View Poll Results: Who is most guilty for Octomom's last 12 implanted embryos ridiculousness?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Suleman: Hellbent on a litter, and this doctor could not have prevented it

    7 6.60%
  • Dr. K: Ignored Suleman's mental issues and his own oath in implanting a dangerous # of embryos

    23 21.70%
  • Both: A perfect storm of baby fever and carelessless

    74 69.81%
  • Kate Gosselin ;-0

    9 8.49%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,318
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    9947
    Quote Originally Posted by Norlite View Post
    Why is his license in jeopardy?

    It is a legal procedure, isn't it? No physical harm resulted? (although there's a chance of that in any legal medical procedure, but the fact that this one was successful should speak for him)
    He's not accused of criminal behavior. Medical licensing is different from criminal behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Lots of talk about Nadya, her mental health and her "irresponsibility". But not all of her kids were through in vitro, right? She had a partner who fathered her earlier children?

    So who is the father and is he involved in the lives of those children, both physically as well as financially?

    Or is the female taking all the heat and the male gets off scott free?



    ...

    Could you provide us with the facts that back up these statements? Or are you gossiping?

    Does anyone know what the legalities are in the health care profession as to when a doctor can decide for the patient in regards to what they want? When can a doctor be sued for refusing treatment? (And when can they NOT be sued?)

    Again, I'm interested in links to articles that state Nadya is mentally unstable. If this is the case, why were her previous children not taken from her?

    Or are people playing armchair psychiatrists?
    A lot of the information was mentioned in a previous thread about Octomom when she first had the children.

    • She used donor sperm for all her children, so this isn't a case of the mother taking all the blame and the father getting off free. Like you, those cases infuriate me, but this isn't one of them.


    • I mentioned mental illness in the context of Nadya's culpability. If she has a mental illness, which I believe she does, and if that mental illness stripped her of rationality and reasoning, which I'm agnostic about, then she is less culpable IMO.

      Nadya's official psychiatric diagnoses, if she has them, are confidential by law. The point is, her request surely raised some red flags. Hence, the doctor should have referred her for a mental health evaluation before the procedure. If he did and the mental health professional said she's okay, then I blame the doctor a lot less.


    • Even if Nadya had been psychologically sound, the doctor still violated the guidelines of his medical association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which has revoked his membership. The guidelines exist to protect not just the potential offspring but also the health of the woman. While those guidelines are not law, licensing boards expect physicians to abide by them or at least not deviate to that extent.


    • What medical professionals may or may not refuse to do is a huge debate, and laws vary by state. The debate has generally centered around abortion, contraceptives, emergency care, etc. An entirely elective, not time-sensitive procedure like this is not in the gray area of any state.


    • As to your question of why her previous children were not taken from her if she were mentally unstable, are you implying that custody be revoked from mentally unstable people? Custody is revoked for abuse or neglect, not just for having a mental illness.
    Last edited by Gazpacho; 10-20-2010 at 12:34 AM.

  2. #22
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    Quote Originally Posted by Bev Johnston View Post
    You know, that's not the craziest thing in the world. "Reality" tv is probably a little to blame in all of this. Didn't Octomom say something about wanting to have a show? Or was that after the births? Or am I imagining the whole thing?
    After the births, she said something to the effect of not wanting to have a show like the Gosselins, although she did want to do a show. I think she wanted to do something more like a series of specials. I think she signed a contract for just that on British television, but it never went anywhere
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  3. #23
    Argle-Bargle-ist
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,564
    vCash
    875
    Rep Power
    76283
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
    Nadya's official psychiatric diagnoses, if she has them, are confidential by law. The point is, her request surely raised some red flags. Hence, the doctor should have referred her for a mental health evaluation before the procedure. If he did and the mental health professional said she's okay, then I blame the doctor a lot less.
    Thank you for your post. Good information.

    I am wondering how people feel about a woman who always wanted a very large family and had child after child after child. (I think I remember one family who have 19 kids?) Do you feel different about a single woman who knew from a young age that she always wanted a large family? So after giving birth, she goes back to a specialist for another in vitro fertilization. Are both people not valid in their decisions?

    Or is it acceptable for a woman to have (many) children "the natural way", with a husband while it is not acceptable for a single mother to do the same?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
    • As to your question of why her previous children were not taken from her if she were mentally unstable, are you implying that custody be revoked from mentally unstable people? Custody is revoked for abuse or neglect, not just for having a mental illness.
    Someone who has a mental illness and someone who is mentally unstable are two different things to me. While I don't like using the term "mental illness" (it makes it sound like something is wrong with people, when really there are lots of varying degrees of difficulty that people experience), I think it's possible the majority of people on our planet have a "mental illness" to some degree.

    "Mentally unstable" to me implies that there is enough problems occuring that children could be in danger. So in these situations, help is needed to address the situation and see where help can be offered and if that's enough to keep things as they are or if the children need to be in a different living situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by susan6 View Post
    Instead of just reading this thread, check the article:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/cele...iref=allsearch
    The article was one person's thoughts about what might be...nothing factual.

    Quote Originally Posted by susan6 View Post
    Shame on the Medical Board of California and Dr. Fujimoto for their gossiping.
    I feel the same after re-reading the article and how you worded yourself as coming across gossipy, rather than you having hard facts/proof of what you inferred.
    It's official. I am madly in love with Meryl Davis.

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    the other FSU
    Posts
    3,687
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    I am wondering how people feel about a woman who always wanted a very large family and had child after child after child. (I think I remember one family who have 19 kids?) Do you feel different about a single woman who knew from a young age that she always wanted a large family? So after giving birth, she goes back to a specialist for another in vitro fertilization. Are both people not valid in their decisions?

    Or is it acceptable for a woman to have (many) children "the natural way", with a husband while it is not acceptable for a single mother to do the same?
    You don't want to get people started on the Duggars. But to answer your question: yes, I feel different about a married couple who have 19 kids and manage to be financially able to do so, versus a single woman who has several unethical (according to many doctors) IVF treatments and does not appear to be in a financially sound position to raise the resulting children. What is Nadya's job? Who is helping her raise her 14 kids? The father is a sperm donor and is not in the picture. How is she affording all of this? The Duggars are actually employed and their older kids help raise their younger kids (not that that's a particularly great situation for the older kids....check some of the old threads on the Duggars for arguments about that). Show me the facts that indicate Nadya's decision was a good one and she is doing right by her children.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Gwyneth Paltrow Fan Club headquarters
    Posts
    17,265
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    29999
    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    After the births, she said something to the effect of not wanting to have a show like the Gosselins, although she did want to do a show. I think she wanted to do something more like a series of specials. I think she signed a contract for just that on British television, but it never went anywhere.
    There was the one-off "Octomom: Behind the Scenes" special, or whatever it was called, on Fox. Yes, I admit I watched it. Even though AFAIK she had control over its making, she still didn't come off particularly well in it (barely able to manage the older kids), and I think it tanked in the ratings. Which I'm guessing is why there haven't been any more specials or a series....
    You should never write words with numbers. Unless you're seven. Or your name is Prince. - "Weird Al" Yankovic, "Word Crimes"

  6. #26
    Argle-Bargle-ist
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,564
    vCash
    875
    Rep Power
    76283
    Quote Originally Posted by susan6 View Post
    You don't want to get people started on the Duggars. But to answer your question: yes, I feel different about a married couple who have 19 kids and manage to be financially able to do so, versus a single woman who has several unethical (according to many doctors) IVF treatments and does not appear to be in a financially sound position to raise the resulting children.
    Do people have the right to have children when they are not financially sound? Should we judge them the same as we judge Nadya?

    Quote Originally Posted by susan6 View Post
    Show me the facts that indicate Nadya's decision was a good one and she is doing right by her children.
    I can't imagine anyone will argue that the Suleman family is in a good situation. To me, the issue is about who are any of us to judge...and is judging people improving the situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by overedge View Post
    There was the one-off "Octomom: Behind the Scenes" special, or whatever it was called, on Fox. Yes, I admit I watched it. Even though AFAIK she had control over its making, she still didn't come off particularly well in it (barely able to manage the older kids), and I think it tanked in the ratings. Which I'm guessing is why there haven't been any more specials or a series....
    Well, you just have to watch one episode of SuperNanny to see a middle class family with two parents and two unruly kids to see one of many families that are WAY more out of control than the Suleman's.

    I thought Nadya came across saint-like in comparison to what **I** would become in that situation. She remained level-headed for the most part and barely raised her voice. I would SO become an army sargeant and start barking out orders until their was compliance!!!
    It's official. I am madly in love with Meryl Davis.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    West of the 5th...
    Posts
    29,316
    vCash
    100
    Rep Power
    41498
    All I said was that the doctor could have said, "No." I haven't read anywhere that any doctor 'must' provide elective services to any patient, even in the US. The doctor was the one making excuses for why he chose to treat her, and it's his practice that's being investigated. He could have avoided the whole thing by just telling her he wouldn't do it. End of story.

    I made no comment on her fitness for parenting.
    Haunting the Princess of Pink since 20/07/11...

  8. #28
    Bountifully Enmeshed
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    At the Christmas Bizarre
    Posts
    38,154
    vCash
    250
    Rep Power
    46687
    I haven't expressed any particular judgment on her yet, but

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Do people have the right to have children when they are not financially sound? Should we judge them the same as we judge Nadya?
    Do they have the right? Sure. Should they do it? No. Or are you trying to argue that it's not really a bad idea to have children when you really can't support them or that it's not a really bad idea to have many babies all at once?

    Are you trying to say that people DON'T judge other parents who have children they can't afford to support? Um, hello? They most certainly do. And their judgment tends to increase with each child the parent has that can't be supported financially, too. Nadya gets hit with a lot of judgment because she has a lot of kids and because the way she had at least some of them was, without question, medically dangerous for both her and the babies.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    I can't imagine anyone will argue that the Suleman family is in a good situation. To me, the issue is about who are any of us to judge...and is judging people improving the situation?
    Is improving this particular situation the point?

    Why shouldn't people judge her? Are we now supposed to be at the point where no behavior can be assessed in any way?

    At the time of the births, I argued that people should wait until they had all the facts before passing judgment because I think people have a tendency to jump to conclusions. I would do it again if the same circumstances arose.

    But frankly, I don't have any problem with society as a whole condemning someone deliberately having a lot of children she can't afford to support and putting herself AND her children at risk by wanting all those embryos implanted at once. It was foolish by any standard. And if you are now going to say that "Oh, but haven't we all been foolish?" well, read on.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Well, you just have to watch one episode of SuperNanny to see a middle class family with two parents and two unruly kids to see one of many families that are WAY more out of control than the Suleman's.
    Oh, dear, Peter, that sounds a lot like a judgment. But even if it is, so what? Does the fact that other people behave badly mean that everyone is off the hook for bad behavior because they are not alone in their behavior, or what?

    Stupid behavior should not be condoned. And yes, by gosh, I think we all have the right to call stupid behavior stupid and then argue about it. I don't see much point in it. I don't think most issues are black and white, and I think too many people think that condemning behavior is a goal unto itself, which makes them overly intent on ripping on others. But still, I don't know of ANYONE who thinks that no behavior at all should be judged. I can even think of examples where you would feel comfortable passing judgment--and have, which strikes me as a natural part of being human and analyzing the world around you. People simply should not do a lot of the things they do--even if a lot of people do them, or in this case, don't.

    No one here has advocated punishing Nadya or her children; I could see objecting to that. But objecting to people thinking that she shouldn't have had all those children the way she did? Can you give us a good reason why she SHOULD have had all those children the way she did?
    "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-- Albert Einstein.

  9. #29
    drinky typo pbp, closet hugger
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    c'est genifique!
    Posts
    29,957
    vCash
    325
    Rep Power
    36573
    To see if the human body could be transformed into a clown car?






    sorry
    Q: Why can't I read the competition threads?
    A: Competition forums on the board are available to those with a Season Pass or a premium membership How to View Kiss & Cry

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Really Missing Alex Wong
    Age
    30
    Posts
    8,353
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Wait, so she's pregnant now with 12 babies at once? Or was she given 12 and only 8 took a few years ago?

  11. #31
    OmnipresentAdmeanistrator
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,938
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    I feel the same after re-reading the article and how you worded yourself as coming across gossipy, rather than you having hard facts/proof of what you inferred.
    I for one applaud you for trying to be fair and factual, and I'm glad other threads have stood up to your strict standards (since you haven't commented, complained or chastised other people for expressing their opinions there), and my kudos to you that you have always provided us with fair and factual posts; that you always link to an unquestionable source for everything you write and that you have never, god forbid, ever gossiped about anyone or expressed your opinion that wasn't based on hard facts.


  12. #32

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    12,783
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    34878
    Do guidelines mean anything in the eyes of the law?

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    completely beside myself
    Posts
    425
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I don't know why the poll assumes there is someone to blame. Whether it was a mistake to have all those children is a matter of opinion, not fact.

  14. #34
    Argle-Bargle-ist
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,564
    vCash
    875
    Rep Power
    76283
    Quote Originally Posted by Really View Post
    All I said was that the doctor could have said, "No." I haven't read anywhere that any doctor 'must' provide elective services to any patient, even in the US. The doctor was the one making excuses for why he chose to treat her, and it's his practice that's being investigated. He could have avoided the whole thing by just telling her he wouldn't do it. End of story.

    I made no comment on her fitness for parenting.
    The question I asked in regards to your post was my wondering if a doctor could face repercussions for saying no to a patient. I don't know the answer, so I was wondering if he was (or thought he was?) in a position where he could be reprimanded or sued for denying her what she asked for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Do they have the right? Sure. Should they do it? No. Or are you trying to argue that it's not really a bad idea to have children when you really can't support them or that it's not a really bad idea to have many babies all at once?
    I think everyone agrees that all children should be brought into the world where they will have more than enough support, whether it be financial, emotional or otherwise. I also think that everyone (well, most everyone?!) agrees that a single Mom having eight babies at one time is not the best idea.

    What I was wondering was that if people felt Nadya was wrong to have children when she was not financially secure, should we then hold that same standard to everyone else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Is improving this particular situation the point?
    Some feel that improving one’s life and the lives of others is possibly the main goal of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Why shouldn't people judge her? Are we now supposed to be at the point where no behavior can be assessed in any way?
    What brings about a more positive change in people’s lives – judgement or help and support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Oh, dear, Peter, that sounds a lot like a judgment. But even if it is, so what? Does the fact that other people behave badly mean that everyone is off the hook for bad behavior because they are not alone in their behavior, or what?
    That wasn’t my point of view, that’s the show’s point of view. The show’s producers find families with great struggles, and after filming the family for many days, they show the family in their worst light.

    My comment was in response to talk about Nadya not coming off well during the TV show about her. I used SuperNanny as an example of there being many families with struggles. Are we to condemn all families with such large struggles? What point does that serve?

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    Stupid behavior should not be condoned. And yes, by gosh, I think we all have the right to call stupid behavior stupid and then argue about it.
    We do have the right to do this. But I don’t think that telling “stupid people” that they are doing “stupid things” brings about a change where this no behaviour stop. Instead, I believe more of the same continues to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prancer View Post
    No one here has advocated punishing Nadya or her children; I could see objecting to that. But objecting to people thinking that she shouldn't have had all those children the way she did? Can you give us a good reason why she SHOULD have had all those children the way she did?
    The name of this thread is “Octomom: Who's to blame?”. Isn’t punishment usually the next step after blame?

    I think very few people (if any) would argue that there is a good reason to do things exactly the Nadya has done. But it’s already happened. She has all these kids. And she needs help. Why are we talking mostly about this single mother instead of talking about how society is not yet at the point that it can support people who are in need? That support would include people being at a place where they make good decisions for themselves and for any future children – for it to be done in a way that works out well for them all.

    Quote Originally Posted by WindSpirit View Post
    I for one applaud you for trying to be fair and factual, and I'm glad other threads have stood up to your strict standards (since you haven't commented, complained or chastised other people for expressing their opinions there), and my kudos to you that you have always provided us with fair and factual posts; that you always link to an unquestionable source for everything you write and that you have never, god forbid, ever gossiped about anyone or expressed your opinion that wasn't based on hard facts.

    Is there something specific you wish for me to address and/or provide a link to information about?
    It's official. I am madly in love with Meryl Davis.

  15. #35

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    10,724
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    33043
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    The name of this thread is “Octomom: Who's to blame?”. Isn’t punishment usually the next step after blame?
    Not always, but in this particular instance, there is a potential "punishment" -- revocation of Dr. Michael Kamrava's medical license.
    Why are we talking mostly about this single mother instead of talking about how society is not yet at the point that it can support people who are in need?
    We are talking mostly about this single mother because implanting her with multiple embryos beyond the accepted guidelines is what has brought Dr. Kamrava to the point where his medical license might be revoked. If you want to start a thread about how/why society can not support people who are in need, then you certainly can do so (the PI section probably would be best for this discussion).

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Dakota
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,126
    vCash
    480
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    What I was wondering was that if people felt Nadya was wrong to have children when she was not financially secure, should we then hold that same standard to everyone else?
    We should hold everyone to the same standard, but in Nadya's case, I feel more outraged than I do for people like the Duggars. Because not only was she unemployed, she also already had 6 children at home. And IMHO, one has no business dropping the amount of cash it requires to have an IVF, when both those factors come into play.

    Each IVF procedure costs $10,000 at the very minimum... but more usually around $15,000. She did this at least 7 times. And in the meantime, how is her family being cared for? Partially through her parents, and partially through public assistance. Normally I don't like to judge people on what they do with their money, because it's really none of my business. But when people drop $70,000-$105,000 on something like IVF and then turn around and get public assistance, it just torks me.

    The Duggars are at least able to afford all their children.

    So in the end, I blame both Nadya and the doctor. The doctor should have just said, "no," and I've already said my piece about Nadya.

  17. #37

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    5,318
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    9947
    Quote Originally Posted by Angelskates View Post
    Do guidelines mean anything in the eyes of the law?
    This was discussed in the original thread on Octomom when she first gave birth. IIRC, when a medical licensing board considers whether a doctor acted inappropriately, they take the guidelines into consideration. So while violating the guidelines doesn't automatically lead to license revocation, it can be evidence that the doctor acted inappropriately and put the patient and potential offspring in unnecessary danger.
    Last edited by Gazpacho; 10-20-2010 at 07:11 PM.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    13,493
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    42165
    Who's to blame: any/all medical personnel who pandered to the desires of this woman - during any of these procedures.
    It should have been obvious that she was not an appropriate candidate, from the beginning.

  19. #39
    gold dust woman
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,054
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    The bottom line--she was unemployed and did not have $100K to pay for the IVF procedures, much less the cost of raising all of those kids. Why did the doctor(s) foot the bill for her? They are all at fault.

  20. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    9,541
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2819
    I voted for “both” because there is no choice “other”.

    I blame first of all Seuleiman, then the Doctor, and then “the trends and nanny-state sentiments” in the current American society, particularly in “socially liberal California”.

    Had the “socioeconomic safety nets” in USA, and in California in particular, been handled in a much more restrictive and unforgiving matter, Seuleiman may not have been so blaze in her choices to a) have so many children from one procedures; b) have any more children in addition to the 6 or 7 she already had.

    I am sure on some level Seuleiman knew that “it’s California – nobody will let my babies starve”. If I don’t have the funds to support all of them – there are many bleeding hearts, and local laws, which will take care of me.

    The Doctor, I am certain, also exercised less caution, because of the same subconscious awareness – nobody will let Seuleiman’s babies starve…..

    This situation would NEVER happen in a country with much harsher economic conditions and which has minimal socioeconomic safety nets.

    If Seuleiman lived in Russia or in any former Soviet Block countries, she, a single woman living with her parents, would have known better not to have more than 2 children…. or more likely no children at all…

    If the punishment for teen-age theft simply a “warning” or “probation” – the teenager is likely to steal.

    If the punishment for theft for all is cutting off an arm – nobody, or very few, will steal.

    The more there is “bleeding hearts” – the more there will be abuse of the system.

    There is right, and wrong, and personal responsibility. Those should be the guiding factors in a society.

    If not? Then you will get Octomoms, and more Octomoms, and Octo-debts, and Octo-crimes, and Octo-lots-of-bad things….

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •