The article mocks at the ethical failures involved in the infertility treatment by implanting eight embryos in Nadya Suleman’s womb expecting to be applauded for the medical success of the birth of eight children to a mother. The article highlights the lack of restraint practiced in enabling parents to produce children through fertility treatments and attempts a critical analysis of the ethical factors which should be considered when providing fertility treatments.
This article attempts to analyze various issues concerning child bearing and child rearing and the ethical constraints which should be placed on doctors while using technological tools to help couples in giving birth to children.
Summary
In the article, ‘The California octuplets: fertility technology run amok’, Ellen (2009) mocks at the medical team of doctors at the California hospital which announced the successful delivery of “eight babies in five minutes” terming it to be “amazing” and expecting to be applauded for their efforts and success. However, they received much criticism due to the “ethical failures of fertility treatment” since Nadya Suleman is already a single mother of six children, conceived in “vitro fertilization” by a sperm donor and not a real father. Additionally, the mother does not have a job and the family has “filed for bankruptcy”.
The author explains that the case initiated some very serious questions about “pregnancy and child bearing” including “marital status, money, responsibility and technology”. The case had initiated a debate around the country with regard to several issues including, religious, social, financial, ethical and technological. Ellen recollects that the “reproduction became a family business” following the birth of “Baby Louise” as a result of which more and more children are reproduced with the help of “fertility drugs and IVF”.
Ellen (2009) criticizes the fact that there are no limits on doctors in accepting patients and the only criterion is whether patients would be able to pay their hospital bills. Through Suleman’s case who is a mother “obsessed with children” she raises the important issue of having laws in place for restricting the number of embryos which can be planted in a single womb. Ellen asserts that any doctor who risks the lives of patient like Nadya’s fertility doctor did, should “lose their license” for “malpractice” and facilitating “mal-mothering”.
Ellen discusses also discusses the financial aspects of delivering underweight babies, the cost of which runs in millions including their neonatal care and other requirements. Ellen ridicules the Nadya as well as her doctor and asserts that the only term to “describe this achievement” of infertility treatment, given to an “unemployed single mother of six” is “nuts”.
Analysis
Ellen presents a clear and lucid picture of the ethical malpractices in the reproduction business by fertility doctors. Using sarcasm as a tool, Ellen states the facts of the controversial case of Nadya Suleman, an unmarried, unemployed mother of six, who was able to deliver eight children with the aid of reproductive technology by a team of several doctors at the California hospital. Ellen is appalled at the ignorance of the fertility doctors involved, who have ignored several important basic facts such as the prior presence of six children which Nadya already has and the fact that she is an unwed mother who does not have a job to support her, no husband, nor any financial resources.
Ellen is persuasive in her argument and mocks at the futile success of the “46 member medical team” and the subsequent “ethical failures of the fertility treatment” by the doctors who helped Nadya deliver eight children. Unfolding the facts one by one, Ellen presents evidence of the utter disregard by Nadya’s fertility doctor to the guidelines of reproductive technology which affirms that no more than two embryos can be implanted in a mother of less than thirty five years of age.
Nadya is a single mother who “is obsessed with children” and does not have a supporting marital partner, a fact clearly ignored by her fertility doctor. The family has filed for bankruptcy and this raise the vital question of how Nadya would be able to raise a total of fourteen children. Nadya is unemployed and the costs of supporting the eight infants in the neo-natal ward are likely to run in millions. All these facts have been disregarded by Nadya’s fertility doctor, who implanted eight embryos in her womb, displaying utter disregard for ethics and the important issues related to child bearing including finances and basic care to the children. Ellen provides substantial evidence to prove the failure of technology which enables couples and families to produce children. She wonders how a mother, who already has six children previously, can be treated for “infertility”. She asserts that the incident has risked not only the life of the mother but also the children, which is fact enough to have the license of Nadya’s fertility doctor cancelled.
Response
I am in total agreement with Ellen who supports her stand and provides substantial evidence to prove that the bodies of women are not “large enough to hold a litter” (Lori Andrews). I am also concerned about the several ethical and moral irresponsibility on the part of attitude of the fertility doctor who implanted eight embryos in her womb, “that had been left over from her earlier treatments”. The “individual decision” taken by Nadya’s fertility doctor which resulted in the birth of babies “between 1 pound 8 ounces and 3 pound 4 ounces” which will eventually cost “at least $1 million in neonatal care and more if they have a range of disabilities for premature babies” should have been the primary concern of Nadya’s doctor as well as the team of doctors who performed the delivery.
I support Ellen’s view that “marital status, money, individual choice, responsibility and technology” are important aspects which need to be considered not only by the patient but also by doctors who help couples in producing healthy children. Although there are certain issues which are not in the capacity of doctors such as telling someone how many kids to have doctors should go beyond “a wallet biopsy” and consider the psychosocial and economic profiles of patients when helping parent in producing children. Most importantly, technology life fertility treatment cannot and should not be given to patients who already have children, like in Nadya’s case, who has six children before she decided to deliver few more.
Works Cited
Goodman Ellen. The California octuplets: fertility technology run amok. The Seattle Times Company. Web.