to think that it is wrong for someone to have treatment that enabled them to have eight babies.

[wannaBe]

Of course it's good that the babies in question here are alive and appear to be doing well.

But this should never have been allowed to happen.

Women are not designed to give birth to litters of babies - this is evidenced by the fact it is not possible to carry this many babies to term, or even close to term. In fact it is pretty much accepted that if you fall pregnant with that many babies it is unlikely that they will all survive.

This woman was obviously desparate enough for a baby to have some kind of fertility treatment, and now she has eight babies, (eight children is something which most families do not contemplate over a lifetime, let alone in one go). Presumably she would have been offered the option of selective reduction when it was discovered she was carrying so many, but IMO it shouldn't get to that point - she should never have been given the kinds of drugs that enabled her to conceive that many babies in the first place.

It is just wrong on every level.

lulumama - i wonder if this women has had to have a hysterectomy? the uterus would be so streched i wonder if it would actually contract back down after the c section? certainly must be a big risk of heavy bleeding

The babies were tiny, surely the uterus could have been just as stretched by larger triplets? Or twins? Or doesn't diabetes in pregnancy lead to larger babies??
The news report stated that the mother was recovering well after a c-section. No mention of a hysterectomy.

i saw a woman on a birthing prgram once who was induced at 38 weeks with her twins as they were getting so big... they weighed over 8 lbs apiece surely that puts as much strain on the uterus as 8 ranging in size from 1 lb something to 3 lbs something?

that woman didn't need a hysterectomy.

Wannabe, sorry I seem to have misundestood the thread. To me the fact that your OP was talking about this case in particular meant, to me, that outrage was directed at the mother for not having had a few of the foetuses selectively aborted to make the survival of the other more likely.

Now if you mean that fertility treatment should be foolproof and that the situation should not even have happened you might be right also I do not think that even with the technology at our hands today we can be 100%sure that it never ever happens as we are only human after all and I strongly believe that not everything is up to us...

she would have eight placentas though which would put an enormous strain on the uterus wrt the blood flow to-from each.

ok.. well that is good to know

but i am sure that multiple births do increase the risk of bleeding and hysterectomy

maybe these women were lucky

carrying 8 babies is a massive strain on the mother. surely that is beyond question?

Ah now that's assuming they we re all fraternal and had their own placentas

Just a random guess- but is the more embryos thing in the US linked to medical insurance and reduced chances to attempt IVF?

I know someone who is having 5 (what do they call that?) she is 23 and has had no fertility treatment, she has been offered selective reduction and refused point blank.

So actually the body can have 'litters' who knows if they will surviv, probably not sadly she only has a 34% chance of all 5 survivng but she is letting nature do its job.

YABU.

BTW this girl i was talking about is a triplet and so is her mum her husband is a twin! She was never destined to have a single birth i think!

but a natural quint pregnancy is not the same

the odds are so low for survival.. surely that tells us so,mething?

even if it is possible naturally, does not mean it should be enouraged to happen

i thikn it is really difficult

5 is quins I think.

And yes, fertility treatment is expensive so I presume that is why in the US they put as many embryos in as the parents want.

it is one thing conceiving naturally and letting nature take its course, having drugs to increase the chance of conceiving more babies, or having IVF and then implanting an unlimited amount of embrios is already messing with nature, and so whatever happens is not natural anyway.

surely the cost to the healtcare system of the complicatons inherent in multiple births negates any other savings?

Peachy--I think so. IVF is not a mandated coverage in California. From what I've read IVF is not seen as medically necessary and therefore is not included in coverage in most states.

Lulu-the healthcare system doesn't have to pick up very much. I know a woman who has a singleton in a NICU and she owes the hospital $100,000 in bills that her insurance won't pick up.

It is in some thugh I think (OK I admite it0- my source id diagnosis murder on Monday LOL )

I am thinkiing an IVF treatment that is successful pays more to the performing specialist than an unsuccessful one?

i think it is peachy

it's massively expensive over there and i don't think it's covered by most insurance

storing fertilised embryos is hugely expensive too so i think alot of women will decide if 10 are harvested and most fertilise to have all of them put back in the hopes of increasing their chances of conception. going for a second attempt is simply unaffordable for many

although, as far as i can tell there seem to be more cases of high multiples resulting from the fertility drugs than from IVF, although i could very well be wrong about that.

I don't know anything about fertility treatment, so can only say how it seems to me. Do think that it is inadvisable to use a system that enables a woman to be pregnant with 8 babies at once. I just imagine it must be endangering the health of the mother unnecessarily and giving the babies too little chance of being carried healthily through to term with a reasonable chance of survival. It seems to me a little like playing with life but as I said I know too little about how it works.

I just think too that 8 dc all the same age is a very difficult task for any dp as they grow and needs change yet they will all be terrible twos at the same time. It will be hard for the dp to meet their needs and it all seems unwise to me.

Great news that they are all ok though

so if the insurance don't pay for the cost of hospital care this woman will be faced with the bill for the care of her eight preterm babies, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, before she even has to contemplate the reality of bringing them home and looking after them.

Tbh I wouldn't wish eight babies on my worst enemy. Her life will never be normal again, their lives will never be normal.

No thanks...

also, what happens if any of those babies have disabilities, something which is a real possibility with such tiny preemies. iirc insurance don't cover the cost of most medications/treatments for children with disabilities either, so a parent could first have to pick up the bill for the fertility treatments, then pick up the bill for the hospital care of the premature babies brought on by the fact the fertility treatment caused her to conceive so many babies, and then have to pick up the bill for the additional needs of any of the babies whose premature birth caused them to have any disability.

Peachy here's a link that would give info about what states are mandated to cover infertility

Didn't I hear on the news that donation were already puring in to cover the care? or am I hallucinating?

that is frightening MKG, theoretically, the care could run into millions of dollars, before these babies even come home...

wannabe--I think that is why so many multiple parents go on Oprah and "sell" their story. A lot of time they can get donations (some even for college) that helps take care of a lot of that financial burden.

Look at "John and Kate plus 8". They have a TV show and book deals.

so the only way to get by with multiples is to turn them into a freak show for donations.

It is scary. She has committed $100 dollars a month for his care to the hospital. As long as she pays that she's ok. But if she is late, or for some reason can't make the payment, the hospital hunts her down until she pays.