All of Octuplet Mom's kids were In Vitro

[Wesley]

Her compatriot partner is headed back to Iraq as a contractor, the act may be duplicated by others, they lived in the basement of Moms, she probably is 28, her name is Sulihem, she may be Muslim, the father has a heavy accent, sounds like a movie on the way.

[AIT]

Additionally, almost all reproductive endocrinologists will warn you that selective reduction is a practice that they insist upon. Mid-Iowa Fertility, for example, makes a huge point of this since the McCaughey (sp???) septuplets were born. There's no way that this woman could financially support all of these children on her own - especially since (again) all RE's will warn you that the risk of birth defects doubles with each multiple you carry. These kids are unlikely to be healthy.

The problem is a clinic can't really insist that the mother go through with selective reduction if it's needed. They can warn the mother that it's a possibility before they begin and make her promise to do it if needed. But no one can force the mother refuses to do selective reduction when the time comes. A hospital can't refuse to treat the mom and kids if mom breaks her promise to have selective reduction.

[AIT]

In reference to the comments about tax dollars - I agree. California is one of the few states that mandate coverage of assisted reproductive technology. She used that coverage once for the 6 kids, went bankrupt, abandoned a house, and then used that coverage again. She now is going to use up MILLIONS in insurance and tax dollars on these kids.

What is sad about this is that the insurance companies and states that don't mandate coverage are going to look at this woman and the gross expenses for these children, and continue to elect not to cover ART for people who really need it. Hundreds of thousands will continue to go childless because some nutcase is having 14 kids that way.

I hope the state insurance mandates don't disappear, but some limits might be a good thing. Say ART coverage is only required if the mother has no children. Or insurance need only cover the implantation of three eggs at a time through IVF. This situation is going to put a stigma on IVF, though, and I hope states don't clamp down too far.

[Angie]

I hope the state insurance mandates don't disappear, but some limits might be a good thing. Say ART coverage is only required if the mother has no children. Or insurance need only cover the implantation of three eggs at a time through IVF. This situation is going to put a stigma on IVF, though, and I hope states don't clamp down too far.

I'm more worried that no other states will mandate coverage now. It's been under discussion for a long time and there are some states with it currently under legislation.

I do agree with some sort of regulation. IVF clinics rarely charge by the embryo transferred, so I don't think that will probably be something the insurance companies care about from a cost basis - just from a basis of postnatal care. It's been found that transferring more than three embryos or so does little to increase the efficacy of IVF, it only boosts the likelihood that you'll have multiples. There really should be some regulation even when the state does not mandate coverage.