OT: What do you folks think about the octet mom?

[Aecetia]

Hey jpinpb:

Ask TG his theory on how many cats a person can have before they are abnormal. He has a theory about that. It might relate to this woman.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sd_matt]If we have to pay for the consequences of peoples actions then we should have a say in their future actions. That’s part of my definition of equality.

Oh you’ve already had six kids? Well, since we the public will have to pay for the eight more then we say “NO”!!!

Liberals! Make sure we are all willing to share the burden before you commit us to the burden! Forcing people into socialism is an oxymoron, at best. [/quote]

Do you see any liberals here (or anywhere else) defending this woman or her doctor? Don’t blame liberals for this – frankly, most liberals have smaller family sizes than conservatives (and yes, there are PLENTY of oversized conservative families that milk the government for all the support they can get for their enormous 10+ kid families).

The doctor should (and likely will) lose his license over this, and deservedly so.

However, the kids in all this are innocent, and we should treat them as such.

I’d love to think of a way to punish the woman without punishing the kids, but this one is beyond me.

[Navydoc]

[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,

perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.

When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.

The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.

If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.

At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.

The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.

For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.

Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.

The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.

Could it happen, yes.

But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.

[/quote]

Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.

[Navydoc]

[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,

perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.

When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.

The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.

If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.

At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.

The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.

For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.

Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.

The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.

Could it happen, yes.

But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.

[/quote]

Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.

[Navydoc]

[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,

perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.

When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.

The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.

If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.

At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.

The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.

For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.

Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.

The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.

Could it happen, yes.

But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.

[/quote]

Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.

[Navydoc]

[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,

perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.

When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.

The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.

If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.

At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.

The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.

For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.

Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.

The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.

Could it happen, yes.

But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.

[/quote]

Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.

[Navydoc]

[quote=no_such_reality]Navydoc,

perhaps an easier question. What’s the probability of implanting six and having all six take.

When I said remote, I didn’t mean winning the lottery odds, I meant in comparison to the liklihood that the mother isn’t telling the truth.

The ethics boards have restrictions or guidelines on implanting more than three because of the increased risk of multiple pregnancies, but even then, if it was highly likely than all would take, then implanting three would even be suspect.

If the odds of an implanted embryo taking and maturing is 90%, if they’re independent (meaning each doens’t improve the liklihood of the others) then the odds of all six taking fall to 50/50.

At 80% success rate, 4 in 5 attempts succeeding, the odds of all six taking falls to 25%.

The reality is in vitro success rate is in the 30-35% rate for women under 35 years of age.

For all six to take at a 35% rate, it’s 0.2% or 2 in 1000. From the 2 in a thousand shot, we now would need two of the six embroyos to split into viable twins.

Given observations of the mother’s interviews, I’d say the odds she isn’t telling the truth are in excess of 10%.

The probablility of 6 for 6 succeeding and then splitting for twins, less than 1%, probably closer to 0.01%.

Could it happen, yes.

But that misses the point too. Even implanting six when you have no job and six children is, IMHO, irresponsible.

[/quote]

Your success numbers are accurate, and my understanding of the woman’s earlier IVF treatments is that she did have multiple embryos, only one or two of which would take. I’m trying to dance around the fact that we know how many embryos were implanted in this case without getting anyone in trouble for releasing confidential medical information. It’s interesting that, until recently, this doctor boasted one of the lowest success rates in the industry. I suspect he has increased the number of embryos he implants in an effort to improve his success ratio. This has the potential for disastrous consequences, especially as technology advances in embryo manipulation. The discussion section of the case report I posted talks about why implantation and twinning rates are increasing, so the numbers you punched into the formula may be meaningless. The bottom line is we just don’t know yet.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you last sentence.

[svelte]

[quote=CA renter]

I am 100% against taking kids away from their biological families without the family’s permission, unless there is severe abuse/neglect. People don’t realize that the family separation is often more traumatizing than the abuse/neglect itself, so we need to re-think the knee-jerk reaction of “have the state take the kids away” at every turn.

[/quote]

My statement was not a knee-jerk reaction at every turn. Even you will have to admit this is a way, way, WAY unusual situation.

Let’s see, one person has 14 children under 10. I’m not even sure you can get a daycare license for that ratio!

If seven of those just born were up for adoption, there would be no trauma since those babies are in incubators and have not spent a day with their biological mom.

I don’t think this mother should be rewarded for making a selfish decision like having 8 more kids! If they are taken away by the state, the next woman to think about a similar stunt will likely think twice. If your counterpoint is that she is mentally unstable (likely IMO), that is even MORE reason, not LESS reason, to have the state intervene.

There is absolutely no way that this Mom can care for 14 young children on her own. I’ve been around large families – do you know what happens? The older kids end up raising the younger kids.

Do you think that is fair to the older kids??

[svelte]

[quote=CA renter]

I am 100% against taking kids away from their biological families without the family’s permission, unless there is severe abuse/neglect. People don’t realize that the family separation is often more traumatizing than the abuse/neglect itself, so we need to re-think the knee-jerk reaction of “have the state take the kids away” at every turn.

[/quote]

My statement was not a knee-jerk reaction at every turn. Even you will have to admit this is a way, way, WAY unusual situation.

Let’s see, one person has 14 children under 10. I’m not even sure you can get a daycare license for that ratio!

If seven of those just born were up for adoption, there would be no trauma since those babies are in incubators and have not spent a day with their biological mom.

I don’t think this mother should be rewarded for making a selfish decision like having 8 more kids! If they are taken away by the state, the next woman to think about a similar stunt will likely think twice. If your counterpoint is that she is mentally unstable (likely IMO), that is even MORE reason, not LESS reason, to have the state intervene.

There is absolutely no way that this Mom can care for 14 young children on her own. I’ve been around large families – do you know what happens? The older kids end up raising the younger kids.

Do you think that is fair to the older kids??

[svelte]

[quote=CA renter]

I am 100% against taking kids away from their biological families without the family’s permission, unless there is severe abuse/neglect. People don’t realize that the family separation is often more traumatizing than the abuse/neglect itself, so we need to re-think the knee-jerk reaction of “have the state take the kids away” at every turn.

[/quote]

My statement was not a knee-jerk reaction at every turn. Even you will have to admit this is a way, way, WAY unusual situation.

Let’s see, one person has 14 children under 10. I’m not even sure you can get a daycare license for that ratio!

If seven of those just born were up for adoption, there would be no trauma since those babies are in incubators and have not spent a day with their biological mom.

I don’t think this mother should be rewarded for making a selfish decision like having 8 more kids! If they are taken away by the state, the next woman to think about a similar stunt will likely think twice. If your counterpoint is that she is mentally unstable (likely IMO), that is even MORE reason, not LESS reason, to have the state intervene.

There is absolutely no way that this Mom can care for 14 young children on her own. I’ve been around large families – do you know what happens? The older kids end up raising the younger kids.

Do you think that is fair to the older kids??

[svelte]

[quote=CA renter]

I am 100% against taking kids away from their biological families without the family’s permission, unless there is severe abuse/neglect. People don’t realize that the family separation is often more traumatizing than the abuse/neglect itself, so we need to re-think the knee-jerk reaction of “have the state take the kids away” at every turn.

[/quote]

My statement was not a knee-jerk reaction at every turn. Even you will have to admit this is a way, way, WAY unusual situation.

Let’s see, one person has 14 children under 10. I’m not even sure you can get a daycare license for that ratio!

If seven of those just born were up for adoption, there would be no trauma since those babies are in incubators and have not spent a day with their biological mom.

I don’t think this mother should be rewarded for making a selfish decision like having 8 more kids! If they are taken away by the state, the next woman to think about a similar stunt will likely think twice. If your counterpoint is that she is mentally unstable (likely IMO), that is even MORE reason, not LESS reason, to have the state intervene.

There is absolutely no way that this Mom can care for 14 young children on her own. I’ve been around large families – do you know what happens? The older kids end up raising the younger kids.

Do you think that is fair to the older kids??

[Author]

Posts