I can't get NO....satisfaction....

[kyburg]

Let's see.

You don't need to take Jim's word for it anymore. Even down to the names...which he was a good boy about and didn't tell anyone about either.

Hooray! (And so much for Tiajuana Taxi Fertility Hookups.) Note the words 'there is no law against...' - this is a evaluation by peers, and I hope we find out what they decide. But keep in mind - there is no law, and this won't create one. (Consider what the enforcement of one might look like, BTW. Just think about it for a moment, it'll come to you.)

Let me get this straight. When the McCaughey septuplets were born in 1997, President Clinton called to congratulate the parents, who were given a free 12-passenger van, Pampers for life, furniture, food, and a custom built house. Last spring, when Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar got pregnant with their 18th child, they announced it on the Today Show and their reality TV show launched that fall. When Nadya Suleman, 33, gave birth to octuplets on January 26th, she got revulsion, ridicule and death threats. A talk radio host who called her a freak said his listeners were prepared to boycott any company that helped out mother or babies. Jimmy Kimmel declared that "Golden retrievers do not have that many kids."

Uh, yawp. Single, POC and oh mi ghad IRAQI. SPICY.

(You know, I'd almost expect some people to have a little empathy for people who have somewhat toxic parents....but noooooo. Guess not.) And before you hit that comment button - keep in mind. The lady had choices. Since we see more of the grandfather doing childcare publically than the grandmother, you figure it out. Watch the grandkids leave that house Real Soon. As soon as enough money shows up - and it will show up. (Just keep making those death threats on all those sponsored websites, kids!)

Quick quiz.

Who administers 'food stamp' programs?

- Department of the Treasury
- Department of Homeland Security
- The Internal Revenue Service
- Department of Agriculture (*dingdingding*)

Also, the going term is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - not food stamps. Note the key word - there is no intention for this ever to be the sole support for anyone. (I love the fact they've moved it off paper and to electronic ATM card. No, you can't pool the change from buying a candy bar with a coupon until you can buy liquor anymore. Too bad. *snickers*)

Oh yeah, $490 a month is a REAL GOOD incentive to have a kid. (...where do people get this crap...) And of course you top out, regardless of the number of people in the household.

Defend her? Not so much. What I find amazing is the vitriol where in just about every other case I know of, there was nothing but cooes and praise for being 'so absolutely PERFECTLY FEMALE' for being, well - successful at being female. That's it, isn't it? The pastel pinks and blues, the heft of the rewards thrown, the fairy tale twittering. The strokes - oh yes - THE STROKES.

(I'm catching echoes of it adopting right now, and I know it when I see it. It's perceived sainthood and I'm hip. I got much the same when I was the wife of a terminal patient. It's not helpful, except as a signal that they're not going to bitchslap you.)

I'm glad information is getting out. It's making our lives easier not having to keep our mouths shut. (How many times does WE CAN'TALK make sense?)

What I'm watching for? Terminations at the hospital of people who were peeking into health records when they had no reason to. Yeah, it's all electronic, all tagged with who was doing the peeking and we've had plenty of evidence there's a zero tolerance policy for fraud - though I think Kaiser might handle these a bit differently after a whole family died when both parents were fired for it. Remember - same hospital system.

Whatta parade. Can we talk about Sully instead?

Comments

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think no one should be applauded for having bunches and bunches of kids.

This planet cannot support that many kids per family anymore, IMO.

18 kids?! No thank you. 14? Same answer.

May be mean of me, but there you go.

C.

[trillsie.livejournal.com]

I agree. I personally think the doctor needs to loose his license over it. He obviously did not have good judgment in this. One can't help but wonder how many other IVFs he has done to people who simply has no way to support the child(ren) that will be produced.

My husband and I have 4 kids and it's difficult. I cannot imagine having more than that. Any more and my children would not have the individual attention that they need.

[neintales.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'm rather freaked out by how much more accepted the actual THREATENING people are for this latest case.

Me, I think a ton of kids is pretty crazy, unless POSSIBLY you truly are a multi-millionaire who can support them fully without needing lots of aid. I laud family members, friends, and community members who volunteer to help out big families. But it's not my thing, it weirds me out to put one's family into a situation where they do have to rely on others so much.

I guess I can sort of understand that some people really Just Love Children That Much, for whatever reason.

I actually found the Duggans to be far creepier than previous or latter cases because of their "Well this is what women are FOR!" attitude and the way they seem to be raising all their female children for the SOLE future of mommyhood. Haven't really had the belief systems of previous or post-Duggan huge families shoved into my face quite so much. The smugly uniform 'family dynamic' was very appalling to me. (Naming all kids with names that begin with certain letters, etc.)

My mom was from a pretty large family (10 kids). Not terribly well off. Not terribly poor, but not quite middle class either. Their family worked, but it was tough going, and the oldest girls didn't really get to have the childhoods that their little sibs got because they had to help rear those younger sibs. Tensions did ensue over this from time to time. Fortunately, they all love each other very much and as adults are quite close, but I can see how things could easily go the other way towards permanent resentment.

My dad was from a poorer family that had 6 children living in a one-room house with a pretty much single-mom situation. (His dad was a cripple, and died youngish.) And again, it somehow did work, they did squeak by. But I know he did Not want that kind of situation for HIS family. Again, the older kids were so busy helping take care of their younger siblings/cousins that they never really got 'childhoods'.

So.. yeah. Big families. They happen, either planned or due to lack of planning, and they have to somehow deal with themselves. I think there's right reasons (love) and wrong reasons (political/religious zealotry). And to me in the modern day and age where HOPEFULLY child/infant mortality is generally lower than in the 'olden days', it just doesn't make sense unless you truly frame it with the 'love' option, which doesn't have to make sense, I suppose.

And the snap-judgement calls and HATRED when you don't, can't, are Not Invited To know all the reasons and allowances are just a bit. Um. Nuts?

Ok, sorry, rambly. But I think I have a point in there somewhere.

[cerulean-me.livejournal.com]

The McCaughey's ONLY had their septuplets and one older child- NOT 14! 8 kids, to parents- not so unreasonable.

The Duggars, while I don't agree with their lifestyle, at least generally have their babies one at a time. With two parents (not knocking the single- just someone to share the work load with), and by the time kid #10 was born, kid #1 could read, write, dress himself, and help out around the house. By the time kid #18 was born, kids #1, #2, #3, and #4 were not kids anymore.

This woman has 14 kids, 8 of whom are likely to be very high needs, all under the age of 8- her mom is leaving, her dad is going to Iraq to earn money- and she's alone taking care of all of them. It's sick, and it WRONG to do to those kids. They are the ones who have to pay for her choices- THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE UPSET. Her choice was deliberate and selfish.

Are those "old" photos like Dr. Gupta's quote was old? Because of 8 babies, I count at LEAST 4 feeding tubes, and we can't even totally see all of their mouths.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Can I ask a serious question?

When people hoard animals that they cannot adequately care for, we remove those animals in their best interest.

Can someone explain to me why children deserve less of a standard of care?

[melodicblue.livejournal.com]

I believe in quality not quantity. I actually had a conversation regarding that with a co-worker when I was pregnant. I said I wanted to stay at one child for a while, and then maybe have a second one, but that's it. He asked me why, and I said that it's a financial struggle and I want to be able to devote a all my attention to my kids and raise them as well as I possibly can. I don't feel that if I had a lot of them that I'd be able to do that without somehow slighting one or more of them, and I don't want to cause damage or neglect a child in that way. He then proceeded to tell me that I needed to just keep having kids, without worrying about all that, because "God would provide". I don't begrudge people their right to believe what religion or whatever they want, but I just can't trust to that. I don't believe that we are here to have babies and someone will coddle us through that. I believe that we have to do everything we can and exhaust every resource in our power before we are worthy of the assistance of a higher power. Most cultures in the world prize children above all others; we should be sure to take good care of them.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

So it's a doctor's call to decide who should and should not have children? And if the doctor gets it "wrong" (how would that be determined, I wonder?) the doctor's license should be pulled, impoverishing the doctor and the doctor's family?

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

They don't. There is no evidence as yet of any abuse or neglect of the children.

What we DON'T do is take kids away from parents based on our ASSUMPTION that they may be abused/neglected. Well, except in the case of gay parents in some states, I guess, and I disagree with that.

[betnoir.livejournal.com]

Lemme say this about that.

Across the board, not one of 'em shoulda gotten freebies. Not a one. Their choice.

Me, I will boycott that interview tonight. Just as I did with the other families. I will not condone her actions by jacking NBC's ratings.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

Uh, yawp. Single, POC and oh mi ghad IRAQI. SPICY.

Well, single, unemployed, supported by her exhausted parents, and with six kids already. I think is more the problem for the public. I personally don't care, but I think you're misrepresenting the concerns.

somewhat toxic parents....

"toxic"? The grandparents have been housing, feeding, and caring for not only the daughter, but her 6 kids. They've gone into bankruptcy because of it.

I definitely think the grandparents were enabling this woman's behavior, and therefore they in part brought this on themselves. But I certainly don't think their understandable frustration with the situation is somehow "toxic" or indicative that they are bad or mean parents. How many parents are willing to house/feed/care for their adult children in the first place?

The grandmother disapproves of her granddaughter's choices because the GRANDMOTHER is the one taking care of and providing for the kids. She doesn't want her grandchildren going hungry/uncared for, so she feels forced into this position. Her reaction is understandable.

[trillsie.livejournal.com]

Perhaps pulled is a bit strong, but the case does need to be looked into. The thing is, we're now going to be supporting these children when she couldn't afford to take care of the 6 she already had. There's something terribly wrong with that. What about the lives these 14 children will have with a single unemployed mother (who is really going to have a difficult time finding employment that will pay enough for daycare) who has already admitted to the plan of using student loans to help take care of them. That is her plan. Isn't there some sort of vetting process for IVF? If there is, then I wonder how she was accepted since she already had 6 children.

[betnoir.livejournal.com]

With proof that the doctor *knowingly* performed outside the standard of care?

Damn skippy, yes.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

The thing is, we're now going to be supporting these children when she couldn't afford to take care of the 6 she already had.

assuming the children will be on welfare (they haven't been thus far, and I suspect she'll actually get some sort of TV deal, though who knows), the cost of this particular family's support is incredibly small to the individual taxpayer (probably literally less than a penny), and this situation is entirely anomolous. How many single unemployed women can afford one IVF session, let alone seven? If it were common it wouldn't be news.

so really, putting together some kind of legal response to this freak situation is unnecessary. As is getting upset about the cost. You should spend more energy getting upset about the cost of one day of the war in Iraq. That costs considerably more than these kids will for their entire lives.

Isn't there some sort of vetting process for IVF?

should there be? ...there isn't for normal parenting. Why should infertile people be held to a higher standard than anyone else?

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

so, if this is determined to be within the "standard of care", then that's ok?

also, say the standard of care outlawed abortion. Should a physician's group be able to make that kind of personal reproductive decision and enforce it amongst its members?

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Well, the numbers don't add. That's why everyone is so upset. As for me, I don't care one way or the other. I don't. I don't care what she does, even a little. But I see that 14 kids on disability, with one bankruptcy, as a single parent, (etc. etc. etc.) is already starting out with a pretty huge set of red flags.

But I don't believe that "love is all you need", either.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

You don't have dates, do you? You just have the date the photos were released, not the day they were taken.

So easily led. *shakes head* Question Authority, hon. Everywhere it lurks, in whatever guise it cloaks itself.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Licensed Foster Parent here.

Oh very yes they could be removed. Oh very yes. And with kind of attention? You just haven't heard about the home study yet. She doesn't have to tell and they aren't going to say.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Everybody else is doing that work for me. I don't have to be a part of the circus...and that's a personal choice. I don't have to feed the machine, and I'm not going to.

There are things I don't have to be a part of - and this is one of them.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Ok, if that's the case, then let's see how long she gets to *keep* the kids. The problem is not the children. They're already here. They're essentially innocent bystanders in all of this.

The problem is *her*. Oh so very, very clearly, her. With that in mind, let's see how it all plays out.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

They've gone into bankruptcy, or are they reporting the daughter's (recinded) filing again?

I haven't seen a single picture of the grandmother with a child. Plenty of the grandfather, and he's been the one most verbally defensive with the 'get lost' rhetoric.

And the media is just eating. This. Up.

Gee, and since the PR firm came online. Who'd have thunk it?

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Try to adopt more than 2 children per bedroom in your home. You won't be able to.

Nobody does the same if you have them yourself, of course.

[betnoir.livejournal.com]

1. *with proof that the doctor performed OUTSIDE the standard of care*.

2. Abortion is regulated by federal law. If Roe v. Wade goes off the books, it then reverts to a states' rights issue. At least here in California, that still makes it legal. It's been *mumblerumph* years since I worked for ACOG, but the last time I checked, abortion was not outside the standard of care.

Why should sanctions against a doctor (if the charges can be proven) be any different for OB/GYN than for any other doctor?

If a psychologist does not breach confidentiality in a case where a patient has made specific harm threats against an identifiable individual, that's failure of duty to warn. And that could potentially mean suspension of license.

As it should be.

I'm really failing to understand why it should be any different for IVF doctors if there is sufficient evidence to prove that they performed outside standards of care.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's another good reason for a PR firm.

With what I know of 'prospective adoptive parents' - there has been more than one or two couples trying to tell her how wonderful they are and how she won't miss just one of them.

Count on it.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think that an eye should be kept on the family to make sure the children aren't being neglected - but if they aren't, then who cares.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Clearly thats untrue given the great lengths she's gone to have them.

However, it's entirely missing the point. What she *WANTS* is not really the current question on the table. We've gotten this far on the what she wants train. However now the kids are here, and their needs take priority.