Penn mom delivers sextuplets!

[kapow]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/11/sextuplets.ap/index.html

Amazing - it sounds like all the babies are actually doing okay. I especially like the picture of the dad with all the identity bracelets running down his arm.

[llcoddington]

Wow! Amazing that they are all doing well. And, the article said they also have 3 yr. old twins. Now that I have a daughter, I CANNOT imagine having six at once! Six who don't sleep through the night, oh my!

Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[flagger]

Absolutely grotesque if you ask me.

[cdlamis]

>Absolutely grotesque if you ask me.

WHY?? Because she used fertility treatments or because they have 8 kids? Either way, that is an insensitive comment especially when many mothers here have needed to use fertilty treatments to conceive their miracles.

Daniella
Mom to Julia 6-13-02
And baby #2 EDD 12-30-04!!

[flagger]

>WHY?? Because she used fertility treatments or because they
>have 8 kids? Either way, that is an insensitive comment
>especially when many mothers here have needed to use fertilty
>treatments to conceive their miracles.

It is grotesque to have a litter of children and rely on the kindness of others for donations from everything to hospital care to baby equipment. Just because I am friends with a few people who have used fertility treatments to conceive DOES NOT mean I have to be in favour of those methods.

When it turns into women having litters of children at once like some sort of dog, I find that absolutely grotesque and a sad use of medical technology.

[jamsmu]

But I highly doubt she planned on 6...

[kfcboston]

Flagger -

Are you against it in principal or only b/c it sometimes produces multiples, and large numbers of multiples? I've seen two WSJ articles in the past week about improvements in technology to isolate "good" embryos - the ones most likely to implant - so as to reduce risks of multiples.

There's also the issue of mandatory insurance coverage - in states where it's covered by law, those high-risk situations are found far less frequently b/c couples aren't pressured financially to do one go-for-broke cycle.

[Marisa6826]

Well, thank God that they all survived. But honestly, the likelihood that all six babies will be developmentally and/or physically fine since they were born at only 30w is kind of slim. It's nice that their church and other "corporations" are willing to give them handouts, but even those tend to be limited. How is that woman going to take care of EIGHT young children? Even if they are all healthy.

Speaking with first hand knowledge of using fertility drugs, I have to say that I think it's kind of irresponsible to even implant that many eggs (going on the assumption she did something like IVF and didn't take Clomid and just have a crazy amount of follicles). And for her to have had six embryos survive, there were probably even MORE implanted. I don't think that I've EVER heard of ALL the transplanted embryos survive.

Any RE that I've spoken to significantly limits the transfer amount specifically to prevent such a large pregnancy. It's not safe for the mother OR the fetuses. In fact, it's considered a relative failure to have multiples when using fertility drugs. The goal is still a singleton.

And for what it's worth Flagger, are you against all fertility treatments in general or just ones that result in huge litters? I would have never had children without fertility treatments. It doesn't make me any less of a parent than you are. I suspect that's not what you're saying, but it's how it came across.

Just my opinion, not looking to get flamed.

-m

[flagger]

>Are you against it in principal or only b/c it sometimes
>produces multiples, and large numbers of multiples?

Both. Plain and simple. They knew the risks going in and should have to PAY for the consequences of their actions. Women having litters in a time of over-population is just absolutely grotesque.

>There's also the issue of mandatory insurance coverage - in
>states where it's covered by law, those high-risk situations
>are found far less frequently b/c couples aren't pressured
>financially to do one go-for-broke cycle.

Having children is not a right and I am against any law that REQUIRES insurance coverage for infertility treatments.

[McQ]

I see Flagger point on this one, however I wouldn't use the word grotesque. I have NO problems what so ever about the use of fertility drugs and in fact think that's an amazing option. And I understand why they implant more to have a better chance of some taking. But that said, as hard as it would be, I think I'd have to consider selective reduction. There's no way one couple can care for six or more kids, and I think carrying that many poses long term health risks to the babes. And it's not up to the neighbors and community to pitch in and raise their kids or give them 3 dishwashers and van. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

edited to add that it's NOT Flagger's point on insurance coverage that I agree with.

Allison
~ mommy to Declan 3.24.03
and number 2 EDD 9.14.04

[egoldber]

I am also puzzled as to how situations like this happen. Its my understanding that women on fertility meds are generally very heavily montiored for things like egg overproduction and that the accepted protocol is to scrap a cycle when there is egg overproduction like in this case.

I know that in the past, large numbers of multiples was a not an uncommon side effect of fertility treatments, but fertility treatments have come a LONG way in the last few years, and improved monitoring has made multiples of a higher order than twins relatively unlikely.

The article said that she was taking meds (didn't say which ones) but didn't mention IVF. And even with IVF, transferring more than 3 embryos is still very uncommon now that techniques have improved so much.

[McQ]

Marisa ~ you said it much better than I tried too.

Allison
~ mommy to Declan 3.24.03
and number 2 EDD 9.14.04

[Rachels]

I doubt that they told the neighbors they had to buy them a van. If a community wants to be charitable and helpful, well, that's lovely and those kids are lucky.

I'd never presume to tell a woman how many children it was appropriate for her to have.

And I'm pretty freaking grateful that Flagger's not in charge of the laws that govern coverage for women's health.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Jeanne]

Actually, we do not have an over population problem in this country. In fact, just the opposite is true. Last time I worked with the numbers, the medium age of the population was 38 I believe. Economically, this will likely result in a large problem within 30 years as younger generations struggle to support an aging population that will have a longer life span.

Over population does exist in several other countries but not in ours.

[Marisa6826]

I don't think it's an issue of telling a woman how many kids she can have. There are many families that intentionally have children less than a year apart. More power to them. If that's what they want for their families, and they are able to provide for their children - emotionally and financially, then I wish them all the luck and health in the world.

I believe that it's about this couple pushing their luck. Why would anybody even want six infants at a time - especially after already raising twins?

How many of us here have been at our wits' end with just a singleton? She's going to now have eight children under four years old? I'm sure she will have a lot of help and will sooner or later get into a routine, but it's just crazy. I think you would be hardpressed to find anybody saying, "Sure! Six at once is a great idea!"

And as far as whether or not states should mandate fertility coverage. Damn straight they should be. Sorry Flagger, you're wrong on this one.


-m

[McQ]

I'm not thinking that they told/asked anyone for a van. But (using the McCaughey septuplets as an example) to have 7+ kids while the father makes only $30/k a year or something is irresponsible. Sure it was nice that some one gave them a van, bought them a new house, gave them a lifetime supply of diapers BUT that doesn't make it right. If you can't afford to care for that many kids, you shouldn't have that many kids. And that doesn't have anything to do with Flagger or the government telling a woman how many kids she should have. She should be smart enough to figure that out on her own.

Allison
~ mommy to Declan 3.24.03
and number 2 EDD 9.14.04

[flagger]

>And for what it's worth Flagger, are you against all
>fertility treatments in general or just ones that result in
>huge litters? I would have never had children without
>fertility treatments. It doesn't make me any less of a parent
>than you are. I suspect that's not what you're saying, but
>it's how it came across.

It is exactly what I am saying. I will repeat what I said before: Just because I am friends with a few people who have used fertility treatments to conceive DOES NOT mean I have to be in favour of those methods.

I never once said someone who does so is less of a parent. Just that I personally have never been in favour of fertility treatments period.

It is frightening to me to have state sanctioned involvement in reproductive issues period. What is to prevent the state from saying if we pay for it, you must use only this hospital or this brand of medication? You may not have an elective c-section and on and on and on? The state should NEVER require an insurance company to pay for fertility treatments.

[flagger]

>And as far as whether or not states should mandate fertility
>coverage. Damn straight they should be. Sorry Flagger, you're
>wrong on this one.

Sorry but we can agree to disagree. Having children is not a right. Be it one or seven. The state has no business in telling an insurance company that they MUST provide for fertility coverage.

I have no problem with an insurance company choosing to cover fertility treatments on their own but I sure do have a problem when the state starts mandating that they do. It would be like me demanding that my state mandate my insurance company pay for my vasectomy, or an IUD for Ms. Flagger. My insurance pays for one but not the other, but that is up to the company and NOT thankfully the state.

[Rachels]

In some ways I agree. I worry about this mom, and I'd never do it. But mandating selective reduction is going to feel to some women like mandating abortion. I'm very uncomfortable with that, just as I'm uncomfortable (well, more than uncomfortable) with criminalizing abortion. It's an intensely personal experience to be pregnant, and the idea that someone else could tell you that you must not give birth to the child you're carrying is bad news.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Marisa6826]

But then it comes down to an issue of whether or not you can afford to have a child. Not in the actual costs of raising a child, but being able to cover the cost of getting pregnant.

Just because Jonathan's firm chose not to include fertility treatments in their coverage, I had to pay OUT OF POCKET over $8000 for this pregnancy. And we were fortunate in that an IUI worked and we didn't have to go to IVF, which is substantially more expensive.

You think that's fair? There's a HUGE difference between covering what is a medical issue and what are already existing insurance issues. MANY insurance companies already determine what hospitals they will and will not cover, along with whether they will cover certain medications over another.

There is no comparison.

Not all of us can conveniently get knocked up for the cost of a cheap bottle of wine.

I'm sorry, but we will need to agree to disagree on this one.

-m

[flagger]

It is quite ethno-centric to only view our country instead of the global population at large. What we do in this country does affect the global population as well as the global economy.

[flagger]

Who said getting pregnant had to be fair? Do you also agree that only certain people can afford to adopt? Should the state also mandate and provide all costs for adoption too?

You and Jonathan made a choice to get pregnant and therefore had to bear all the costs associated with it. You have to remember that insurance provided by companies is a benefit and NOT an entitlement. As such that insurance company should be able to choose to cover what in fact is an option and NOT a medically necessary procedure.

Apples and oranges maybe, but what is next insurance companies being mandated to provide cosmetic surgery, drugs to help men with E.D.?

[Marisa6826]

No Chuck. Nothing in life is fair. We just all deserve the same shot. You would be crying a different story if Laura was miserable because all she wanted was a child and you couldn't help her.

I personally think it would be great if there were benefits covering adoption. What skin is it off your nose? If parents (or prospective ones) are willing to pay a premium for such coverage, then go for it. There are so many unwanted children in this world, it's a sin that it's the laywers that benefit from the money adoptions cost and not the children.

And as far as Jonathan and I are concerned, we pay for those insurance benefits. We pay handsomely for them. I don't appreciate the fact that when I held the policy with my (significantly less paying) previous employer, all fertility treatments including medications were covered, but when a global company employing my husband decided to check off a box excluding coverage, we had to pay out of pocket.

Oh, and there is no need to remind me what is a benefit and what is an entitlement.

I'm really disappointed .

Let's end this here.

-m

[McQ]

Well that I agree with. I don't think the state should mandate selective reduction. But I would think there should be a limit, guideline, something on how many is safe to put in there. I can go back and forth and see both sides and pretty much don't want the government controlling ANY of my decisions. But it scares me when someone decides that having six kids at once is a good thing. I feel for those kids.

Allison
~ mommy to Declan 3.24.03
and number 2 EDD 9.14.04

[Rachels]

Marisa, come to MA. Our insurance coverage doesn't discriminate against men and women whose reproductive systems aren't functioning perfectly.

Sad that some think that healthcare shouldn't be viewed as something to which we're all entitled.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Marisa6826]

Rachel-

I think it's NJ that covers, but NY that doesn't. It's the only thing I can think of since we had Aetna both times. Although when Jonathan asked at work, they said that it was the company that chose not to include coverage with its insurance package.

-m

[flagger]

Yes and pay the some of the highest taxes in the nation. And no I do not think one should be entitled for what is an OPTION and have someone else (you and me) pay (through higher premiums or taxes).

[flagger]

I was saying the same story for all of those years that we tried and Laura could not get pregnant. I never have believed in fertility treatments from both an ethical and moral standpoint. It does not mean that I think any less of someone who chooses that route. It is just not for us. If you want to pay so be it, just do not ask me to pay through higher premiums or for the state to mandate it.

I stand by my original statement that having six children at once is absolutely grotesque.

[Jeanne]

I don't think so. You live HERE. And as such, you will need to be supported by the population at large - HERE. Not globally.

If you want to use the argument of over population, then please apply "Think Globally, Act Locally". This is not an ethno-centric or singleton way of thinking, but rather a very much applied and successful way of thinking and acting with regards to the environment on the whole. Over population is a very real environmental issue. Documented proof is easy to find.

If for personal reasons it does not appeal to you, then so be it. You're entitled to your feelings and I have no issue with that.

Not in this to start an argument with you Flagger.

[kapow]

I wonder if the couple chose to have that many babies because of religious reasons. I think that was the issue in the McCaugheywhatever's case. They considered any viable embryo to be a life and so ended up implanting all the embryos.

[Rachels]

But Flagger, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You would deny a family coverage for fertility treatments while mandating that insurance should pay for elective cesarean, which has the potential to create a whole host of expensive health problems for mothers and babies. If we practiced evidence-based maternity care here, which would involve only doing medically necessary sections (no more than 10% - 12%), we would literally save billions per year in health care costs. It sounds like you want the procedures that possibly affect you and your family to be covered, but that if it doesn't relate to you, then you don't see any need.

I agree with you about MA taxes, though. They're ridiculous.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Marisa6826]

That's what it sounds like. Especially since they said their church would be helping them.

-m

[flagger]

Um...for the record I am not in favour of elective c-sections either. However, if the insurance company chooses to pay for one procedure and not another that should be the right of the insurance company and not because the state mandated it be so.

We have catastrophic insurance with the highest deductibles and paid quite a bit out of pocket for our "normal no complications" childbirth.

[JenCA]

I agree with this post. I have a hard time understanding why that many embryos were transferred (if they used IVF), unless it was to satisfy religious purposes.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I do agree with flagger that this woman actually had a *litter* of children, and I do find that somewhat...well, I can't think of a word that quite describes the feeling I get from it, so I'll just leave it at that. ;) I do wish this family the best of luck in raising 8 (!!!) young children...

[ChicagoMama]

Just musing a bit here along with you. I still wonder about that. I have a good friend who is about to enter an IVF cycle, and it seems to me from a conversation we had that her dr. wouldn't allow that - he would only implant a certain number of embryos (not sure of #, but I think it was like 2 or 3). If the new mom mentioned above had IVF, maybe her implanted embryos split? My friend also had an IUI cycle cancelled b/c she had too many follicles - apparently too great of a chance of multiples, along with other complications. I wonder if all infertility docs operate under the same set of guidelines. Just musing out loud here.
Becky

Mama to DDs Shelby 09/19/02 and Sydney 10/16/03

[papal]

Wow. I hope they have some help in the intial weeks and months... it is hard with just one baby.. I cannot imagine how much harder it would be with six (plus two)!! I am glad they are all doing well and hope they don't have any physical or mental problems from being premature.
Certainly, if we were not able to conceive naturally, I think we would have tried fertility treatments (if they were affordable). And then if by some chance, there were 6 babies and not just 1, I don't know if I would have the heart to _choose_ which babies should stay and which should go, just so the ones that stayed got a better chance. Unless we are in these parents shoes, I don't think we should judge them so unkindly. I am sure they would be hurt if their children were referred to as a 'litter',

[AngelaS]

I think if the state would stay out of our lives a bit more, we'd all be happier and healthier because of it. (oops, my Republican side is showing again...)

I think it's wonderful that these parents know that they have room in their hearts to love and care for however many children they happen to be blessed with. I know plenty of parents who have between 4 and 12 children who are WAY better parents than those who have none, one or two.

I don't live far from the McCaugheys. They all seem to be happy and well adjusted kids. I think they'll turn out FAR better than many children of closeminded and pompous parents that I've also 'met'.

[AngelaS]

The McCaughey's got pregnant with their septuplets on a low dose of Clomid. It wa a lower dose of clomid than they used to have their first child, a singleton. It was not IVF.

[flagger]

According to MSNBC: Kate Gosselin had been taking a fertility drug to conceive, her husband said.

[bluej]

I totally LOVE Leela's new avatar!

[McQ]

And here's were I have trouble when people bring up the religious aspect. These babies did not happen naturally. So it bothers me that these people think it's okay to take the medical resources to create life, then have a double standard when talking about ending life. Again, I'm pro fertitilty but please be responsible with it.

Allison
~ mommy to Declan 3.24.03
and number 2 EDD 9.14.04

[McQ]

If people can care, love, feed, afford and raise any number of children that they can, it's one thing and more power to them. But to ask one body to carry 7 babies is too much in my opinion. And I do think to have that many at once is irresponsible.

Allison
~ mommy to Declan 3.24.03
and number 2 EDD 9.14.04

[papal]

Thanks Jen! We sure think she is cute! :)
That is from a photo of my sister and Leela in a shoe shop in NYC. :)
Here is the original pic:

http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/user_files/5894.jpg

[nathansmom]

Angela-
I'm going to disagree with you here. They did not use IVF but they also did not use Clomid. "Bobbi McCaughey, who left her seamstress job before giving birth to her first child nearly two years ago, had been taking the fertility drug Pergonal. The drug had been prescribed because she and her husband had trouble conceiving their daughter, Mikayla." I took this quote from a website about them. In most cases a RE will not give you the dosage of hcg to make your eggs develop when you have that many follicles when you are not doing IVF. I think the doctors that allowed these women to try to conceive when so many follicles were present were wrong but everyone woman should have a choice in their treatment.
I'm not sure what the lady from Penn used however I'm betting on Pergonal in that case too. J
JMHO since I've experienced inferility and have done all of listed drugs.
edited to add the website I took the quote from.
http://www.gazetteonline.com/special/babies/seps001.htm

[momathome]

I have 2 beautiful healthy girls and very much want to have a third. We have had 3 miscarriages since we started trying again and it has been devestating. After seeing a specialist and having a fertilty work-up done, I have found out what caused the miscarriages and I am starting on fertility drugs this month. I am 26 years-old and want a big family - I don't feel like I should just give up because there are complications that can be fixed with drugs. I think it is a blessing that such drugs and treatments exist. Perhaps some of you may think I am being selfish - I personally just feel lucky that I have a chance to make my dream come true. JMHO!
-Lauren

[Calmegja2]

>I think if the state would stay out of our lives a bit more,
>we'd all be happier and healthier because of it. (oops, my
>Republican side is showing again...)
>
>

*********

My Democrat side has to laugh at this, when looking at the record level of expansion and intrusion into our private lives courtesy of the current administration. The government has expanded it's control and the size of the actual government at the highest level in recent (as in 50 years +)history under the Bush administration. A Republican administration, not a Democratic one.

And as for reproductive control, he put a man on the committee to make reproductive health decisions who believes that most health problems in women can be cured by prayer, and even wrote a book about which scriptures can help with things like PMS.

I don't see how that's going to help the situation. At all.


******

To the original posting, I agree in whole with Marisa's posts.

[caleymama]

I was going to say the same thing! She's beeeeeautiful!!

[AngelaS]

I could be wrong. :D I took the statement that she was on a lower dose of whichever drug from the book she wrote, "Seven from Heaven". I'm not real up on which drug is which but I was trying to clarify that it was not IVF that left her pregnant with 7 babies.

[hcsl]

Sorry this is a little OT. One of the things that infuriated me the most about having the McCaughey Septuplets crammed down my throat through the media for the first 2 years of their lives was the parents' assertion that they did not selectively reduce the embryos because that's how many babies God gave them. Uhhh... NO!!! God didn't give you ANY babies but modern medicine did. I thought it was horribly hypocritical for them to embrace all the scientific advances they could when it came to producing a child then throw the religion card in for everything post-conception.

I have to say that I don't think a woman's body was designed to carry that many children. I am fortunate that I have never been put in the position of facing the decision to carry 5, 6 or 7 children or reduce. However, I cannot imagine not only the emotional task of raising that many babies but the many different physical feats it would entail as well. Multiples have lower birth weights and are often preterm resulting in the need for more intensive neonatal care. What about the fact that one (or two) people cannot physically care for that many children? When would a mother have time for herself? What about the relationship with the spouse- especially if there was a constant parade of community members in and out of the house helping with the children?

Sorry for the mini rant. I think it is incredibly irresponsible to bring that many lives into the world when you have no way to provide for them. There are so many children wasting away in the foster care system and waiting to be adopted both here and abroad. The McCaugheys really get me going.

[tinkerbell1217]

Okay, what about those of us who have recurrent miscarriage problems that fertility drugs will fix due to making a "better egg"??? Are we to keep enduring miscarriages and heartbreak?? No having children is not a "right", but it is a deep desire for so many. When fertility treatments are done responsibly I think they are a miracle! I am sure they didn't plan on 6, its very rare. And, selective reduction may not have been a choice due to religious reasons. And, I am sure they didn't "expect" donations or handouts. Some people are just kind enough to do it all on their own.


Kelly

[ddmarsh]

>Having children is not a right

Yes it is actually. Reproductive rights are a well established body of law.

[MelissaTC]

I don't think you are selfish at all. I, too, have a condition that affects not just my fertility but my health in general. And drugs given to diabetics actually help me ovulate. And, I too, feel lucky that my DH works for a company that offers full fertility coverage. Without the help of these drugs, my little guy wouldn't be here. If someone thinks you are selfish, well, add me to the list as well then!

[Sarah1]

I love that the father said "thank the Lord." Like that was really G*d's will for a woman to have six babies at once.

Edited to add--I read all the responses only AFTER I posted--just wanted to say that I totally, wholeheartedly support a woman/couple's right to have fertility treatments. But six babies at once seems a little outrageous!

[Momof3Labs]

While I don't necessarily agree with the steps that lead up to carrying six babies, I do disagree with some of the comments that have been made about infertility treatments. Infertility is a medical condition and most treatments for medical conditions are covered under health insurance policies. You might personally have a moral or ethical problem with these treatments, and that is okay with me, but is it a company's right to tell its employees what is moral or ethical? (Though let's be honest, companies don't pay for these benefits because they are expensive and because they can get away with it under the current laws in most states, that's all.)

Some people have moral and ethical problems with keeping someone on life support when there is virtually no chance for recovery, yet the costs of doing so are covered by health insurance. And we all pay for it.

And how about patients who are very, very ill and have little chance for survival? Is it their right to undergo hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatment, and have it paid for by their health insurance? Under our current system, you bet it is.

My point is simply that I feel that medical conditions shouldn't be excluded under health insurance just because the treatment is considered optional by some people (or not a "right") - once you start basing exclusions on that argument, it opens up a whole can of worms.

[flagger]

Procreation is NOT and should not be a right granted by the state. Women cannot say on one hand "Keep the state out of my womb" on one hand and "Pay for me to be able to procreate" on the other. Having children is optional. There are many medical conditions that are excluded from coverage. Do you suppose the state should compel an insurance company to offer Lasik procedures when poor eyesight is ALSO a medical condition? How about men who suffer from E.D.? Do you want your state to compel an insurance company to include Viagra (or the competitors) on their formulary?

Yes when a company is paying for the majority of the health insurance, it is their right to say what is moral and ethical. They are providing a benefit and not an entitlement. I asked Ms. Flagger about this and her first comment was "I sure as h*ll do not want my premiums to go up to pay for someone else to be able to procreate".

[cdlamis]

I asked Ms. Flagger about this and her first comment was "I sure as
>h*ll do not want my premiums to go up to pay for someone else
>to be able to procreate".

It's easy to say that when you have not dealt with "procreation" or fertility hardships. I for one have not but I can still sympathize with those that do.

Daniella
Mom to Julia 6-13-02
And baby #2 EDD 12-30-04!!

[Rachels]

>>How about men who suffer from E.D.? Do you want your state to compel an insurance company to include Viagra (or the competitors) on their formulary?

Yes. I do. Sexual health is pretty important, too.

>>I asked Ms. Flagger about this and her first comment was "I sure as h*ll do not want my premiums to go up to pay for someone else to be able to procreate".

Harsh coming from a woman who already has a child.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[ddmarsh]

<Procreation is NOT and should not be a right granted by the state

Reproductive freedom exists under federal law in various forms, despite your *opinion* that it not ought to be.

I find it interesting that you are arguing against reproductive freedom and the right of individuals to produce children in various forms while you are often so vociferously aruging for your right to parent in whatever form you choose.

[flagger]

>It's easy to say that when you have not dealt with
>"procreation" or fertility hardships. I for one have not but I
>can still sympathize with those that do.

You have no idea what fertility hardships we have dealt with.

[flagger]

>>>How about men who suffer from E.D.? Do you want your state
>to compel an insurance company to include Viagra (or the
>competitors) on their formulary?
>
>Yes. I do. Sexual health is pretty important, too.

We can agree to disagree on this point.

>>>I asked Ms. Flagger about this and her first comment was "I
>sure as h*ll do not want my premiums to go up to pay for
>someone else to be able to procreate".
>
>Harsh coming from a woman who already has a child.

She agreed with me that six is pretty grotesque. And again, no one on this board has any idea of our hardships. How dare someone have an opinion? It is not a personal attack.

If anything, feel for the children of the parents who parade them around like some circus act. Since confidentiality exists in most hospitals, the father appearing in pictures is pretty abhorrent as well.

[Momof3Labs]

>How about men who suffer from E.D.? Do you want your state to
>compel an insurance company to include Viagra (or the
>competitors) on their formulary?

Yes, I absolutely feel that this should be covered.

>Yes when a company is paying for the majority of the health
>insurance, it is their right to say what is moral and ethical.

If only it were this simple, Flagger... How about if we deny sick-baby coverage to formula fed babies? Or sick-baby coverage for children in day care? Or how about if we deny women coverage for anything more than a home birth with a midwife attending? Should health insurance not pay for premature babies be given the chance to live? Or for the medical bills of someone on life support? Where would it end??

>They are providing a benefit and not an entitlement. I asked
>Ms. Flagger about this and her first comment was "I sure as
>h*ll do not want my premiums to go up to pay for someone else
>to be able to procreate".

I for one would much rather see my premiums go up for this reason than because people drink, smoke, use drugs, don't exercise, don't eat right, have unprotected sex, or otherwise choose an unhealthy lifestyle. I'd much rather deny benefits for things that can be prevented by a person than for things that are out of their control (like infertility is, for the most part).

[cdlamis]

>I for one would much rather see my premiums go up for this
>reason than because people drink, smoke, use drugs, don't
>exercise, don't eat right, have unprotected sex, or otherwise
>choose an unhealthy lifestyle. I'd much rather deny benefits
>for things that can be prevented by a person than for things
>that are out of their control (like infertility is, for the
>most part).

Great point Lori!


Daniella
Mom to Julia 6-13-02
And baby #2 EDD 12-30-04!!

[cdlamis]

>You have no idea what fertility hardships we have dealt
>with.

Flagger, you are right. Sorry for assuming.


Daniella
Mom to Julia 6-13-02
And baby #2 EDD 12-30-04!!

[flagger]

The examples you have given are for the most part medical necessity. Procreating is NOT. I am glad I live in a state that does not force an insurance company to provide nor keep a company from excluding coverage for infertility issues. You do not have a right to procreate. Only in a few states do you have a right to conceive. I have no issue with insurance companies offering this benefit on their own, but I sure am against the state passing laws that it must be offered. If you are willing to let the state in on this issue, then you must accept further consequences of this desire. How about the state forcing insurance companies to pay for abortions? How about the state setting a cap on how many children you have? How about the state saying it will only force insurance companies to pay if you are going to have a boy?

>>>Or the medical bills of someone on life support.

All insurance has a maximum lifetime cap. Sadly even some AIDS patients use up all of their lifetime benefits.

We can agree to disagree on the last issue you made. We do not want our premiums to rise just so some couples want to to have a child. There are many many issues of non-medical necessity that are not covered by insurance. Infertility treatments, IUI, IVF just happen to be one of them we agree with the state staying out of.

[ddmarsh]

>You do not have a right to procreate. Reproductive rights only apply to >post-conception, only in a few states do you have a right to conceive.

This is incorrect. Reproductive rights include issues such as right to privacy in terms of birth control - i.e. the right to choose whether or not to in fact procreate. Issues involving curbing a woman's right to procreate such as the infamous Wisconsin statute a number of years ago where women on welfare were paid in exchange for having a tubal ligation have routinely been struck down. The issue of reproductive control and rights extends beyond that of the right to choose post-conception.

[wagner36]

I must agree with Debbie here. The right to have children has been well established by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right.

All attorneys must fondly remember first year constitutional law, and a little case called Skinner v. Oklahoma? I believe it was that case that described the right to have children as a liberty which is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

So, Flagger, I think what you mean it that it isn't a right to have someone else PAY for you to procreate.

[nathansmom]

I hope I didn't come off as rude. I was typing and dealing with a screaming child. I do think the first child was via clomid but the others were with Pergonal. The doctor should have not given the egg releasing drug with that many eggs unless she was doing IVF.
Anyways I hope I didn't offend you. Still friends?

[nathansmom]

if more than one baby implants. The goal is ONE healthy baby and more than one is not the goal at the clinic. However in order to get that one healthy baby more than one embyro might need to be transfered. They have very strict guidelines that they follow in order to prevent multiple births. Less than 10% of pregnancies at my clinic are multiples.

[ddmarsh]

>Skinner v. Oklahoma?


LOL you're good! I am remember the case and the class well but could not for the life of me come up with the case name :).

[flagger]

>So, Flagger, I think what you mean it that it isn't a right
>to have someone else PAY for you to procreate.

Thank you, that is exactly what I meant. Have all the children you want, do not require me as a taxpayer or someone who has insurance to have to pay with increased taxes or premiums because YOU (not you personally) want to have a child.

[tinkerbell1217]

I do understand the insurance premiums argument, BUT its been proven by quite a few studies that adding infetility/IVF coverage to an insurance policy only costs a mere $2-$3 a month for most insurance companies. So, the actual increase isn't really all that much. If the insurance companies would include this, the fees for IVF and fertility treatments would most likely go way down. I would gladly pay an extra $3 a month on my insurance premiums to enable someone who is having problems having children to do so. I think the vast majority of people who suffer infertility problems would be able to support and care for the children they do have. And, they would make excellent parents given they want children so very much.

An example, I have coverage for diagnosis only for infertility, not treatment. But, my uncle, who carries the same exact policy I do, had his penile implant paid for(he was having trouble having sex), no cost to him at all. I do not think that is a fair thing. So, having sex is a medical necessity?? The effect of infertility on the mind and body, IMHO, greatly outweighs the medical necessity of a penile implant for erectile dysfunction.

Kelly

[AngelaS]

Yes dear, we are. :D I was just making sure that they didn't get accused of transferring too many embryos with IVF, since we know that's NOT what happened. :D

[Bethann31]

Uh, yes, I would love it if insurance would pay for LASIK surgery so that my 14 year old son, who is having severeproblems with his eyes, and may never be able to see clearly or go without daily headaches unless he uses steroids in his eyes, could get it through his insurance. I had Lasik surgery because of a medical condition with my eyes and it wasn't covered. As you have said, "Hell yes, I think it should be covered."

Beth

Josh 3/90
Mollie 4/92
Jeffrey 12/94
and Katherine 6/03