Introduction
Nadya Denise Doud-Suleman is an American woman born in 1975. She delivered octuplets in January 2009 at Kaiser Permanente facility in Bellfloer, California. She is commonly referred to as ‘the octomom.’ The octuplets become the second set born alive in the United States. When this news broke out there was great excitement and anticipation about the mother and the family. However, later it was discovered that she had gone through fertility treatment to conceive the octuplets. More surprising was the discovery of her other six children who had also been conceived through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). She is a single mother and her other children were on welfare support because she could not provide for them as she was unemployed at the time. This news led to public anger and she even faced death threats. A heated debate ensued with many questioning the morality if in-vitro fertilization. Fortunately, all the eight babies survived and today they are 11 months.
This paper will look at the ethical implications in implanting the embryos. In addition, if the removal of the children from Ms Suleman is proper.
Implanting multiple embryos
Studies done recently show that babies conceived through in-vitro fertilization have higher risks of malformations and cerebral palsy than those conceived naturally. When parents choose to have an IVF they expose their yet to be conceived babies to these risks (Benatar, 2006, p. 2491). Yet in a normal case, a parent should only take such a risk to preserve the baby from the possibility of such a risk. The doctor who conducted the IVF treatment Dr. Michael Kamrava should have known better about the risks associated with multiple implantations because he is a medical professional. Observations done by neonatologists show the risks associated with “multiple births and prematurity” (Bellieni & Giuseppe, 2006, p.93). Higher numbers of hospitalization in neonatal intensive care are due to IVF. Twins have a higher chance of developing neurodevelopment impairment and death compared to single births. Grand multiparity is more likely in assisted reproduction and raises the risks further. Dr. Kamrava implanted the embryos with this knowledge. This is raises the ethical question in carrying out the procedure that has such high risks for the babies and low success rates (English, 1999, p. 3045). These children may never get a chance to meet their biological parent to inquire about important questions for instance concerning genetic diseases (Duin, 1999, p. 1). Therefore, the doctor was wrong to implant the high number of embryos and put the life of the “future babies at risk”.
Removal of children from Ms Suleman’s care
Ms Suleman does not deserve the custody of her children. She cannot provide for them due to her current unemployed status. Currently she is relying on reality television to provide for the children. However, this is not a long-term solution as the money may run or television may not need her after she has run her time. Her six earlier children were already in welfare before she added eight more in January. She lives with her parents in a three-bed-roomed house (Smith, 2009, 1). The cost of providing for all of her fourteen children is high considering that all are under the age of seven. This has forced her 67-year-old father to look for employment to help her. On the contrary, her father is old and would do with care himself. She cannot provide the babies with all their needs because she relies on her friends, family and church to meet their needs. This sort of a source is not reliable because she may fail to get help when she really needs it putting the lives of her children at risk. Her mother who had been giving help with the six children felt overwhelmed with the burden and now adds eight more children into the nest.
Conclusion
IVF treatment should be regulated to avoid a repeat of Suleman’s case. Although she was lucky her children survived, the risks involved in this assisted reproduction are enormous. If drugs that increase risks to patients can be removed from usage why not this reproduction procedure or at least increase regulation. This is due to the number of babies who suffer from the life threatening or crippling risks. This will also help to deter irresponsible parents from bringing many children into the world that they cannot support. It is important to remember that these children have no say in being conceived this way yet they suffer the consequences of clinical procedures gone bad for the rest of their lives. They need a voice that can speak for them before their conception.
References
Bellieni, C., & Buonocore, G. (2006). Assisted Procreation: Too Little Consideration for the Babies? Ethics and Medicine 22 (2), 93. Web.
Benatar, D. (2006). Reproductive Freedom and Risk.Human Reproduction, 21(10), 2491-3.
Duin, J. (1999). Reckless Reproduction? Web.
English, V. (2006). Autonomy versus Protection–Who benefits from the Regulation of IVF?Human Reproduction, 21(12), 3044-9.
Smith, E. Eight-babies mum ‘works in IVF clinic’. Web.