Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (181127)	2/2/2009 11:57:46 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

those are all free and this octuplet situation probably fell into that camp. This woman seems like she is mentally ill to me this is NOTHING like the cases you cited....this woman ELECTED to have either in vitro or take fertility drugs after having 6 children already....i see this as a moral and ethical failure of the medical profession to allow this woman to treat herself as some kind of 'breeder' understanding that carrying eight babies is fraught with potential complications which could be lifelong and even death just because something is medically possible doesn't mean it is medically ethical (first do no harm?) she had no job, no husband, and how she will eventually support 14 children is highly dubious (according to what i read even her mother is moving out having had enough) the point of karl's essay was that we have come to the point in this country where people can DEMAND medical services that are counter to the individual's own best interest, not to mention the society at large that will most probably carry much of the burden of supporting these children.....we pay for these 'demands' either through our taxes or much higher insurance costs (the estimate for the care of the octuplets is at minimum $150,000 each in a neonatal unit, do the math) time.com