« Downside of Reaganomics | Main | Message of love »

February 12, 2009

California octuplets

Columnist Ellen Goodman opined that the birth of the Suleman octuplets “is more than an individual decision” (2/8, Opinion, “Case of octuplets shows lack of sense and limits”). Goodman implies that because public dollars may be needed to care for these children, the government should be entitled to regulate the implantation of embryos.

Goodman has previously established her belief that government should not interfere with women’s privacy “rights” to abortion. What twisted logic. If a woman’s womb is a private matter, then her decision to deliver a “litter” is private. On the other hand, if the concern is that tax dollars are going to be spent contrary to Americans’ wishes, then public money should not be used to pay for abortions.

If Goodman is truly concerned about how our tax dollars are being spent, she should be outraged at President Obama’s decision to lift the ban against using tax revenues to procure abortions around the globe. A Gallup poll reveals that only 35 percent of Americans approve of President Obama’s decision to lift that ban.

It is hypocrisy to play the “privacy” and “public money” cards when it suits only one side of a debate.

Kim Wetzel-Williams
Kansas City, Kan.

Nadya Suleman chose to have in vitro fertilization and now has eight more children. I wonder if her unidentified fertility doctor is married. If not, maybe he should consider marrying Nadya to help care for these innocent children.

If he is not available, maybe she should consider adoption. That decision would demonstrate responsibility, maturity and love, which seems to be a huge deficit in this sad scenario.

Susan Hidalgo
Lake Quivira

Comments

TinaMcG

"Tina, maybe you were joking. I think Ms. Hidalgo is suggesting that the octuplets should be put up for adoption."

Ah, okay. It's been a very rough couple of weeks for me. My head is kind of foggy.

Kate

Another of this doctor’s patients is pregnant with quadruplets. He implanted seven embryos and four “took”. She’s in her late forties (a time in life when many of us discover the joys of an empty nest) and five months pregnant . . . with quadruplets . . . and no insurance.

“Ms. Hidalgo, no adoption agency on the planet would give her a child.”
Tina, maybe you were joking. I think Ms. Hidalgo is suggesting that the octuplets should be put up for adoption.

Marctnts

"I doubt there are any legal grounds for suing the doctor,..."

Sure there are. If it can be proven that the doctor did not provide the "standard of care" that is to be expected in his profession (and these things have been fairly well defined through case law), there could be a civil case against him for damages incurred as a result of his failure to exercise due care. I doubt the state could make a case stick, but the hospital probably could for their unpaid bill by naming both the doctor and the mother as co-defendants.

TinaMcG

"maybe she should consider adoption. That decision would demonstrate responsibility, maturity and love, which seems to be a huge deficit in this sad scenario."

Ms. Hidalgo, no adoption agency on the planet would give her a child.

TinaMcG

What's done is done. The kids are here to stay and will need care. The mother is clearly out of touch with reality. All anyone can do now is place restrictions on the ethical behavior of fertility doctors, and that isn't something that can be legislated. I doubt there are any legal grounds for suing the doctor, but this sure as hell needs to be prevented from happening again.

I just can't help thinking of those 14 kids, thrust into the spotlight without their consent, and their mother now getting death threats.

T. Hanson

Remember that those 14 kids of hers will someday pay our Social Security!

Or we will be paying their welfare.

Pub 17

Talk to a lawyer...as much fun as it is to say, suing the doctor requires some nice legal theory as to the cause of recovery, and, boy, is that not apparent. Violating whatever-professional-association-he- belongs-to's canons could certainly result in ejection, but otherwise...

Remember, this country explicitly rewards people financially for having children. Even the dumbest taxpayer knows that babies=deductions.

Marctnts

Hmm. Let's see here....

- Publicist

- Website, asking for money or course (http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/)

- Prime Time Interviews

Is there any doubt about the motivation here, at least partially? Don't get me wrong, the woman seems rather unstable and is making some REALLY nutty decisions, but the latest blitz seems to confirm suspicions that she's trying to cash in on the recent "multiple baby" craze.

I say, pursue the doctor for ethical / legal violations. If violations are to be found, the state of California needs to sue the fine doctor and force a payout by his insurance company to cover the tab the state is going to end up with ($1 million on the birth and 18 years of support).

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright