids she can or cannot have. Period. If she and her doctors went through with it, that's on them.

As for people bearing vs. adopting, I do believe people should give adoption a chance. But it is every person's right to choose how they form their families. And going through these types of procedures is NOT A NEED. It is a want. Pure and simple. Nothing wrong with wants, but don't misrepresent what it is.

Melissa

www.babyheaton.blogspot.com ( http://www.babyheaton.blogspot.com )

 Couldn't agree more, Mel. I wrote about this topic, too, and quite a discussion broke out: http://coming2terms.com/2009/01/29/at-what-cost.as...

 Pamela Jeanne

http://www.Coming2Terms.com

I don't think we can necessarily judge her, but we can judge her doctors.  The idea I keep repeating is that just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done.  

I think medicine works best when it mimics what should happen in a healthy person.  For instance, I think the guideline of using a woman's gametes until 45 and donor eggs until 55 is fair because it is based on the reality that 5% of women can conceive without assistance using their own gametes at 45 (so it's possible) and 55 is the general age (again, we have to speak generally because every body is different) where menopause is complete.  A body couldn't have a child without assistance simply due to the course of nature, therefore, we shouldn't override that just because we can.  But I also believe that each case is different and I can also see where a 56 year old should not be denied donor gametes simply based on a cut-off point.

IVF is meant to mimic a naturally-conceived pregnancy.  It's aim is not to produce multiples, though it is a reality of the procedure.  Still, bodies naturally produce twins and even triplets.  The chance of a body naturally conceiving HOM such as octuplets is so far out of the realm of possibility in nature that I don't think it should be done just because it can be done regardless of where the person is in life. 

Venting about infertility since 2006
www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com ( http://www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com )
and we're not talkin' cowgirls...

And to piggyback on DD, I have a lot of fears about ironclad guidelines in an area of medicine which is much more art than science.  Each protocol is tailored to the person and changed over the course of the cycle.  A doctor literally cannot say with certainty prior to the cycle whether it will be a Day-3 or Day-5 transfer--they can only guess.  Therefore, setting a limit can't be best for each individual woman--only best for the overall reputation of the area of medicine.

Until we're going to regulate which stitch should be used in surgery, we shouldn't be making medical decisions in a vacuum in reproductive endocrinology without taking into account real people and real situations instead of hypotheticals.

I am all for guidelines, but not for regulations that are punishable if not followed.  I'm certainly not for transfering 7 embryos (I believe she transferred 7 and one split?) in a woman who has had prior pregnancies achieved via a single IVF transfer (I believe all of her 6 children were conceived on the first try of each individual IVF cycle).  But I do know one person who transferred 7 and had one child.  Another who transferred 7 and had none.   

Venting about infertility since 2006
www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com ( http://www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com )
and we're not talkin' cowgirls...

It's a really interesting side point: when is it irresponsible to reproduce and who judges what is "irresponsibility."  I was recently reading an article where the person mused about passing along her genes including a family history of obesity and depression.  I understand the idea of not passing along a genetic illness--if two people are carriers of the same fatal genetic disease--but what about the traits/conditions we sort of just wished we didn't have?  It made me really sad, this thought of picking apart our traits and wondering if our genes are up to snuff.  Sort of like a self-prescribed eugenics? 

Venting about infertility since 2006
www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com ( http://www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com )
and we're not talkin' cowgirls...

My only fear with this argument is when we start separating out what medical procedures we're willing to turn over to society and which ones are too "taxing." I agree that someone who cannot raise a child should not be having a child, but I also have a lot of fears of how that would play out in other scenarios. It would actually make a much stronger argument for abortion since it would be more fiscally responsible in terms of not placing a burden on society to terminate if you don't have the means to raise the child.

See what I mean about it becoming more complicated the more we discuss it. Oy.

Venting about infertility since 2006
www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com ( http://www.stirrup-queens.blogspot.com )
and we're not talkin' cowgirls...

I think we have to be careful with this one. It could be a slippery slope.

What if the woman was married, living in a mansion, with the means to set up those children for life, would we judge? Who has a right to sit in judgement? I think we have to be very careful here. We are talking about a woman's right to her own body. If you are arguing that a doctor can say, NO..I won't give you that fertility treatement because of your financial or maritial status..what would stop a doctor from saying, No I won't do this because you are gay or overweight or the wrong color or religion. Does a doctor have a right to say No in those cases? Who draws the line? 

I think the woman's marital and salary status should be left out of this discussion while we debate about the heath risks in implanting that many embryos in ANY women. 

 I think we need to put our own moral judgement aside about this woman. If a woman is physically and emotionally healthy to raise a child should she be denied fertility? And, who decides that? You. Me. Would you want the goverment to have control over how many children you could have? What criteria would you want them to set up? Do you need to make over 100 grand? Do you have to be a working mom? How many of you would fall into that bracket?

As for this particular woman, I really don't know what to think. I dealt with infertility and adopted before giving birth to my daughter with the help of a reproductive endocronolgist. I did it because I knew my husband and I wanted and could provide a good life for children. I think those things should be considered before having children. But, not everyone considers them. I don't know if this woman considered that or not. I can't make that decision based on sound bites and blog discussions.

It is hard for me to understand it when anyone has children they can not provide for. But, it's not for me to expect legislation to be created based on my belief. Again. SLIPPERY SLOPE THERE!

Just my two cents.

Peace,
Kelly (conversemomma)

http://www.ordinaryartblog.com

www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com ( http://www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com/ )

A person with better financial means has more right to have a baby or even 8 babies than a person who doesn't?  Wow.  What if she comes up with an idea that sells for millions and then becomes independtly wealthy?  

www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com ( http://www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com/ )

I understand where you are coming from having had a NICU baby myself.  I am so happy you have a healthy little girl!  I myself have a healthy 2 year old!  BUT I was told I shouldn't risk having children because of several issues.  I was called irresponsible and I knew I could have the baby early..which I did.  Having been told I would never had children I was willing to risk my health and possibly my child's life...it comes under a heading of faith I think.  The especially came when I had my second child.  She is healthy too.  If one has a high chance of delivering a child with special needs is that any more selfish or careless?  I don't think so.  I myself was not supposed to have been born and was a risk to my mother's health and my life yet she chose to have me.  Amazing isn't it?  I think you would go through all that again to have your daughter wouldn't you?  Just because this lady has many children doesn't mean she is less entitled to have the joy...even if it is X8.

Christine

www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com ( http://www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com/ )

It was emtionally debilitating for me.  Is not mental as important as physical?  Come on now.  I have two children now and the doctors can't explain it.  When something is taken away from you unjustly or without cause or rhyme or reason and its something you want desperately to experience it can effect you both mentally and physically.  You don't have the desire so how could you know?  How can you comment?

And we people who have to go through this to have just ONE child are finding outselves told "there are too many kids out there already, so you're selfish to not JUST ADOPT."  Because of this lady.

When the financial burden falls to the taxpayers, and the mother knows this ahead of time (unemployed for a decade, unmarried, no father in the picture for these kids...), then we do have the right to judge.  If we have to share the burden, why should we not have some say?  Now if she was going to be solely completely financially responsible, then, while she's still giving infertiles a bad name, we wouldn't have a right to say what she should and should not be able to do. 

 This is a bankrupt state.  If we're expected to be responsible, we need to be part of the decision.  It's WRONG to expect those who will have to pay the bill to not have any say in the matter.

 I do believe thatif you're having kids you know you can't afford, you're having them either with the plan to neglect them or to steal from taxpayers (taking something from someone without their premission is theft, and she doesn't have our permission to take ur money), then the kids should be taken away and adopted to someone who will take responsibility for them.  We shouldn't be forced to bribe her to not neglect her kids.  If she wants them bad enough, she'll find aw ay to come up with the money instead of making us pay for it.

Harsh, but these are my beliefs.   NO ONE should be allowed to push off their responsibility for their own kids onto others and expect no repercussions, only more money.

www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com ( http://www.mamanandgourmand.blogspot.com/ )

As a person who at one time was told that I would never have children (from violent multiple rapes) I know what it feels like to not be able to conceive.  Now I have 2 children not from ART but naturally.  The doctors can't explain it.  I was sick with both children...I could have died.  Many people asked me what my problem was..that I was irresponsible.  I did have the first child premature..she is okay though and my second child was 2 weeks early...(first one was born at 33 weeks)  I had the joy of bearing children and no one was going to tell me I wasn't going to have them!  I am one of those housewives who don't have an income..I rely on my husbands.  I don't consider myself any different from this woman...she wanted children and God saw them through.  Faith is a funny thing.  We all have opinions...but plant your feet in anothers shoes before you spout out what a person should and should not do.  It gets in the way of the true miracle of birth.  Eight beautiful healthy babies were born!  What a miracle!  I would never choose to do that because I know I can't take care of that many at the same time but God Bless those women who can!

Christine 

Unfortunately, there's no way to enforce "guidelines" and in what I think will be a certain ironic twist to this story, Ms. Suleman will pursue malpractice against him/her since she can't seem to pull in the sponsorship cash she was hoping. 

This case will end up taking those guidelines and forcing them into one-size-must-fit-all FDA regulations. The red tape will be endless forcing RE's to inflate their already sky-high fees, reducing success rates, which in turn will end up causing clinics to refuse services to women who may be "harder" cases. Women like myself who at the age of 38 had four embryos transferred and not pregnant on my second failed IVF.

~DD~ at Punch Drunk

OK I can see that I am not being clear.

I am simply trying to point out the following: There certainly is a large amount of unfeeling, judgemental, sexist, misogynist comment on what is in the end a private decision - 

I would hate for anyone to be in the position where they are unable to get treatment that may help them to give birth to a child - especially if this is what they wish for themselves in the life they have chosen.

"Something is wrong with you, you should be able to fix it" I totally agree. But to equate being infertile with being blind - I am not convinced. 

I am infertile myself.  But I have all those most basic things that all humans have a right to, and a lot more than that. If a blind person were deprived of a seeing eye dog, a deaf person of training in sign language - they would not have even the most basic of those basic human rights.

I guess when it comes down to it, I do not believe that having your own biological child is a human right equal to rights such as the right to shelter, food, freedom of speech and the rest.

This does not mean that I think it is wrong for anyone to battle infertility. I dont think it is selfish.  I do not believe that its frivolous, or obsessive or any of the labels others use. I agree we should all have more compassion, and respect the decisions of others.

A better analogy might be - that people would not think it strange for a passionate musician to spend  money, time and angst on recovering from a debilitating injury that prevents them from playing the instrument that they live for.

From Bloomberg: ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&am... )

The reproductive medicine society issued a statement on Jan. 30 saying it has been working to reduce the number of multiple births and suggested it will investigate the case.

“Transferring eight embryos in an IVF cycle is well beyond our guidelines” said the society’s president, R. Dale McClure. “We have a process for looking into these kinds of matters and taking appropriate action.”

Suleman was discharged yesterday from Kaiser Permanente’s Bellflower Medical Center, where the babies were born, said Jim Anderson, a hospital spokesman, in a telephone interview. She received IVF from another clinic or provider, not from Kaiser, Karen Maples, a Kaiser obstetrician, told CNN’s Larry King.

 And:

The Medical Board of California is investigating “to see if we can substantiate a violation of the standard of care,” said Candis Cohen, a spokeswoman for the board, which licenses California doctors. The inquiry will take months, she said.

The reproductive medicine society’s guidelines, issued in 2006, say doctors should transfer no more than one or two embryos into a would-be mother under 35, two or three embryos into women 35 to 40, and no more than five into women over 40. Under these guidelines, a woman of Suleman’s age should have had one or two embryos implanted.

 There's more at the article's link.

JillWrites Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

I thought the analogy was well presented.  Very few medical issues (and yes, infertility is a medical issue) gets subjected to as much unfair criticism and backlash as infertility and infertility treatments.  Accusations of 'playing God", selfishness, obsessiveness, idiocy and a whole host of other less than complimentary things are applied frequently and liberally.  Bottom line is - our bodies have the ability to procreate and the desire to do so is naturally hardwired into us biologically speaking.  Sometimes things go wrong and the design is flawed.  We have eyes, ears, legs, etc and a uterus.  When something is wrong with your body, you should have the option to fix it and not be criticized for it.  We have the technology and medical werewithal to be able to overcome many medical issues.  We have brains with the ability to solve these problems with our bodies.  To deny who we are and what we are capable of is folly and wasteful. Even at that though, I do feel such undertaking should be done with discretion. Ms. Suleman and her doctor have not only done a great disservice to the 8 babies who now are receiving Critical Care in the NICU (you don't get stuck in an intensive care unit if you do not require critical care) and will for a month, two, maybe longer and are at high risk for developing severe and permanent disabilities; they have also, perhaps inadvertantly, triggered off an enormous fallout that blankets the entire IF community and anyone who is seeking, has sought, or will seek infertility treatment.  That, I feel,  was the point of the article and the analogy.

A part of your body is not functioning properly.  You seek medical treatment to correct it. What's the difference if it's your eyes, ears, lungs, uterus?

It's not a weak analogy at all, unless you view "women's issues" as "lesser" than issues that affect society as a whole (ie. men AND women. Or even just men - Viagra anyone?)

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

As one of the outsiders - I guess I qualify as an outsider, as because although I am infertile, I am not trying to have children :

Comparing infertility treatment to aids for blind or deaf people is a weak analogy.

While I would certainly not wish to minimise the pain and anxiety that a person must go through when they are battling to have children, this does not stop them from being functioning members of society.  They can still go shopping, drive a car, have a conversation with a fellow human being.  

A person could logically believe that money spent on helping people see or hear, is not the same as money spent on helping people have children.

I hope you do not perceive this as an attack on you or your beliefs.  I simply wish to point out that if you are trying to persuade someone, this is not the way to go about it, as people will not take you seriously.  Many people will just think "so you are saying - being infertile is as debilitating as being blind?" and not read the rest of your post.

I don't think this case reflects on anybody, except this woman and her doctors.  I am a relative outsider, but my views on ART haven't changed as a result of Ms. Suleman and her babies.  And I really wish nothing but the best for these little ones.

I come at this as the mom of a premature infant.  Having a baby in the NICU was difficult, heart-wrenching, and scary.  I still think back to those days and shudder 4 years later, in spite of my now healthy daughter.  So deliberately choosing to have multiples of this order, knowing the health risks for the babies, I just don't understand it.

~ Amber

www.strocel.com ( http://www.strocel.com )

Ms. Suleman's interview with NBC, as reported in the LA Times, added more fuel to the fire. There are so many red warning flags here.  ( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/post... )

( http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/post... )http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/post...

I am so upset over this entire situation. Personally, I guess I'm one of the "outsiders" as I've not had any troubles conceiving or carrying out successful pregnancies. I'm currently 32 weeks pregnant with my second (and last) child.

However, I'm not one to judge the families who need these kinds of procedures in order to make their family complete. I don't think that it's because they just "don't have time for sex" or any of that mumbo jumbo. I realize that these procedures typically are extremely costly and have fairly low success rates. It makes me sad that people have to use these procedures, but I certainly would never tell someone not to. If that's what you've got to go through to have a family of your own, go for it! 

But when I hear stories like this one, where a woman (and I hear she's a single mom too?) already has an entire litter of children and is allowed to have this kind of procedure performed.... it just makes me sick to my stomach. This woman is taking life for granted in so many ways it's difficult to even fathom! And to think that people like this make it even harder for those who ACTUALLY NEED to go through with these procedures... Gah. I can't even put into words how much that angers me. 

I haven't even been able to get beyond wordless sputtering to address this on my blog.  I was actually hoping to run into my doctor today when I was in the office just to hear her take on it.

I am stunned at the extent of violation of medical ethics on the part of her treating specialist.  I dread the backlash this is going to cause among that portion of the fertile community who like to lecture all of us on how selfish we are.  And in a deep, dark portion of my heart, I find myself crying out, "Why does she get fourteen when I couldn't have my two?" 

A.M.S. blogs with semi-regularity at <a href="http://ourowncreation.wordpress.com">Our Own Creation</a> and urges everyone to support the March of Dimes in their drive to prevent premature births.

Because they force us to walk the line between judging another person's life decisions vs. assessing the morality and "right-ness" from a societal perspective of the ethics of assisted reproduction and multiple births. Do I have a right to determine what another woman does with her body? No. Do I, as a member of society, have a responsibility to point out something that I view as unhealthy and potentially damaging to many people? Yes. So it inspires fascinating discussions.

However, my bigger issue with this is that IVF is grossly misrepresented in the "outside world" in the first place. People truly believe, adn the media consistently implies, that families pursue IVF when they "don't have time" to have sex (as was implied with Brangelina) or because it's "easier". I had countless people tell me, when we were struggling with conception and fears over IVF, that I just needed to "do it, it will be so worth it!" This coming from people who had no idea of what IVF or other procedures entail. Anybody who truly knows what IVF involves would laugh their fool asses off at the idea that it's "easier" or "takes less time".  This case will simply add to the misconceptions, but will it make it any 'worse"? I doubt it. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).