Sextuplets born at 22 weeks

[ali_ohli]

A family in Minneapolis had sextuplets on Monday prematurely at 22w, and their doctors are fighting to save all of them. So far, it sounds like they're all still alive, but clearly in critical condition.

My first child was born at 22w and we were not given the option to save her. I'm at peace with that, because the survival rate for a 22-weeker is extremely low -- and the children that do survive typically have severe lifelong disabilities (mental retardation, blindness, deafness, cerebral palsy...often in combination). But of course, I can certainly appreciate wanting to do everything possible for your children.

To me, this story sparks an interesting debate about how heroic doctors should be in these situations. Would be interested to hear others' *respectful* thoughts. ;)

Here's the couple's blog (http://morrison6.com/), minus the part where she went into labor. It's really, really interesting if you get a chance today to read it -- her belly at 20 weeks is pretty freaky. And an article (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1242261.html) from the Minneapolis paper about the babies.

[BethIrish]

Wow. I will certainly be praying for them. Even if the babies do survive, it sounds like they have a long road ahead of them. Personally, I can't imagine being pregnant with 6 babies, much less having to face the long road they are going to have to trod with them.

DH and I had a long talk about TTC/IF prior to having concieving our son. Both of our mothers had incredibly hard times getting PG, so we wanted to make sure we were on the same page regarding IF treatments/adoption. (It took my Mom 10 years of trying and IF treatments to have my brother and I, and my MIL had tried for 6 years for DH and then adopted his younger sister.) IF is something that is very openly discussed in our families, and both of our Moms talked very openly about their experiences. So it was very much on our minds when we decided to start "trying."

We both had decided that rather then going down the road of IF treatments, we would rather adopt. It was a hard decision to come to, but one we really felt compelled to discuss prior to going down the TTC road, given our family histories. For us, we just were not willing to ride the roller coaster of emotions that go along with IF treatments. We would also never want to have to face the choice of selective reduction or the situation of having a higher probability of the babies born way too early. (I'm not judging anyone who goes down this road, just relating our thought process.)

Anyway, to answer your question of how "heroic" the doctors should be in these cases - I can stand here and say that maybe it would be better if they did let the babies go peacefully, but if they were my babies I know my first instinct, given the choice by the doctors, would be to help them in every way possible to surive.

[jennylou]

I think she had really awful care from her infertility Dr's. They told her she only had two mature eggs, with two more immature eggs. And then later say she ovulated 10 eggs? Either she wasn't getting enough care (ie, not enough u/s) or they missed something.

As for how heroic Dr's should be - having lost an infant myself, I can certainly appreciate wanting to do everything possible to save your child. I think if such premies are born alive, they should be treated as a human being and treated in the same manner that any other baby would be treated (ie, what would they do for a 39 weeker with breathing issues?).

I know a couple who had a 26 weeker who was 12 ounces when she was born. So far, the baby is doing great (over a year old now), but still very small. She's not showing any signs of disabilities, though I my understanding is that they won't know for sure until she's older.

[Asha]

ali ohli - i am sorry about the loss of your baby. if you don't mind answering, why were you not given the option of trying to save your baby?

beth irish - if managed carefully, undergoing infertility treatments doesn't necessarily mean multiple births. most good clinics will tell you their goal is for you to deliver one healthy baby. also, it depends on the type of treatment. with ivf you can have a specific number of eggs put into you, so its less common with ivf than say iui's or clomid which there is a bit less control. though, a good re will stop a cycle if a woman produces too many eggs during an iui cycle.

also, we need to mention that not only are the babies at risk in this type of pregnancy but it is dangerous to the mother as well. i believe this mother went into cardiac arrest afterwards bc she lost so much blood due to her blood volume being very high carrying 6 babies.

[ali_ohli]

As for how heroic Dr's should be - having lost an infant myself, I can certainly appreciate wanting to do everything possible to save your child. I think if such premies are born alive, they should be treated as a human being and treated in the same manner that any other baby would be treated (ie, what would they do for a 39 weeker with breathing issues?).

Jenny, I think the problem is that the outcome is so very different for children born at less than 24 weeks. (Most babies born after about 17-18 weeks have a heartbeat at birth, so are technically alive.) There's a huge jump in survival and long-term health during the 25-26-week range. Before that, it can become a similar issue to people who are being kept alive artificially after an accident or such -- technology can keep the person "alive," but is there any quality of life?

Asha,

why were you not given the option of trying to save your baby?

The hospital where I delivered does not attempt to resuscitate babies born under 23 weeks (most do not). At 23 weeks, doctors will assess the situation and *may* try to intervene depending on how robust the baby is at birth. Routine intervention at most U.S. hospital does not happen until 24 weeks.

[amew]

I am so sorry for this family, and very sorry for your loss as well, ali-ohli.

I thought, the predominant viewpoint in the neonatal community is not to resuscitate babies born at less than 23 weeks? I tend to agree with that approach. I just don't think a 22 weeker's odds of surviving (let along surviving without severe disability) are great enough to merit heroic measures, though being pregnant with my first child, I can certainly understand a parent's desire to do all they can to keep their child with them.

I personally would be extremely hesitant to do anything that created a likelihood of higher order multiples if I weren't willing to reduce a pregnancy, as it's just not safe for moms or babies to have quints, sextuplets, etc. But as asha pointed out, undergoing fertility treatments doesn't necessarily mean higher order multiples (though it does often mean twins, despite the fact that a singleton is the medically desired outcome), and I assume most of the people who wind up pregnant with higher order mutiples did not think it would happen.

[LDS Angel 19]

I'm really torn on this. Medical technology these days is amazing. A few months ago, there was a baby boy born at 23 weeks in the next county over. (Actually at the hospital where my MIL is an L&D nurse) Last I heard, he's doing ok.
We wern't given a choice to try to save our daughter (at 23wks) either. She was born alive and lived just under an hour. Do I think she could have had a chance if they tried to save her? I'm really not sure. Friends of ours lost their son at 24wks about a year ago. They did try to save him, and he lived about 12 hours. I think, in a small way, it was a tiny bit easier for us than it was for them, we didn't have to make that decision of when to turn off the vent, etc.

So, I don't know. I guess this is just something where it's hard to make one general statement or standard on how to handle all cases. I gues I'm not adding much to the discussion...

[ysolde]

I think I would feel like I owuld have to selectively reduce, in order to give my child(ren) the best chance at survival.

What a tragedy for this family.

[BethIrish]

Asha - I know there are a wide range of IF treatments (I have 2 close friends going through them currently) but for DH and I....well, though it is tough to admit, neither of us feel like we could ride the roller coaster of emotions we see our friends facing. I admire their strength...but I just don't have it in me. KWIM?

[IrishEyes]

Another set of sextuplets were born in Arizona the day after the Morrison sextuplets. They had a website for the couple here (http://www.maschemiracles.com/). The mother made it to 30 gestational weeks, so the babies range in weight from 2.1 lbs to 3 lbs. I believe some of them are already off the respirator.

The mother is being treated for heart failure because the amount of blood in her system after the c-section is overwhelming her:

The mother of one of two sets of sextuplets born within 10 hours of each other suffered acute heart failure shortly after the delivery but was stable Tuesday, doctors said.

The heart problems were due to the huge volume of blood that Jenny Masche, 32, was carrying in her body while pregnant, Dr. John Elliott said at a news conference at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center. When the babies were delivered Monday, some of the extra blood was lost and "stretched her heart and blood vessels to a very, very critical level," Elliott said.

Article here (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/13/sextuplet.mom.ap/index.html).

[ysolde]

Great apes (including homo sapiens sapiens) are not meant to carry litters. I am not surprised that carrying sextuplets put a huge strain on the mother's cardiovascular system.

[ginadc]

Wow...I can't imagine. This is heartbreaking; even if these babies do survive, they will most likely have devastating disabilities. I hope for the best outcome for them, but I think Jenny's very right that they must have gotten bad counsel from their doctors somewhere along the way.

If it were me, like ysolde, I would absolutely selectively reduce. It's painful to think about, but I would rather have one (or two) healthy babies than lose four, five, or six, or have some who survive but in a terribly debilitated condition.

As far as what to do now after they were born so early...wow. I don't know what I would do if in that situation. Our getting pregnant is pretty unlikely, but we haven't given up trying (no IF treatments given my cancer history, just giving it a shot while also planning a second adoption). If we succeeded, and then I went into premature labor at 22 weeks...god, I don't know what I'd want. My heart hurts for you, ali-ohli, for having to say goodbye to your baby like that.

The medical science says that most 22 week babies don't survive, or if they do, only survive with very severe disabilities. What about that many 22-weekers? Wouldn't their prognosis be even worse, given that they would of course be much smaller than a singleton pregnancy?

I remember when the McCaughey septuplets were born, and there was all this publicity (which continues periodically), and much fanfare about how great this was and how well the kids did. They did, although some of them did have some disabilities. But a lot of doctors were upset that the focus was on this one very rare case in which the outcome was pretty good, when the vast majority of such pregnancies have a much sadder outcome. I think all the publicity about the McCaugheys may have made some people think that extreme higher-order multiple pregnancies were now "safe," or at least not remotely as dangerous as they are.

This just makes me sad.

[ali_ohli]

It's a tragic situation. There are a lot of sides to this story, and I can appreciate all of them. But for me, ultimately, it comes down to this: I wouldn't put myself in a situation in which sextuplets were possible if I weren't willing to consider selective reduction. I don't personally believe it's more ethical to allow all six babies to die, or suffer lifelong disabilities. The couple's religious beliefs kept them from choosing selective reduction -- but at the same time, they were already sort of messing with "God's will" by introducing fertility drugs. I think there's a large inconsistency in their thinking.

I'll be interested to see how the babies are doing in a week or two...

[ali_ohli]

gina, you make some really great points. I think I can answer this question:

The medical science says that most 22 week babies don't survive, or if they do, only survive with very severe disabilities. What about that many 22-weekers? Wouldn't their prognosis be even worse, given that they would of course be much smaller than a singleton pregnancy?

I believe at 22 weeks, these babies are just as large as singleton pregnancies. (Indeed, their weights are all right around the same as my daughter's.) I think intrauterine growth restriction with multiples wouldn't become an issue until a little bit later. From their website, her 20-week photos look like she's about eight months or so. So still enough room in there.

The bottom line is that 22-weekers don't do well, if they survive at all. The sensational news stories don't spell out the disabilities.

ETA: Here's some background on prematurity and survival rates: http://www.meriter.com/living/preemie/survivalnew/survival.htm

[jenahdawn]

I'm wondering what the doctors would have done if it were a singleton or "just" twins.

We were too early (19 weeks) to even stop labor.

Ysolde, it's easy to say you'd do selective reduction, but if you really had the choice, could you really do it? I mean, those are your children. You would have to pick which could possibly live and which wouldn't have a chance....and what if you make the wrong choice? When we had our MC threat at about 12 weeks with the girls, all of those thoughts ran though my head, too...."If I had to pick so at least one could survive...." And I discovered there was no way I could do it.

[jenahdawn]

(OT, ali, that's the hospital we had the girls)

[ysolde]

jenah --

From the experience of friends who have had selective reductions, it is the doctor who makes the determination. Also, from the moment they decided to reduce, they started thinking about their pregnancies differently. They thought in terms of, "I am having one baby," or, "I am having twins," not, "I am having quads." I know not everyone can do it, and I made it clear it's what I think I would do. I have no way of being sure, of course.

[ali_ohli]

I'm wondering what the doctors would have done if it were a singleton or "just" twins.

I have to say I don't think doctors would have tried to save them had this been the case. I have to believe the novelty of sextuplets and all the media attention weighed on their decision, even if in a small way. I've actually never heard of a hospital trying to save 22-weekers before. And I chat with a lot of women who've been through preterm labor.

[jenahdawn]

ali, I know you and I are in the same boat. And I've never heard of it, either.

[jennylou]

I have to say I don't think doctors would have tried to save them had this been the case. I have to believe the novelty of sextuplets and all the media attention weighed on their decision, even if in a small way. I've actually never heard of a hospital trying to save 22-weekers before. And I chat with a lot of women who've been through preterm labor.

Me neither. Actually, when you first posted, I was thinking I was wrong in thinking that and perhaps I wasn't remembering right.

[ali_ohli]

The family has not released any information since the babies were born, but I would venture to guess the babies are not all hanging in there. That poor family must be delerious with the stress of it all.

[jajacobsen]

I think this is a really difficult topic. and potentially very sad for al teh moral quandaries it raises.

Was it ethical for the doctors to try to save the sextuplets when their policy (practice) woudl have been to not have done so with lower order births? As in, is it fair to spend resources in this situation simply because of the novelty or notoriety of teh higher order birth when similar resources are not offered to singleton or twin deliveries in the same circumstances?

Is it moral to attempt to "save" these babies considering the extremely high likelihood of complications and disabilities?

What are the ethics of allowing a woman on fertlity treatments to develop at least six, if not more, viable eggs? I am not sure if the parents were on clomid, or injectible stimulatnts and underwent IUI or IVF. I have undergone IUI twice, and both times my RE did ultrasound/bloodwork to monitor my follicle stimulation. My RE's policy is to stop stimulation and complete teh procedure when there are four follicles/eggs. Is IF "success" moral if it results in multiple order birts such as this? Where do we draw the line?

Is selective reduction moral? I have to admit, DH and I have struggled with this topic as we know that all IF treatments increase the chance of multiples. In some cases the doctor may select the embryo, but in oter cases, I know the parents do.

So, so hard!

[jenahdawn]

j, it sucks that you even have to think about those things.

I think the media should leave this family alone. They are going through the hardest thing anyone can go through and for people to swarm them and ask them questions, it's got to be painful.

I guess I am having a problem with the morals, too. The idea of the doctors playing God, in a way. (Again, choosing to make these efforts with 6 babies, when multiples born early have more issues anyway...) And the parents being forced to make the choice between horrible and terrible. (Whether to recesutate (sp?) or not.....a few parents in our bereaved parents support group had to make that decision....I wouldn't trade places with them for anything.)

And having to go through it as each baby.....oh, it's just...unfair isn't even the word.

[Asha]

I am not sure if the parents were on clomid, or injectible stimulatnts and underwent IUI or IVF. I have undergone IUI twice, and both times my RE did ultrasound/bloodwork to monitor my follicle stimulation.
on their blog, it said she was on follistim. can you be on follistim and inseminate naturally or do you have to have a iui? it also said on their blog that the dr's only saw 2 mature and 2 immature eggs, but later found out (after the fact) that she actually produced 10 eggs. also, the father was the one writing the blog, so as we know the dads aren't exactly the most clear on all the technical issues pertaining to fertility treatments.

[amew]

I suspect that in addition to the novelty of sextuplets, part of the reason the doctors are working to save these babies may have to do with the fact that they are the product of ART. I think it is accepted protocol for a doctor to take into account past infertility in determining whether to resuscitate an extremely premature baby, presumably because it is assumed that someone who got pregnant relatively easily has a better chance of going on to have a healthy child than a mother who had to go through ART to get pregnant once. Not sure that I agree with that thinking, since having gotten pregnant easily certainly doesn't mean a parent doesn't hurt just as much from the loss of a child, but I think it is a somewhat accepted take on things.

[jajacobsen]

The publicity is a double edges sword, definitely. I saw the interview with teh Masche father and he said "it wil take more than a village to raise these children." I don't mean this ina callous way, but I do think they hope to, and likely will, receive lot sof external donations. I know teh McCaughey family did. I don't have a problem with that.

But then when things go not so well, as with the Morrisons, all the publicity must be terrible. I'm sort of glad they've put a news blackout on things somewhat, so the family can just deal. As hard as the pain of IF is (six years!), I cannot imagine what they are going through.

I knwo that if DH and I are lucky enough to get pregnant, and if we were going to have triplets or more, he would push for selective reduction. Me, I am not so sure. Soo hard! He argues that at my age (I'm 41 now) he wants to improve the success rate of what is likely our only pregnancy. I see his point, but knowing it in your head and knowing it in your heart are two different things.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't think we will ever be in that position. My heart goes out to both families, especially the Morrisons.

[jajacobsen]

I believe Follestim is only used with IUI or IVF. When I used Follestim for my IUIs, I had US and BW DAILY to monitor my progress. But I know many REs will let there be up to ten follicles/eggs in order to increase teh success. They may have a point. We were not successful either time with five and four marure follicles/eggs. But what a price for their success!

[Asha]

jj - they went through two rounds of clomid and only one round of follistim. it seems a bit premature to allow someone to proceed with 10 follicles with only 3 cycles. it had to be iui bc they didn't talk about how many embryos were put into the uterus on their blog. also, it is very unlikely that you end up with sextuplets with ivf. they seem rather religious too, so they may be against ivf where churches are usually more accepting of iui's.

[jajacobsen]

I read the blog as well. They are young - early 20s, and had only been trying a year before ART. I hate to sound judgemental, but it seems really premature to me to have gone the route they went. Now a lot of things may not have been in the blog, but they went to injectibles/IUI really fast. Also, they said the US picked up four eggs prior to procedure but later they learned it was ten? Not sure ??????? It akes one wonder about teh ART practice they were using.

I wish them well.

FTR, I would not suggest that anyone wait until my age to TTC, but this couple is very young. Early 20s!

[Asha]

FTR, I would not suggest that anyone wait until my age to TTC, but this couple is very young. Early 20s!
i think it completely depends on the diagnosis. we had been trying a year and a half before we underwent treatment and we were in our late 20's. it turns out our issues had nothing to do with age. i went straight to ivf after 3 rounds of clomid.

[LDS Angel 19]

I have to say I don't think doctors would have tried to save them had this been the case. I have to believe the novelty of sextuplets and all the media attention weighed on their decision, even if in a small way. I've actually never heard of a hospital trying to save 22-weekers before. And I chat with a lot of women who've been through preterm labor.


There was this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=437236&in_page_id=1774)story a few months ago... I read in another article though that they only did it because the mom lied about how far along she was.

[karlatta]

FTR, I would not suggest that anyone wait until my age to TTC, but this couple is very young. Early 20s!

I completely agree with Asha. I first consulted with an RE at 24 (after a year of trying) and did an IVF cycle at 26. My diagnosis shows PCOS, endometriosis, and that I only have one fallopian tube (I was born without two functioning tubes). My age had nothing to do with my infertility, and waiting longer certainly wouldn't have made it more likely that I would have conceived without ART.

[wendalah]

They are young - early 20s, and had only been trying a year before ART. I hate to sound judgemental, but it seems really premature to me to have gone the route they went.

I have to admit this was my first thought, too. I understand that some fertility issues are not age-related, but I personally would not have gone that route that soon at such a young age.

[laura]

Unless you have been diagnosed with IF in your 20s, I don't think you can say what is the "premature" thing to do.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

I think the media should leave this family alone. They are going through the hardest thing anyone can go through and for people to swarm them and ask them questions, it's got to be painful.I think that this family craves media attention. They've posted a blog, they've released numerous photos of her pregnancy to the media... if you're going to open up your life that much, attempting to bring attention to yourself, you have to deal with it through the good and the bad. You bring in the interest, I'm guessing they probably did it also to help offset the costs of raising these kids, but all of a sudden want to go back into obscurity? Didn't work for Britney, and I don't think it is going to work here. jajacobsen's assessment that they were given life-sustaining treatment was because of the notoriety of the case is spot on.

I agree with ysolde. I'm against fertility treatment, for me. I am aware others are comfortable with it. I am not. I know I have health issues that could impair my fertility, even not be able to have children, since I was 15/16. Still, I wouldn't do it. But if I did, for some reason decide to do any assistive reproductive treatments and ended up with 6 fetuses, I would selectively reduce. I'd rather send them back to God then set them up for what would be an existance of pain and struggle.

Additionally, if I gave birth at 22 weeks gestation, I would withhold all life-sustaining treatment. I understand that losing a child is not easy. But for me I would feel more at peace allowing the baby to pass. For me, giving such treatment so that I would not feel loss would be selfish of me. At what point I would not seek palliative care, I'm not sure.

I also am baffled by people saying "its God's will, so I'm not going to selectively reduce after having IVF." As I said, if a person decides to undergo assisted reproduction, fine by me, their decision. But don't tell me what God's will is and isn't. We as humans have the ability to make decisions. Just because something happens doesn't mean it is God's desired outcome. It is almost as if they don't want to make a decision, like best decision is no decision at all. I can't think of the word I'm looking for, cop-out isn't it but the only thing that comes to mind right now. That you can make the one decision (to undergo assisted reproductive treatments), but when the going gets tough, you don't want to be forced to make a very tough decision that was a result of the first choice.

[laura]

This isn't a celebrity trying to sell an album through any media attention she can get, this is a couple facing the loss of SIX children almost simultaneously. You may not agree with their decisions or their choices, but no one deserves that, and no one deserves a media circus chomping at the bit every step of the way. I would reiterate that until you are in the situation, even just facing the reality of IF (and not just the possibility), you might be surprised the choices you will make.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

This isn't a celebrity trying to sell an album through any media attention she can get, this is a couple facing the loss of SIX children almost simultaneously. You may not agree with their decisions or their choices, but no one deserves that, and no one deserves a media circus chomping at the bit every step of the way. I would reiterate that until you are in the situation, even just facing the reality of IF (and not just the possibility), you might be surprised the choices you will make.If you're blogging your life, and releasing pictures to the media, you're choosing to put yourself out there. I wouldn't doubt that they were trying to get attention to solicit donations to aid in raising their children. They were seeking attention (and no, I'm not implying they attenpted to have such a high order of multiples to be able to get this attention). And to say I think someone deserves to lost a child?? Give me a break. What a stretch.

And please don't tell me I may change my mind when I'm in a particular situation. It smacks of arrogance and is very rude. Such a discussion has been had on CC before.

[laura]

I did not mean to imply you think they deserve to lose their children - I was just stating the obvious. I did mean to imply that you think they deserve the media chomping at the bit every step of the way, and I disagree with that and your correlation between this couple and Britney Spears. For clarification. In addition, my intent was not to insult you or be arrogant, I was simply stating my opinion on that subject.

[karlatta]

And please don't tell me I may change my mind when I'm in a particular situation. It smacks of arrogance and is very rude. Such a discussion has been had on CC before.
Equally so, I feel that this comment smacks of arrogance. And prevents those of us who HAVE changed our minds re: ART over the years from feeling like we have an adequate opportunity to share our stories like you have.

[sea74]

Stories like this stress me out. If our current cycle is not successful, we move onto IUI. I DON'T want more than two at once (and actually, I'd just like them one at a time). We've talked to the RE about this and where the line would be w/us stopping treatment if we knew too many egg were created, ect.
However, we will not even consider aborting any of our children for any reason. We believe life begins at conception, which is why we won't do IVF. What would we do w/the fertilized eggs that we don't implant?


Anyway, the question was should doctors try and save at 22-weeks. That's tough. I really think it's a case-by-case decision. I think that yes, they should do basic measures to try and save the lives. But where "basic" measures stop and "extraordinary" measures start, I'm not sure.

[amygrrl]

absolutely, if you are in your 20's and nothing is happening, you should seek medical assistance if you are comfortable doing so...

that being said, even with issues like blocked tubes and endo with just a few medical exceptions, you are far more likely to produce more eggs in your early 20's than you would say in your mid 30's. it's not their fault for seeking treatment, but i do have major concerns about the dr's who treated them. i would assume that their dr understands that there is a higher risk of someone being a good responder when they are young. also, i don't think most dr's would move on to injectibles with someone that young unless there was clear evidence that they were not going to O on the clomid OR they were going on to IVF for structural or male factor reasons. dr's generally start you at a minimal dose of 50 mg of clomid. if you don't O, they move you up to 100 mg. they may try that for a couple of cycles and if you still aren't O'ing, they move you up to 150. i find it really odd that her dr didn't seem to attempt to find a dosage of clomid that works.

[jajacobsen]

I think my first post indicated that I thought the Morrison case raised numerous ethical questions, all of which I would struggle with.

I am WELL aware that sometimes IF is not age related. Many factors related to IF are not age related, but they are compounded by my age. Usually, in those cases, the patient moves directly to IVF. That was not the case in this circumstance. It appears they did IUI.

I will say again, that I question the judgment by many parties in this case. Obviously we only know what has been published, but they moved to IUI very rapidly.

They are in their early twenties. They were married less than a year when the started trying. After a year of not being successful, they went straight to ART. Almost immediately tehy got pregnant with six babies. This happened really fast.

Where was all the preliminary test work that most of us have been through? The sperm analysis, the HSG, the endometrial biopsy, the hysteroscopy? I'm not saying all of these would be indicated but it seems that some of them would be. We don't know what interim procedures had been done but the timeline would mahke it hard to believe it al was done.

What didn't they try OPKs first? Maybe she has blocked tubes. Why not try a hysteroscopy? And how can teh clinic miss so many embryos in teh ulltrasound?

They two are very young, and in some ways rather media-savvy and in other ways, it seems to me, naive. They live in an apartment. He works for a non-profit. She doesn't work. Not taht one has to be well off to be a parent, but having a singleton child in those circumstances would have been a challenge.

Now they have six. If all live, there in NO WAY they can support six, financially, emotionally, and physically. Some of those six will have special needs. To me, this whole thing is medical science gone wrong. I honestly believe people were rushing, steps were skipped, and the outcome is bad. Ysolde said it, great apes were never meant to have litters, and when they do, it is problemmatic at best.

But this "one in a million" as the Morrison father put it, isn't the real issue to me. What worries me is when I see increasing numbers of triplets and quads, which are now not uncommon. Having gone through ART, I realize that it is more of an art than ascience, and that there are no guarantees of a singleton pregnancy. But there are responsible protocols which can be used to help reduce the chances of higher order multiples. By the increasing prevalence of multiples in current birthrates, it seems that such protocols are being ignored. Thsi worries me because if the risk of birth defects to the children.

So to me, the issues is far greater than the Morrison (or McCaughey or Masche) sextuplets. Is medical science going too far and at what cost to the resultant babies?

[ali_ohli]

I think that yes, they should do basic measures to try and save the lives. But where "basic" measures stop and "extraordinary" measures start, I'm not sure.

Unfortunately, any attempts to save a baby born at 22w would have to be extraordinary.

[LeighW]

Heartbreaking, but I would vote no extraordinary measures.

No comment on 20-somethings seeking aggressive ART, since I don't know their history, but how irresponsible of the doctor(s). Whatever happened, it's clear that it's much more than an unexpected result.

[ali_ohli]

Is medical science going too far and at what cost to the resultant babies?

I agree, this is the crux of the issue. In addition, the mother's health is at risk -- the Masche mother went into cardiac arrest following her C-section, due to the unbelievably high demand on her heart.

[diam124]

I have no idea if this is the case with them, but perhaps they are hoping to get financial support by getting their story out in the media. I know in the past families with such a large number of babies has gotten a lot of things donated to them - vans, free diapers, formula, I think one family even got a house. Those donations would be tremendously helpful to a family without a ton of resources.

I was surprised when I read this story because I simply had no idea that babies that young could survive.

[ali_ohli]

I was surprised when I read this story because I simply had no idea that babies that young could survive.

We'll see if they do. The family hasn't said anything since the delivery.

And you're right, the family apparently set up a non-profit donation fund, and was advertising it through one of the local TV channels.

[jajacobsen]

And honestly, I don't fault them for that. Almost no one, except the truly wealthy, could fund the cost of sextuplets, especially considering that there would be some liklihood of complications/developmental issues. After they learned they were having sextuplets, then they had to scramble and do what they could to support them. They clearly did nto want sextuplets -in the blog they said they both cried for about a week after learning of this.

I just really question the judgment of all involved for what got them in that situation. Yes, it can happen even when everyone is really careful. But the age, and timeline of their IF treatment seems to indicate there was some haste, and little time for thoughtful reflection.

I think this is heartbreaking for them and hopefully some lessons wil be learned in the IF community. I wish them the best.

[ysolde]

However, we will not even consider aborting any of our children for any reason. We believe life begins at conception, which is why we won't do IVF. What would we do w/the fertilized eggs that we don't implant?




Not to be a know-it-all (oh, what the heck ;) ), but I don't see what the problem you are having is. Conception is implantation. The point where sperm and egg meet is fertilization. Conception happens what? 36 hours after fertilization. That's why some couples who have no problem with fertilization have problems conceiving.

[sea74]

ysode:
I guess I mistyped, but I'm sure you knew what I meant, but I'll be specific. I believe life begins when the egg and sperm join because at that moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete.

[ysolde]

I have been wondering about IVF for a little while now. One of my friends has really good sperm in storage, and has offered it to me, now that she is married and I am soon to be not. Given my advanced age (for fertility purposes) and underlying fertility issues, not to mention the fact that I would have to go off my migraine prevention meds, I would have to go through IVF, try to get pregnant quickly, and off I would go. My insurance covers a couple of rounds of IVF, so this might be something I will explore.

OTOH, it's a scary thing, having a baby on my own. And then stories like this scare me. A lot.

[ali_ohli]

To be clear, this situation happened as a result of meds, not IVF.

[jajacobsen]

Yes, but i almost all cases of IV, meds are given to a) control teh pace and timeline and b) to increase the chance of success.

Storoes like this scare my DH a lot as well. I am so grateful he seems to have not picked up on this story or even the Masche case.

[Sarah]

Not to be a know-it-all (oh, what the heck ;) ), but I don't see what the problem you are having is. Conception is implantation. The point where sperm and egg meet is fertilization. Conception happens what? 36 hours after fertilization. That's why some couples who have no problem with fertilization have problems conceiving.
Maybe I don't understand what you're saying, but conception is most certainly not implantation. That really depends on your belief. For many people, life begins at fertilization, when a separate life has begun. They then usually have ethical problems with anything which creates embryos which will not be used.

[amygrrl]

stories like this should not scare you away from IVF. IVF is a VERY controlled process. what these folks did was NOT IVF. how can i explain this in layman's terms? what they did was stimulate the ovaries with drugs, hope some eggs matured, let them all ovulate, and then shot some sperm into her uterus and crossed their fingers that at least one egg met at least one sperm. in many ways medicated IUI's are a crap shoot and the process is considered pretty low-tech and non-invasive in the scheme of ART because of the fact that there's very little 'control' over things. however, if you are being closely monitored by competent drs, they will have a very strong indication of the important factors... quanity and quality of sperm and number of eggs ovulating.

IVF on the other hand is a very controlled process (at least as 'controlled' as these things can be). your ovaries are stimulated and each egg that matures is removed via a surgical procedure. then an attempt is made to fertilize each egg individually. the dr's know exactly how many fertilize and by watching them grow over the course of a few days, the quality of each embryo and thus the likelihood of implantation after transfer. if this couple had done IVF, given their age and no indication that they had embryo quality issues (no history of miscarriages or repeated failed IVF attempts), it would be highly unlikely that any doctor would transfer more than 2 embryos (in fact, for me at 34 with great quality embryos on our first IVF, i was told point blank by my dr that there was no way she would put in more than 2 embryos b/c she had been burned before with triplets or more). at this point, you cross your fingers and hope for implantation. of course, there is always the possibility that one of the embryos could split to create identical twins (thus going from twins assuming both embryos took to triplets or quads), but the chances are pretty slim and not much higher than your average person getting pregnant naturally.

it infuriates me when i see dr's allowing this happen to patients b/c it DOES give ART a bad reputation. these cases get all kinds of publicity and start all kinds of debates about the ethicacy of ART. but you never hear about all the reputable dr's who's patients happily and safely deliver singletons or twins.

[diam124]

And honestly, I don't fault them for that. Almost no one, except the truly wealthy, could fund the cost of sextuplets, especially considering that there would be some liklihood of complications/developmental issues. After they learned they were having sextuplets, then they had to scramble and do what they could to support them. They clearly did nto want sextuplets -in the blog they said they both cried for about a week after learning of this.



Oh, I don't blame them either. I would probably do the same thing in their situation.

[jajacobsen]

Amygrrl - I agree completely! I know IVF is much more controlled. IUI shoudl be more controlled as well - at least with us it was. We had daily bloodwork and Ultrasounds. We used injectible Follestim just like this couple did. No we were not "successful" on either of our two attempts, but I am glad we did not end up with sextuplets either.

For us, twins would abe a challenge as we have NO family close at hand for support, and I have onyl one female friend where we live. But we would be thrilled as well. I know enough about the processes of IVF - and IUI if carefully monitored - to know that the chance of more than twins would be very, very slim.

The thought of triplets (or higher) scares my husband to death, because of- not the cost or anything - the risk to me. That was the first thing out of his mouth when we discussed it the first time. He would be scared to death of losing me, not a completely unreal fear considering what has happened to the mothers in these two cases.

I think doctors do learn from experience. You just would hate to be their learning experience, ya know?

[amygrrl]

the other thing to keep in mind is that it's the PATIENT'S responsibility as well to stay on top of their treatment and be informed as to standard protocals and potential results... most of the time you have to go outside your dr/clinic to do that. and then insist on the treatment you think is best for YOU. i know having gone through pre-term labor previously, i absolutely should not carry twins as previous preterm labor increase the odds of future preterm labor and so do multiples. therefor, when we do a frozen embryo transfer, we've decided we will only transfer 1 embryo at a time. even if this means more money/transfers. before i cycled, even with IUI's, i did my homework and knew what to expect. if my dr deviated from standard protocol (and on a couple of occassions she did) i had some serious questions for her and i wanted real scientific answers/ reasoning to back up her decisions. not just 'it shouldn't be an issue' or 'it's unlikely'. had i been with their dr and received very little monitoring (like an u/s right before my trigger shot to determine the number of eggs), i would have had big questions for that doctor.

[ysolde]

Bellefior:

Then I think different clinics/doctors are using the terms differently, because a very close friend here in the City dealing with IF was told that she has no problem with fertilization; her problem is with conception (implantation). Thus, she can't get pregnant the "old-fashioned" way. At least, not yet. They need to find out why her uterus is not taking in fertilized eggs.

[jajacobsen]

See and when I was going through IUI, I had US and BW EVERY day. Honestly, I felt like some other posters on the IF threads thought that was overkill. It certainly is much more expensive. But it prevents situations like this happening. Because follicles/eggs arrely occur and mature overnight. So while something coudl be missed one day, it would be caught the next.

But then, we'll never knwo the whole story, there was a poster who became overstimulated and whose RE wanted to cancel the cycle. I understand how hard that is - emotionally, physically and financially. I think she wanted to go ahead and trigger shot and DTD on her own anyway. So maybe that happened in at least one of these cases.

I wish we would hear something about the Morrison family. It can't be good news with this virtual blackout. I really feel for them as I am sure this is not what anyone intended or wanted.

[jajacobsen]

Oh and I don't think these stories will scare people off IVF - because usually by the time you get there - you're pretty well schooled in thsi stuff. But I do think it might give some people undergoing IUI or even just taking fertility drugs - and their doctors - pause for thought. And that is not such a bad thing.

[Scooter]

We both had decided that rather then going down the road of IF treatments... We would also never want to have to face the choice of selective reduction or the situation of having a higher probability of the babies born way too early.
Stories like this stress me out. If our current cycle is not successful, we move onto IUI. I DON'T want more than two at once (and actually, I'd just like them one at a time). The goal of any competent RE should be a pregnancy with ONE baby. Twins creates a much higher risk to both the mom and babies, so even twins is not a desired outcome. Higher multiples is actively avoided. With proper monitoring, this should not even be a real concern. I don't think this couple had good care--they should have know she'd be a good responder because of her age and they should have done a more thorough ultrasound--IMHO that's ridiculous to miss 8 follicles!

I have to admit this was my first thought, too. I understand that some fertility issues are not age-related, but I personally would not have gone that route that soon at such a young age.
If you have fertility issues at a young age, they're only going to get worse over time. Why put off having a family, if you both want it and are ready for it, knowing that your chances are only going down as time passes?
dr's generally start you at a minimal dose of 50 mg of clomid. if you don't O, they move you up to 100 mg. they may try that for a couple of cycles and if you still aren't O'ing, they move you up to 150. i find it really odd that her dr didn't seem to attempt to find a dosage of clomid that works.
I think it depends on the diagnosis. Clomid tends to be prescribed more for people who have PCOS/don't ovulate. If they have unexplained IF, it's very common to move straight to injectables like Follistim. When we got our unexplained diagnosis, the REs wanted us to do injectables/IUI right away, even though I was only 28. I was the one who talked them into trying clomid first, because the injectables & IUI were too expensive. So I don't think this couple's doctor was necessarily out of line--with that one decision, anyway. ;)

Ysole, your friend may have gotten the terms confused, because that information is incorrect. Conception absolutely is fertilization. Implantation happens days later and is just the embryo attatching to the uterine wall.

[wendalah]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend. This is just personal views. I don't think trying for a year is a very long time and in my early 20s I think I would have had the impression I had some time to make a decision about whether I wanted to continue trying naturally to conceive, or go the route of IF treatments, which to me is a huge financial and emotional commitment to undertake.

My views on IF treatments are very similar to BethIrish's. I had made up my mind already when we started TTC last fall that if it didn't happen, then it wasn't gonna happen, because I know I don't have patience or heart for the IF treatment process. It also personally worries me the number of multiple births that result from these treatments. (Totally a personal thing.)

After six months of TTC, I'd resigned myself to the "oh well, maybe it's not in our cards," and right after that we got pregnant. (For which I am very grateful, but I truly was OK with the idea of not having a child at that point.) Just stating where I'm coming from.

[sea74]

I don't think trying for a year is a very long time and in my early 20s I think I would have had the impression I had some time to make a decision about whether I wanted to continue trying naturally to conceive, or go the route of IF treatments, which to me is a huge financial and emotional commitment to undertake.

I didn’t think you were “offensive,” but just looking at the situation from your own perspective (not that that is a bad thing.) But I wanted to say that for a LOT of people, trying for a year (or even less) IS a long time. Especially when you are living and dying with every morning temp, line on and OPK, sex-on-demand to catch an egg, having friends and family around you expanding their families, etc.
It’s great that you were able to be okay with or without having children. In the end if I don’t have kids will my DH and I be okay? Sure. But for us the “emotional rollercoaster” IS worth the trade off. I would rather go through the ups, downs and financial strain of TTC than live with the lingering doubt of what could have been if we didn't ART. To each their own, right?

And like others have talked about, I think both the doctor and the couples need to be responsible for their care. At our first RE apt. we made it very clear to the doctor that we were going to cancel any assisted cycle if too may follicles were produced. Our RE was TOTALLY on board and we talked specifically about how often I’d be monitored, etc. Even though it would be both an emotional and financial toll on us, I’d rather be safe with MY and my potential children’s lives than be in the situation these women are in.

I’m 33 and my “issues” have been around since I was a teenager. If I had been ready to start a family in my 20s I would have had no issues starting treatments in that decade.

[wendalah]

....Just explaining why my first reaction was as such.

'Kay?

[jajacobsen]

I think I was teh first person who raised teh couple's age as an issue. I don't think there is anything wrong with IF treatment in one's twenties. However, if I were in my twenties and had IF issues, I know there are other treatment options before one goes to IUI with injectibles. I don't know whether this couple explored those or not. But by reading their blog, once they started IF treatment, they moved to IUI really fast (like within 3 months). So it leads me to believe that for some reason (imaptience of youth, possibly) they were rushing through the process.

I have done IUI twice and right now DH and I are taking a break while I have a hysteroscopy neext week and we consider our options. Unfortunately for us, IVF is lookign less likely due to my age (41) which highly incraeses teh miscarriage rate, combined with poor egg quality - and cost. For us it is $14k per cycle since none of it is covered by insurance.

I woud never want anyone to be in their 40s facing the fate DH and I are running up against - that the cruel winds of time have caused fertlity to pass us by. We are okay with this and have made our peace with it. I am genuinely not bitter and I can celebrate each of my friend's pregnancies with an open heart. Their fertlity does not decrease mine one iota.

I completely understand people who do want to undergo IF treatment as I am one of them. However, I do believe that this couple was not the ideal candidate for IUI, or less monitored IUI, based upon the outcome.

[Scooter]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend....
Oh, I certainly wasn't offended at all. I was just bringing up a different viewpoint for consideration.

If people decide not to have children or to go straight to adoption, I think that's wonderful. Do what makes you happy. I can say that in my case, your attitude about it was pretty opposite mine. I wish I could have been as calm and casual about it, but I have felt a drive to have children my entire life. I could never ever imagine not becoming a mother. And for me, I wanted to explore every possibility of having biological children before moving to adoption. I know many women/couples do not feel that way at all. In fact, many of them IRL gave me plenty of unsolicited advice about that. :rolleyes: I think all those positions on it need to be equally respected.

[Scooter]

However, if I were in my twenties and had IF issues, I know there are other treatment options before one goes to IUI with injectibles. I don't know whether this couple explored those or not. But by reading their blog, once they started IF treatment, they moved to IUI really fast (like within 3 months). So it leads me to believe that for some reason (imaptience of youth, possibly) they were rushing through the process.
[edit]
However, I do believe that this couple was not the ideal candidate for IUI, or less monitored IUI, based upon the outcome.

To reiterate my post above, the treatment depends on the diagnosis. If they had unexplained infertility, it would be completely normal to go straight to injectables & IUI. And as an example, I was 28, we'd tried for a year by ourselves, got the diagnosis "unexplained" and the REs recommended that we move straight to Follistim and an IUI. Not unusual at all.

[jajacobsen]

I understand what you said. However, from the moment you entered the REs office, were there not tests performed? You did not have an HSG or an endometrial biopsy? Your husband didn't have a sperm analysis performed? Nothing? You just walked into the RE, told him your facts, and next cycle you're doing IUI with injectibles? Because for their timeline as posted in their blog to work, that is just about what hey would have had to have done.

[Scooter]

No, I actually went in a couple months before the official year mark and got the tests (just b/w, HSG and SA) done at my ob/gyn's while I was on the wait list at the RE's. I ended up needing a lap, but if we hadn't done that the RE would have wanted me to do Follisitm & an IUI--which would have been our 12th or 13th cycle of TTC. That's why I don't think this couple's timeline is suspicious.

[jajacobsen]

In and of itself, the timeline is not suspicious. But considering tehir age, the quick timeline, the mistake ain monitoring and unfortunately, teh end result, I think there was some poor judgement. I guess goign through what I am now, I empathize a lot with other couples in this situation because I wonder how Iw would handle it and what decisions I would have made. It's just so sad.

[karlatta]

My timeline when I first started seeing the RE was very similar to this couple, but I didn't end up with higher-order multiples. I don't have a problem with the timeline at all, as long as all of the necessary tests/procedures were done. If you end up with just the right timing, things can move very, very quickly at the RE's office.

However, I do think that this couple was not as well-informed as they should have been, and I feel that the doctors likely did not do a good job monitoring their cycle. I know that my RE suggested IUI + injectibles shortly after we started seeing him, and DH and I declined due to the risk of high-order multiples. Had I not done research on my own, I likely would have followed his suggestion and may have put myself at risk for conceiving multiples.

[pocket]

My IF clinic won't treat if you are against selective reduction. We spoke about it at our first appt.

[amorey]

So far, one of the sextuplets has died. Article (http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1246799.html).

[charliezangel]

My IF clinic won't treat if you are against selective reduction. We spoke about it at our first appt.

I'm only jumping in now because of this. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So, if you concieve multiples, it is the Dr's choice how many you have??

[jajacobsen]

Amorey - thanks for the update. That is better news than I had feared.

As far as IF clnics enforcing selective reduction, well from a purely medical and scinetific view, it has its merits. If that veiwpoint is against one personal ethics or religious beliefs, then they are free to go to another clinic.

[charliezangel]

Amorey - thanks for the update. That is better news than I had feared.

As far as IF clnics enforcing selective reduction, well from a purely medical and scinetific view, it has its merits. If that veiwpoint is against one personal ethics or religious beliefs, then they are free to go to another clinic.

Enforcing selective reduction takes away a woman's rights just as much as enforcing life. I can't possibly call myself pro choice, and then be ok with someone taking away a woman's choice to keep all 6 of the fetuses.

On another note, it is very say that one of those babies has passed on. I do hope that the family will be able to cope with this and move on to take care of the 5 remaining children. I pray they don't lose anymore. How terribly sad that the child who passed had his father's name.

[Weddings by]

amorey, thanks for posting the article. That is really sad, though.

[pocket]

I'm only jumping in now because of this. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So, if you concieve multiples, it is the Dr's choice how many you have??

We knew this going in. Most times they will counsel the couple to reduce to twins. Our clinic considers even triplets to be high risk. If you aren't comfortable with that then they send you to another clinic. Of course it's not the doctor's decision completely, and they don't force anyone to make any sort of decision. If I got to that point and changed my mind, they would just transfer me to a different clinic and that would be the end of it. But at this clinic they are pretty conservative about multiples. That's fine with me. Pita and I would defiitely do a selective reduction for the sake of my health and the health of the embies.

to clarify, they don't force you to reduce, or reduce against your will. they just tell you up front that they think that many babies is dangerous and that they will encourage you to reduce. if you don't want that, you should go to another clinic. If you change your mind, you also should go to another clinic.

[ali_ohli]

Enforcing selective reduction takes away a woman's rights just as much as enforcing life. I can't possibly call myself pro choice, and then be ok with someone taking away a woman's choice to keep all 6 of the fetuses.

I'm pro-choice too, but I look at this a different way. Doctors have taken an oath to do no harm. If they believe that a sextuplet pregnancy is too harmful for a mother, then they have every right to refuse to let it happen on their watch. With the one sextuplet mother going into cardiac arrest following her delivery, it's clear the risks are real.

[villanelle75]

Enforcing selective reduction takes away a woman's rights just as much as enforcing life. I can't possibly call myself pro choice, and then be ok with someone taking away a woman's choice to keep all 6 of the fetuses.

On another note, it is very say that one of those babies has passed on. I do hope that the family will be able to cope with this and move on to take care of the 5 remaining children. I pray they don't lose anymore. How terribly sad that the child who passed had his father's name.

Actually, any one dr. not being willing to deliver high order multiples doesn't take away any woman's choice. Pocket's doc was upfront about the policy so any woman not willing to reduce, should it come to that, is free to take her business elsewhere. This isn't inconsistent with a pro-choice viewpoint. I respect any doctor's stance to not personally perform abortions and my respect for this doctor's stance is very consistent with that. No doctor should perform procedures he or she isn't comfortable with (unless a life is at stake if they refuse to do so, I guess). Laws affect choice, individual doctor's policies don't really. Their choice to decide which procedures they will perform and under what circumstances is as much to be respected and defended as my the availability of me to choice abortion is to be defended.

No one is enforcing abortion; this is one doctor setting standards for remaining in her care.

Also, I am sure that this policy isn't enforceable. She can't force a reduction on a mom who changes her mind. She might be able to refuse to continue her care and instead recommend doc's who are willing to do so, but I find it impossible that she could force some to have a procedure.

[jajacobsen]

I was about to type what Villanelle said. If in that situation, you would just go to another doc if you did not want to erduce. Similarly, I have no problem with doocs who will not perform abortions even though I am pro-choice. I believe it is their right to have their own moral code. Because you as a patient have the right to go to a different doctor.

[pocket]

Personally, it's important to me to go to a doctor who cares about my health first. I am the patient here, and my life and health are important. Having a baby is important too, but I would like to live to be a parent. This 23 year old woman had a freaking heart attack! She could have died and left her husband alone with their 5 babies.

[Sarah]

I'm only jumping in now because of this. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. So, if you concieve multiples, it is the Dr's choice how many you have?
I am firmly prolife and I think this policy is fine- if they think they might create multiples and they think that would be dangerous to carry (both for mother and children) they have every right to say they won't take you if you won't reduce. Makes sense to me.

[charliezangel]

eh, i can't say I completely disagree with what you ladies are saying. Perhaps my first glance at what Pocket typed was taken the wrong way. I guess after thinking (and reading) further, my dilema would be if i was ok with selective reduction (which I personally am not) i would hate to come to a point of trust my dr and trusting the care of the clinic...and then if i changed my mind i would have to move somewhere else

[sea74]

I am firmly prolife and I think this policy is fine- if they think they might create multiples and they think that would be dangerous to carry (both for mother and children) they have every right to say they won't take you if you won't reduce. Makes sense to me.
Ditto this. But I'd also hope that this, or any RE would also require daily ultrasounds and blood work to reduce the chances of multiples.
When we were looking for a RE it amazed me how some didn't do these tests in order to provide women with a lower cost. Yeah, people may have been paying less money, but as what potential cost to their health or the health of their babies.

[Ericka_Jarett]

Hospital I will be delivering my twins at takes every step possible to save a 22 weeker, although I know the road ahead of that infant would be a very long one with medical issues most likely. (Hubby works with someone that had a 24 weeker and she has a lot of medical issues and is now 6 yrs old, she also has a set of 28 week twins)

The hospital I delivered my daughter at didn't have the resources to save my daughter at 24 weeks. But after finding out I had the placenta infection there really was nothing that could be done to save my Rebekah, as it got into her bloodstream and is fatal once that happens.

I pray they are able to help these 6 babies and they live a full long life without issues.

[ali_ohli]

I pray they are able to help these 6 babies and they live a full long life without issues.

Only five now... :(

[Ericka_Jarett]

That's ashame, it's hard though since they are so little and early.

Being pregnant with twins it's a tough decision for someone to make regarding how many can they safely carry hoping to go without complications. There have been stories of women going at least 30 weeks with quints. Can just keep praying for these little ones. I haven't read all the comments made, but know that we can't fully trust the doctor's to always know what is right.

A friend of mine has a friend that had a daughter born with a sickness, she was very ill in that none of her limbs would move or anything, the parents were persistant and debating what to do for their daughter because the dr's said she was going to die. The parents were going to pull the plug, but thankfully someone else stepped up to investigate the case more and found that the thing the baby had was only temporary (older people get it) and said within 6 months she would be fine, and thankfully the parents didn't listen and pull the plug because she is a healthy baby girl now.

[MrsWilson]

The couple's religious beliefs kept them from choosing selective reduction -- but at the same time, they were already sort of messing with "God's will" by introducing fertility drugs.

Slightly off topic, but I wanted to address this comment.

Who is anyone to say what God's will is? Many people don't know His will for themselves, much less for a complete stranger. Is it not possible that it was in God's will for fertility drugs to be invented by man? If it wasn't in His will, it wouldn't be available today.

[ali_ohli]

If it wasn't in His will, it wouldn't be available today.

Well then by that logic, you would support selective reduction.

[Sarah]

The couple's religious beliefs kept them from choosing selective reduction -- but at the same time, they were already sort of messing with "God's will" by introducing fertility drugs.
I didn't think their issue was one of "God's will" at all, so I don't see the problem, logically.

[ali_ohli]

I'm not sure I follow, Sarah. The couple is very religious and wrote on their blog that they would not consider selective reduction because of their beliefs. They are of the belief that six babies was God's plan for them. But that reasoning doesn't make sense to me, because God doesn't naturally bequest six fetuses on a woman. It was due to their medical intervention that she was carrying sextuplets.

[wendalah]

I'm with Ali on this one...I for one don't know what God's will is. Nobody does. But if one can reason that fertility treatments were part of God's will, one could just as easily surmise that selective reduction would be part of His will too. Maybe He wanted some to live and some to die, so He led the couple to this particular clinic and particular doctor. See what I mean? Who knows what God is thinking?

[MrsWilson]

I think that anyone who can say they know God's will has bitten off more than he/she can chew. People are allowed to make decisions, it is part of being human. But, my belief is that all choices are part of God's will. No one's life is the same. In this case, I believe it was God's will for those children to be born. If they die, that will be as well. If a couple chooses selective reduction, that is God's will as well. I am not saying what I would do in that situation. I haven't had to face that yet in my life and there is no way to know my future.

[ali_ohli]

But, my belief is that all choices are part of God's will.

All of them??

Given the devastating choices people make every day, I don't believe in a God like that.

[Sarah]

Perhaps I shouldn't have said anything. I was thinking about it from my perspective- if I were to do fertility treatments like these people (I don't know whether I would or not) and end up with 6 children, I would be horrified, but I wouldn't do selective reduction. It wouldn't be because it's not God's will to do it (which I agree is hard to discern) but because I believe abortion to be wrong. I just meant that it's possible to logically be okay with ART (in some forms) but not be okay with abortion. Do I make sense?

[wendalah]

I just meant that it's possible to logically be okay with ART (in some forms) but not be okay with abortion. Do I make sense?


Yes, it does make sense, because in one case you are aiming for positive creation whereas in the other you are aborting (which for many people is a big moral wrong). But that's the beauty/conundrum of religion. You can be selective about levels of things and how wrong they are. One might argue that fertility treatments are interference in God's will, or that it's not God's will that six children should be brought forth to live as severely handicapped individuals. Again, all degrees of what one personally thinks is right or wrong.

I mean, if one is going to say God developed fertility treatments, why is He not responsible for creating safe abortive techniques? KWIM?

[MrsWilson]

Yes, all choices. Every choice that is made leads that person to the next place in life, good or bad. I can't say that I think some choices are His will and others aren't. That would be saying I know what His will is, and I don't. No one does. So by saying that some things are His will and others are not, you are implying you know what His will is.

[Natasha]

I don't normally post in the politics thread, but I'm going to go ahead and do it now. Given the amount of women on this board who go through IVF and other various fertility treatments, this
The couple's religious beliefs kept them from choosing selective reduction -- but at the same time, they were already sort of messing with "God's will" by introducing fertility drugs.
seems like a particularly insensitive thing to say. I understand this comment is specifically commenting on the couple's contradiction of sorts in their beliefs. But it does sound a bit like anyone undergoing IVF and such is "messing with 'God's will'". I, for one, believe that if God did now want the treatments to be available to potential parents, we wouldn't be capable of them.

As far as selective reduction, being able to end life at will has been something we have been able to do since the beginning of time. Whether there is a time and place for it is highly debatable, and I am not trying to start that argument here. But learning to assist in the creation of life is pretty miraculous, and if God wanted traditional means to be the only way to do that, it would probably be the only way to do it.

Hope that made sense. :o

[ali_ohli]

Gosh, I certainly didn't mean to be insensitive. I wasn't stating my own belief there -- I was trying to make sense of this couple's. I am ALL for fertility treatments. I just think that if you're willing to do fertility treatments that may result in sextuplets, you should be willing to consider selective reduction for the sake of your health and the babies' health.

[charliezangel]

All of them??

Given the devastating choices people make every day, I don't believe in a God like that.

I don't normally post in the politics thread, but I'm going to go ahead and do it now. Given the amount of women on this board who go through IVF and other various fertility treatments, this

seems like a particularly insensitive thing to say. I understand this comment is specifically commenting on the couple's contradiction of sorts in their beliefs. But it does sound a bit like anyone undergoing IVF and such is "messing with 'God's will'". I, for one, believe that if God did now want the treatments to be available to potential parents, we wouldn't be capable of them.

As far as selective reduction, being able to end life at will has been something we have been able to do since the beginning of time. Whether there is a time and place for it is highly debatable, and I am not trying to start that argument here. But learning to assist in the creation of life is pretty miraculous, and if God wanted traditional means to be the only way to do that, it would probably be the only way to do it.

Hope that made sense. :o

ITA with both of these statements

[sea74]

God gives everyone free will. We are free to make our choices whether they are right/wrong/different/etc.

*I* don't think six babies by fertility drugs is God's will (and I'm not saying God doesn't love these babies or anything like that). I think it's the result of fertility treatments gone wrong. Now, if someone naturally got PG w/six, then to *me* that's God's will.

This whole discussion has gotten off topic, but I'm really enjoying reading everyone's comments. Just say'n.

[ali_ohli]

So by saying that some things are His will and others are not, you are implying you know what His will is.

Your beliefs are different than mine. I believe that God is good. Indeed, the rest of the sh*t that goes down is not God's will, in my opinion.

But that's completely off topic, so I'll stop there...

[nylons73]

Yes, all choices. Every choice that is made leads that person to the next place in life, good or bad. I can't say that I think some choices are His will and others aren't. That would be saying I know what His will is, and I don't. No one does. So by saying that some things are His will and others are not, you are implying you know what His will is.

I totally agree with this. Saying that one knows what "God's Will" is or might have been, in this instance and others, is completely pompus.

I think we are all given obstacles in life and we can choose the way we handle these obstacles, but it doesn't make the obstacles go away. (if that makes sense.) I believe that life and death is truly God's Will. Why does a seemingly healthy jogger go out for a run and drop dead in the street of a heartattack, when a pizza-a-holic with a cholesterol of 3 million, who never runs a day in his life can live to be 100? We don't really know. And in saying this, we don't really know what God has in store for us, or for anyone else, every day. IMO, we can accept what God hands us and move on with the best knowledge and 'tools' available to us, or we can do the opposite.

[ali_ohli]

IMO, we can accept what God hands us and move on with the best knowledge and 'tools' available to us, or we can do the opposite.


I don't believe God handed them this situation. I'm still of the opinion (since sextuplets have never naturally happened) that poor decisions led to this outcome.

[MrsWilson]

Your beliefs are different than mine. I believe that God is good. Indeed, the rest of the sh*t that goes down is not God's will, in my opinion.

But that's completely off topic, so I'll stop there...

So, if this is your thought, then what do you make of when good things come from bad ones? For example, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant and chooses to keep the child. That child grows up to be highly successful. Do you believe it was not in God's will for her to be raped? Or that her child is not part of God's will? To me, everything happens for a reason. God knows what is going to happen before it ever comes to be. If it wasn't in His will, he wouldn't allow it to happen.

Even though this thread has gotten off topic, it is very educational to learn what others believe. I appreciate the conversation and actually think it helps us learn more about different people.

ITA agree with what Natasha said as well. She expressed my views probably better than I did.

[ali_ohli]

So, if this is your thought, then what do you make of when good things come from bad ones?

Honestly, I haven't quite figured that one out yet. I've just been through the worst thing of my life (still going through it, actually)...my daughter was born prematurely and died. Now I'm pregnant again and will someday have to grapple with the fact that my son is alive because my daughter isn't. I will be grateful to God when my son is born, but I'll always wish both my children had lived. Just as someone who's been raped will always be scarred by that experience, no matter what good things ultimately emerge.

[wendalah]

For example, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant and chooses to keep the child. That child grows up to be highly successful. Do you believe it was not in God's will for her to be raped? Or that her child is not part of God's will?

Well, OK, but again, this can get really weird. What if there's some guy who is a bad, misguided, immoral, awful person and he goes out and ruthlessly, cruelly murders an innocent, good person. He gets caught by the police and is thrown in jail. While in jail he reforms, finds God, and when he's released becomes a wonderful person who does amazing things for his community. Was it in God's will for the innocent, good person to be murdered (and his/her family suffer his/her death) just so this guy could be reformed? I don't know.

I don't think any of us will "know" until the end. And by the end, I mean THE END, when it all ends. And I think this is why the Bible cautions us against judging others (although we all certainly do it, myself included!). It's too hard to make sense of it all.

[ali_ohli]

So, about those sextuplets... ;)

[nylons73]

I don't believe God handed them this situation.

As I just said, I believe God hands us ALL situations - good and bad. It's how we react to them that is our free choice.

And, as far as good things coming from bad things - of course good things come from bad things. It happens every day. If one reacts to 'bad occurances' in a resilient and positive manner (as hard as that may be to do) I am a believer that good will follow. If we choose to dwell on the bad, it will suck us in and nothing good will come of it because we haven't allowed any good in.

Example - Christa McCauliff's parents watched their daughter's Space Shuttle explode. This of course, was completely horrifying and awful. However, the two handled this event in very different ways. The father became consumed about the failure of the shuttle's "O-Ring." He researched and researched and dwelled and dwelled. He wanted to figure out 'just' what happened and he spent the rest of his days going over the accident. Over and over, searching for answers. He died not long after Christa's accident, depressed and angry.

Mrs. McCauliff however, found a way to move on. Instead of letting the accident consume her, she instead set up 'Christa McCauliff Science Centers' all over the Northeast, where kids can go and explore their love of science (Christa was a science teacher who got picked to ride on the shuttle.) Mrs. McCauliff (as far as I know) is still alive today and so are the Christa McCauliff Science Centers. Helping hundreds more youngsters explore their love of science.

Same terrible incident, 2 separate reactions. 2 very different outcomes. Can good come from bad? Of course - but only if one allows it to.

[MrsWilson]

Well, OK, but again, this can get really weird. What if there's some guy who is a bad, misguided, immoral, awful person and he goes out and ruthlessly, cruelly murders an innocent, good person. He gets caught by the police and is thrown in jail. While in jail he reforms, finds God, and when he's released becomes a wonderful person who does amazing things for his community. Was it in God's will for the innocent, good person to be murdered (and his/her family suffer his/her death) just so this guy could be reformed? I don't know.

I don't think any of us will "know" until the end. And by the end, I mean THE END, when it all ends. And I think this is why the Bible cautions us against judging others (although we all certainly do it, myself included!). It's too hard to make sense of it all.

I agree that it does get really weird, but my belief is that it is all in God's Will. Even though I don't know what that is, I have to just have faith that everything happens for a reason.

[ali_ohli]

Just curious, though (and not just for the sake of opening a HUGE can of worms here!)...if you're coming at this from a Christian perspective, isn't evil/bad stuff the work of the devil? I've never really understood how that force plays into Christian thinking, or perhaps it doesn't? I'm truly just ignorant here, so someone please explain...

[sea74]

what do you make of when good things come from bad ones? Since we're talking about God, then I'd answer this by saying the Bible says that God uses ALL things (not some, not the good, not the bad, but ALL things) work together for good to them that love God.
That doesn't mean that it was God's plan/will for someone to go out and murder someone else so they could find Him while in jail. In that situation the murderer was acting on their own free will to kill as one of the commandments is thou shall NOT kill. However, their coming to repentance was something good that came out of it.

[honeygirl]

I don't believe that everything happens for a reason, but I do believe that God can work all things together for good. Meaning that we have free will and that if we make a poor decision or if b/c our world is a sinful place and something "bad" happens to us we can still have it work for good. However, we have to allow God to do this (ie - better not bitter) by trusting in Him.

As for the sextuplets it is a sad situation. I know that my DH and I didn't immediately jump to fertilty drugs b/c we were afraid of multiples. Once we learned the risks (and our dr's protocols to avoid them) we went forward. I am thankful that we were not placed in the situation that this family was, b/c we do not believe in reduction of life.

[nylons73]

Just curious, though (and not just for the sake of opening a HUGE can of worms here!)...if you're coming at this from a Christian perspective, isn't evil/bad stuff the work of the devil? I've never really understood how that force plays into Christian thinking, or perhaps it doesn't? I'm truly just ignorant here, so someone please explain...

If you are referring to Evil/Bad Stuff as the space shuttle blowing up I don't look at it as the work of the devil. I look at it as it was time for God to call Christa (and the others) home. Sure, it was a horrific event and it hurt her parents (and others) very much, but it was the shuttle crew's time to go home to be with the Lord and to be at peace. Unfortunately not everyone dies in their sleep. I simply don't believe in a 'devil' who fights with an 'all good God' over our souls. That sounds like a good Spiderman movie however! ;)

I'll admit, I have a harder time with this belief when some innocent person is murdered in some horrible, painful, unbelieveable way, and I know that their last moments on earth were not peaceful, but that doesn't change my over-arching belief in the general premise.

[sea74]

if you're coming at this from a Christian perspective, isn't evil/bad stuff the work of the devil? Bad stuff happens because humans are not perfect. Sin entered into the world WAY back when Adam ate the apple. God told him not to because it was not God's will for Adam or Even to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. However, God gave man free will when he created him so when the Devil temped Eve and in turn Eve temped Adam sin came into the world.
Now why did God give man the ability to sin? I believe it was because wanted a "relationship" with his creation and not just "puppets" so to speak.
And since I believe in God I believe there is a devil. Can't pick and choose which parts to believe. However, in the grand scheme of things I think bad things happened because we all sin and lived in a flawed, imperfect world.

Does that help?

[ali_ohli]

Does that help?

It does. It doesn't jive with what I personally believe, but I get it. Thank you.

[Shapsgrl]

They just lost another child.


http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_166164254.html

[pocket]

Well as long as we are bringing religions into it... one of the biggest reasons I feel so comfortable with selective reduction is that is in line with Jewish beliefs on the relative importance of the health and life of the mother vs. the health and life of the fetus. the mother is the most important. Her health and life take precedence over a fetus.

[ali_ohli]

pocket -- that's a very interesting perspective. I'm not Jewish, but that's about where I fall.

May I just reiterate: I'm so, so sad for this young couple, even if I question the decisions that got them here. Frankly, I'm surprised four are still hanging on. :(

[jajacobsen]

pocketMay I just reiterate: I'm so, so sad for this young couple, even if I question the decisions that got them here. :(

That is exactly how I feel.

[Sarah]

Well as long as we are bringing religions into it... one of the biggest reasons I feel so comfortable with selective reduction is that is in line with Jewish beliefs on the relative importance of the health and life of the mother vs. the health and life of the fetus. the mother is the most important. Her health and life take precedence over a fetus.Pocket, is that a relatively unanimous thought about abortion, among the various Jewish denominations? I grew up in Brooklyn, the bastion of Judaism in America, and most of my friends growing up were Jewish, and a lot of them had issues with abortion. I don't think I would call any of them pro-life, but most of them had serious qualms with it and felt that it was wrong in most circumstances. Do you think that's unique to my set, or maybe because they were predominantly Orthodox?

[wendalah]

I'm not Pocket, but you can oppose abortion in the majority of situations but still favor it when it is performed to save the mother's life. In this case, selective reduction seems to fall under that umbrella as carrying so many fetuses is a risk to the mother.

[artist]

Just curious, though (and not just for the sake of opening a HUGE can of worms here!)...if you're coming at this from a Christian perspective, isn't evil/bad stuff the work of the devil? I've never really understood how that force plays into Christian thinking, or perhaps it doesn't? I'm truly just ignorant here, so someone please explain...

I would like to respond to this comment. Not ALL Christians believe the same thing. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I consider myself to be Christian. I am also pro-choice and do not believe in a devil. I have no problem with homosexuality. I believe all religions are acceptable and lead to the same thing. Pretty much most people who attend the same church as I do share my basic beliefs; including the Pastor.

Also, I know an extremely right-wing conservative Christian who is very opposed to abortion, yet she has no issue with anyone having an abortion due to rape or in a situation where the woman would die otherwise.

[Scooter]

I'm so, so sad for this young couple, even if I question the decisions that got them here. Frankly, I'm surprised four are still hanging on. :(I agree, I feel the same way. I can't imagine the devastation they're going through right now. :(


And on the side topic of God's will, I think with fertility treatments other people sometimes forget that just because they're undergoing these drugs and procedures doesn't mean any doctor out there is able to make them pregnant. Even with IVF, the embryo is just placed in the uterus--not implanted in the uterine lining.

And with this couple we're assuming they had an insemination (IUI), but it certainly wasn't the doctor who controlled whether any of those eggs fertilized or implanted. For many religious, infertile people, that's where God's will comes into play.

[Asha]

i know this is off topic to the discussion at hand, but would health insurance pay for the medical interventions needed to try to save a 22 week old newborn since it is not standard medical care? i think our medical insurance has a cap of $150k/birth, but i don't know if there is something about age of infanct in the policy. i'd imagine this care is going to reach several hundred thousand dollars if not more.

[jajacobsen]

Impossible to know - so many differences in both policies and what must be covered by state law.

[jennylou]

http://xpedio02.childrensmn.org/stellent/groups/Public/@XCP/@Web/@WhatsNew/documents/PolicyReferenceProcedure/web113736.asp

Another baby died last night, another boy.

Actually, I think the care of these babies will reach millions of dollars, not just hundreds of thousands.

[Sarah]

I'm not Pocket, but you can oppose abortion in the majority of situations but still favor it when it is performed to save the mother's life. In this case, selective reduction seems to fall under that umbrella as carrying so many fetuses is a risk to the mother.
Right, I realize, but I was asking whether she thinks her mindset about abortion (which is being represented as "Judaism says" is pretty standard, or whether she feels there are a lot of different viewpoints. KWIM? I imagine that there are opinions about abortion which range the gamut from total pro choice to total pro life, all within Jewish-identifying people.

[Scooter]

Off topic--Just curious, though (and not just for the sake of opening a HUGE can of worms here!)...if you're coming at this from a Christian perspective, isn't evil/bad stuff the work of the devil? I've never really understood how that force plays into Christian thinking, or perhaps it doesn't? I'm truly just ignorant here, so someone please explain...
My understanding (true, as a non-Christian) is that this is more believed by Fundamental CHristians, but many denominations and churches take a less literal viewpoint. Like Artist and her church, for example. There's a wide specturm, as I understand it, in the interpretation of Hell and the Devil being on one side more abstract concepts used for teaching, and on the other side a literal place and creature.

[Asha]

I imagine that there are opinions about abortion which range the gamut from total pro choice to total pro life, all within Jewish-identifying people.
you are probably right, but i think what pocket was arguing that if the mother's life is at risk it does not go against judaism to abort. not an expert by any means, but it may have something to do with the fact that judaism is passed down by the mother. i don't know if it is by the mother's blood or the mother is seen as the spiritual teacher in the family or a combo of both.

[wendalah]

think what pocket was arguing that if the mother's life is at risk it does not go against judaism to abort.

Right. I am sure there is a gamut of opinions re: abortion in general among Jews, like any other group of people. There's a gamut of opinions re: abortion among Christians. She was just pointing out Jewish law.

Google "abortion save life mother Judaism" and you'll see it's pretty standard stuff.

[Sarah]

Yes, I wasn't being clear in my posting. I guess I was talking more about the general thoughts about abortion, not about this case, where I realize Halacha is relatively clear. I was more asking how she feels the larger Jewish community feels about abortion in general, because I have seen many Jewish posters who are vocally prochoice argue that abortion is "fine" with Judaism, or that it is "accepted." I didn't find this to be the case with the Jews I have known, so I was asking Pocket if she felt the same way, or no.

Sorry to be vague or OT.

[pocket]

Pocket, is that a relatively unanimous thought about abortion, among the various Jewish denominations? I grew up in Brooklyn, the bastion of Judaism in America, and most of my friends growing up were Jewish, and a lot of them had issues with abortion. I don't think I would call any of them pro-life, but most of them had serious qualms with it and felt that it was wrong in most circumstances. Do you think that's unique to my set, or maybe because they were predominantly Orthodox?

In all Jewish denominations abortion is taken very seriously. A fetus is not a person, but it is certainly alive. It's just that it is clear where the lines are. First comes the woman who is completely a person with a soul. Second comes the fetus who is not quite completely a person until the head emerges from the womb. So those things are the same across denominations. It's not the same set of issues as those that Christians deal with - it's a different but similar set of issues. Some things are clearer - the ranking of personhood. But then there are a lot of other issues about what constitutes the life of the mother or the health of the mother. Those things vary tremendously according to rabbinical interpretation. It also has to do with the decision-making structure of the particular denomination. Reform, for example, has a centralized decision-making body as the Episcopalians do it while Conservative is decentralized to individual congregations as the Baptists do it.

So that's to say it's not "totally fine" or "accepted". Though I think those are particularly disparaging interpretations of the pro-choice position - that's a different conversation that we have certainly had ad infinitum. It's that Judaism is grappling with a different set of issues.

[SingleWhiteFemale]

pocket, I had a teacher back in high school (government, but also taught comparative religion and really tried to inform us of different beliefs even though it wasn't curriculm) who was Jewish and told us that in Judaism, it isn't proper it have a baby shower before the baby is born. I know this may be a little of track, but why is that? It is because the fetus isn't considered a person yet? Thanks :)

[SingleWhiteFemale]

Equally so, I feel that this comment smacks of arrogance. And prevents those of us who HAVE changed our minds re: ART over the years from feeling like we have an adequate opportunity to share our stories like you have.Condescending much karlatta?

And how in the world am I preventing you from telling your story? My mind is made up for me. PERIOD. If I cannot have children naturally without assistance, I will not have biological children. And I'm perfectly happy and fine with that. It is disrespectful to assume that because you changed your mind, that I will as well.

Has the definition of arrogance changed and I've not been informed? I never said my decision was better than yours. My decision is MY DECISION. If being stedfast in my beliefs makes me arrogant, then damn straight I am arrogant. I never said I was better than you for my decision. I am very much against ART for me. What is so difficult to understand about that? Leave me to my decisions. I'll leave you to yours. I never said you were wrong for making such a decision. I stated that ART is wrong for me, I am not comfortable with it. I never once condemened or even hinted at such for other people. If you're okay with it and choose to undergo such treatment, more power to you. But it is not okay for me.

[diam124]

I always thought the shower thing was more a superstition/tradition than anything else, but I don't know if that is correct.

I feel so badly for this family. I can't even fathom the emotions they must be going through right now.

[karlatta]

SingleWhiteFemale - My comment was in response to this paragraph:
And please don't tell me I may change my mind when I'm in a particular situation. It smacks of arrogance and is very rude. Such a discussion has been had on CC before.
Even though it may not have been your intention, this comment felt very condescending. Prior to reading your post, I had toyed with the idea of sharing the reasons why I chose to go through ART, but when I came to your comment, I instantly felt like my story would be unappreciated, viewed as arrogant and rude, etc. Even if I had not directed my comments at you, likely you would have viewed them as such and would have responded accordingly, and where would that have gotten us? I guess pretty much right where we are now, criticizing one another on a public message board, huh? Believe me, that is never my intention when I post on CC.

And honestly, I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that just because I changed my mind, you will (or should) as well. We are all free to make our own decisions, and in no way do I think I'm better because I did choose to pursue ART and you have decided that you will not. In no way did I ever say (or even mean to imply) that you should change your mind. And certainly, I never meant to imply disrespect to you or your beliefs re: ART. I mean, honestly, I posted two whole sentences. I really don't understand why or how you think I'm disrespecting your beliefs or feel that I am better than you. I NEVER said anything even sort of along those lines. Never.

The reason I stated that your comment was arrogant wasn't because of your stance on ART. It only bothered me because I felt like I was being shut down before I even opened my mouth to speak. To me, it seemed as though you were unwilling to even listen to my story (and that there was a strong possibility that even if I shared, I would have been under attack), and that's frustrating. Perceived or real, that's how I felt. And that was the impetus for my response.

I hope that explains my position a bit better, and I apologize that my earlier comments were written in such a way that they were taken to be condescending and arrogant.

[ali_ohli]

Every day brings more bad news...they lost another one:
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1250380.html

22w is just too early.

[Weddings by]

:( .

[sea74]

While it may not be unexpected, it's gotta rip them apart each time they learn another one of their children has passed. :(

[dreamgirly]

My brother & SIL went into labor at 21 wks with twin baby girls, they were born alive but died shortly after - the hospital said that they would not do anything to save them since their "policy" was 26 wks or more. (has to do with the needles being too big for their veins and the monitors not able to pick up some critical info they need for preemies - they were 13 oz each) So they watched their babies die. There have been several stories in the news in the past year about babies being born (usually multiples) at 21-23 wks and the hospitals fighting to save them. It's so sad to hear that because I know my bro & SIL will probably hear it too. :(

[ali_ohli]

So they watched their babies die.

I'm so sorry for your brother and SIL. :( I wrote this earlier in the thread, but when we lost my daughter (at 22w), trying to save her was never even presented as an option. 23-24 weeks is generally considered the cusp of viability, so this case is somewhat puzzling. And the media are acting like it's a normal thing to save babies born four and a half months early, which is frustrating. But I suppose if one of the babies makes it and is able to enjoy a decent quality of life, it will all have been worth it. It's just very doubtful that will happen...

It may give your brother and SIL peace (as it does for me) that such stories make national headlines because of how incredibly rare they are. And the media don't show you what an incredible struggle these babies will endure for the rest of their lives.

I'm sure in 20 years from now, saving 21-22 weekers will be a run-of-the-mill thing. But currently, the technology just isn't good enough. I can honestly say I'm glad we allowed our daughter to pass away peacefully, as heartbreaking as it was.

[Phen]

Going way back in the thread to:

They clearly did nto want sextuplets -in the blog they said they both cried for about a week after learning of this.

i don't think that necessarily means they clearly didn't want them. Pretty much every multiples parent I know, IRL or online, has had a big reaction to finding out they're having multiples. Some call it twinshock and IMO you're lucky if you only have it for a week.



The family's blog has been taken down, or else it's overwhelmed by traffic.

~ phen

[jajacobsen]

I want to clarify my comment. I meant they were overwhenlmed by teh thought of teh sextuplets and all that it implied. I am sure they did want them from teh moment they heard they were having them. Clearly they did as they chose to go forward. But if you had asked them beforehand did they want sextuplets, I feel certain the answer would have been no. I think their reaction was totally normal and was in no way being critical of it.

[pixielou]

i've actually been following more on the masche sextuplets in arizona. they have referenced the morrison's a couple times.

on the masche website, an ap article is quoted from 12 june.

The Masches used artificial insemination, and Morrison used fertility drugs.

i find this awfully strange. since fertility drugs and ai seem to go hand in hand. though it makes me wonder if the morrison's may have had a canceled cycle and they dtd themselves?

my heart really breaks for the morrisons. we lost our daughters twin and we lost another daughter at 19 weeks.

~pixie

[Scooter]

Pixielou, I was just looking at the Masche family site (http://www.maschemiracles.com), and it looks like in several places they said that she was on fertility drugs and did an IUI. So that AP article is not correct. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the Morrisons might have tried on their own on a cancelled cycle (because she overstimmed), but considering on their site they said the doctor only saw 2 mature follicles, it doesn't seem as likely the cycle would have been cancelled. The other article on that site was also incorrect, saying the Morrison babies were born "almost 3 months early." If only that were the case.

It's got to make it even harder for the Morrison family, having this other set of sextuplets born only half a day later, and be so much more heatlhy. :( I feel so bad for them.

[Sarah]

Pocket- I apologize if I sounded like i was saying Judaism is flippant or glib about abortion, I certainly don't think Jewish community doesn't grapple with very hard issues in a very thoughtful way. I guess I was surprised because I feel like (and I may be wrong) you've talked about abortion being acceptable to you, as a Jew, in a lot more circumstances than I've ever heard of it being acceptable in Judaism, and I wondered whether that was a break from traditional Jewish/rabbinical (I know they are different) thought on the matter or whether that was in line with your particular tradition.