Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs (she goes into hiding)

Moral of the story: one-child policy FTW?

 

Khan...your point on disability benefits may have merrit....but I don't think medical costs was a concern to her regarding the births. If she didn't think through how she would raise the kids, do you really think the delivery costs would impact her decision to have them?

So either the state or the hospital pays the bill. Can't leave her on the sidewalk when she shows up ready to deliver. ANd you don't unplug the kiddies because her VISA's maxed out.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XeE1hBjjaGg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XeE1hBjjaGg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I just find it nuts that out of all the things the public decides to care about in our ****ed-up budgets and bailouts, all our pork and programs, our wars and welfare it's the cost of helping some flaky mom raise kids.

Priorities..... I mean, damn, I find all this apathy and ignorance more dystopian than anything else...

 

Why would a doctor give a welfare mother of 6 in vitro fertilization with multiple embryo's?

First off he should have suspected her mental capacity and her ability to pay the bill.

The state should find a way to sue the doctor for reimbursement of the costs of raising the children. Medical science has a fiduciary responsibility to mankind that was breached here. Just because 'you can' doesn't mean ' you should'.

 

MM, here's another mm's quote worth repeating:

"I'm sure all you right to lifer's are opening your checkbooks as we speak.

right?"

 

I'm probably one of the most "left wing" people on this BBS and even I worry about the precedent that would set and whether it would encourage others to have way more kids than they can support. I don't think the state should make a special case for this one family.

This woman seems likely to suffer from mental problems and if nothing else has an extreme lack of judgement. It also seems highly unlikely that she's fit to raise 14 kids on her own. The welfare of the children should be the priority and I'd say there's a good chance these kids would be better off in foster care.

Also, all kids in foster care would be better off if the pool of foster care parents can be improved. The way to do this is to significantly increase the stipends paid to foster parents, which leads to a greater # of people willing to be foster parents. Then make the criteria for being a foster parent more stringent and increase the oversight of foster families with additional social workers etc.

 

Many people can't raise 3 children on their own, let alone 14.

I'm going on gut feeling here, but those babies should be taken away.

 

Ha. As if this country is worried about overpopulation, which is the real merit to that argument.

 

This doesn't work because then you have an aging population. In order for us to provide for medicare/social sec. benefits we need LOTS of youth and immigrants working to pay for our retirees otherwise we look like Japan.

 

See, she's just doing her part for society. When she's older and is on SS, she's making sure she'll have 14 kids paying SS taxes to more than cover her share. Rather than being a burden on society, she's making sure she's a net-profit to society!

 

this is exactly why i am heavily in favor of postnatal abortion.

 

If the government steps in and denies her the right to seek out a doctor to perform the implants, aren't they telling her what she can/can't do with her body?

If the government punishes a doctor for implanting her, aren't they then forcing the doctor to use the government's decree of "right and wrong" to determine how best to proceed with a patient?

Doesn't the mother have a right to choose regardless of what sort of burden that places on society?

 

again how does someone making $490/month in food stamps afford a spokesperson/publicist???

 

That's a clever argument but there is a substantial difference with Suleman's situation vs. the abortion argument. I think if it was shown that Suleman had the resources to support these children most of the criticism towards her would vanish. The problem is that she is placing a burden on society and expecting them to pick up the tab. The problem with accepting funding is that that comes with string attached and to the point that she is depending on outside funding she is already giving up some control.

As for the doctor the Hippocratic Oath already mandates to do no harm. A procedure like this is an elective and highly risky procedure with on top of that possible questions regarding the mental health of the patient. In that regard the doctor should've considered those factors besides just acquiessing to the wishes of the patient. Now abortion is also an elective procedure with some inherent risk but in general the risk is fairly low compared to something like this and also any doctor that did undertake a very risky abortion procedure when there was no threat to the mother's health would also be roundly criticized and subject to an ethics investigation.

 

She can't and is not paying them. Most likely they are working pro bono and if they can make her look good, they have a great example of their work to show off to potential playing clients, if they can't, then they just write it off.

 

Its hard for the public to focus on wider trends and statitics and easier to focus on individuals and individual stories.

 

Do you really think the money they get and will get is enough to pay the bills and live a comfortable life? Do you think she went through all this trouble because she's lazy and just wants to live off the government?

It's clear that this lady is not all there upstairs. This isn't the behavior of a mentally stable person.

However they got Britney Spears into the psych ward needs to be done with this lady.

 

Isn't a woman who can't afford a health plan who wants an abortion also depending on outside funding (generally not to the same degree, but dependant nonetheless)?

Are abortion doctors required to question the mental health of a patient? Aren't the current laws such that a 16 year old can walk in off the street, ask for an abortion and receive one?

In other words, I think the two are analogous, but at different degrees.

Doesn't "pro-choice" give a woman the right to have or not have children?

Bear in mind, that I think that what the woman did and what the doctor did, at the very least, borders on irresponsibility, but who are we to tell a woman what to do with her body?

 

bobrek, that's the gist of my rhetorical question earlier. It wouldn't surprise me that your position on these issues are unequivocal, but it's interesting how similar policies in PRC can be decried outright by some who now have a second thought on government intervention in individuals' reproductive rights. At least in PRC, the policies of such are non-arbitrary.