Rather say, it's not okay for a doctor to induce a medical problem that is worse than the problem they're solving. Every procedure and drug has side effects. Scar tissue is not as traumatic on the body as carrying a baby to term (not to mention the trauma of caring for a toddler, or a teenager...;))

So if a doctor should do as little harm as possible, and abortion is easier on the mother's body than delivering, then you advocate for doctors to force all women to have abortions for medical reasons?

Yes, that's an extremist view, but I'm trying to nail down the generalized outcome of that thought.

Obviously all patients have the superceding right to refuse treatment. If the patient does wish for intervention, be it for an abortion or chemotherapy, the doctor must then weigh the probability and extent of harm that may come to the patient, and decide ethically whether to comply.

A patient with cancer may certainly choose not to have chemo. But a random person who has no cancer may not receive chemotherapy from a doctor, even if they're willing to pay for it.

Who's asking to have it both ways? You are not comparing like with like. You suggest that the doctor should simply give the advice and then go with the woman's decision, regardless of the advice against implanting large numbers of embryos

You cannot, in my country, simply pay for an abortion without having to justify it. There is a balance to be struck between potential harm and potential benefit. The further into the pregnancy, the higher the risk of complications and the harder it is to justify medically. This is one of the reasons it requires two doctors to sanction an abortion. Personally I feel that is sensible.

I haven't said that I think she should have been refused treatment. I just think, given it would seem an unusually high number of embryos to implant, and given the well-documented concern within the medical community over the increased risk of multiple births that comes with embryo implantation, that this particular medical practitioner made a very bad call. You are right, they do put in more eggs usually than they expect to take. I'd have to dig out the figures, but I think they usually do around 3.

One of the ethical debates around this kind of treatment, is that it costs so much to do each round, and the chances areb;t always high of first time success. So people who can't afford to go around the merry go round too many times, opt for a higher number of embryos to increase the chances of one taking. It has the side effect of also increasing the chances of multiple births. That's why it's a balance. Enough to give a reasonable chance of success -v- not enough to draw dangerous side effects.

If a woman agrees it is acceptable to freeze embryos for future implantation, she is already going against "God's will",

For those of us who think logically - freeze 'em, thaw 'em, clone 'em, whatever!

God is bountiful - adopt 'em from Darfur, they will starve and die otherwise (this might be God's plan, I don't know).

AP is now reporting that the fertility doctor is under investigation by the California Medical Board. Also, the mother has now claimed that six embryos were implanted for every single birth--initially resulting in her four singles and one set of twins, before this sudden jackpot of 8 (two of the embryos actually split in her final pregnancy, leading to more babies than were actually implanted.) If that's true, it mitigates the doctor's position a bit--he did have a good amount of evidence that she would only end up with one or two babies from the procedure.

I think the biggest problem most pro-lifers would have with it is the fact that so many embryos are usually discarded once the desired number of children have been born. This woman decided she wanted to use all of hers up, so I think it would be compatible with many people's views of "God's will" who wouldn't support the process in general.

Some people who are sick and in pain or dying do not really have the ability (mobility or access to drugs, etc.) to "off themselves." I think the laws should be more humane in helping people who really want to die with some dignity.

Crikey! The girl already had 6 kids! SIX!

I completely disagree. Maybe you can pay for the procedure, but what about later? Can you afford to take care of them? What about the ethics of having SO DAMN MANY KIDS when the world is already seriously overpopulated? I think the good/needs of the many outweighs the wants of the one.

It's like extreme body modification meets Munchausen syndrome or something. It's abuse of medical technology.
It's, it's not natural.

Actually Onyx that is why the method of her fertility treatment is so controversial. The people who're having four, quints, sextuplets, ect are on fertility meds, making them release multiple eggs at once, and thats how they end up being pregnant with so many. Her embryos were implanted, 8 (or perhaps a few more) were purposely implanted. That is not normal for this type of fertility treatment. They implant 1-3 embryos at a time. Depending on if the embryos look like they are doing well and are goin to develop.

For he record, They implanted 6 and two split.

That hits the nail on the head. A number if not all of these kids are in NICU. Guess who is paying for thier care? You all.

Free will, you don't get to be involved in that decision. Maybe the government should regulate how many a person can have.

I like Sugar, Merc.
And it makes me feel better about you, knowing you like her even though she has very different views to you.

When my ship comes in, I will come to Savannah. And buy you both dinner. Oh, and your lovely wife of course, although she will make me feel like an old hag in comparison ;)

Sugar is awsome, we have been good friends for a long time, even if we have some polar opposit views.