Bioethics Joke

[Hat tip to Art Caplan for passing this one along!]

Have you heard about the new Denny's breakfast? In honor of the mother of the octuplets, Denny's is offering the 'Suleman': Fourteen eggs, no sausage, and the guy next to you gets to pay the bill.

Making Multiple Births Fun and Profitable

[Hat tip to Art Caplan for bringing this story to our attention] With all the recent attention given to Nadya Suleman and her brood of 14, comparisons have been made to the popular show on TLC, Jon & Kate Plus 8, which chronicles the life of the Gosselins raising a set of twins and sextuplets. Philly magazine examines the way that the Gosselins have found a way to make the family business quite a profitable one -- and the article asks the uncomfortable question "when do your kids stop being your kids and start becoming your meal ticket?":

"TODAY THE TWINS are eight and the sextuplets four, but Jon and Kate actually look younger than when the show began, more camera-friendly and polished. They’ve had their teeth whitened; Jon’s been working out and got a (free) hair transplant. The Gosselins have turned up on Oprah and Good Morning America, and inside the pages of In Touch Weekly and People. The show is TLC’s most popular series.

As a result, the family now goes on more free trips, and is treated to swag and catered to at every outing. Phils skipper Charlie Manuel let Jon and some of the kids run the bases after a game last season (they had box seats, and got an autographed bat from Shane Victorino); a zoo tour included getting to privately feed the giraffes. “They get the publicity of the trip, we get the trip,” Kate explains in one of the “Viewer FAQ” episodes. The kids model the latest tyke couture from Gymboree. They frolic with Wii Music, Play Doh’s Fuzzy Pumper Barber and Beauty Shop and Little Tikes Jump ’n Slide Bouncer as Jon gushes about why these are such great playthings and the camera zooms in on the logos. Nielsen ranks the series eighth out of 149 cable shows for product placement."

For the rest of the article, click here.

Octuplets Mother Speaks Out

Nadya Suleman, mother of the recent octuplets born in California, has done her first interview with a major news outlet. (Although Suleman was seeking USD 2 million for the interview, NBC maintains that they did not pay her. However, that doesn't rule out "compensation" in other forms.)

Unfortunately, Suleman's interview has continued to raise, rather than answer, questions. Foremost among them, for me, is her claim that she had six embryos implants per IVF procedure. This... simply does not ring true. Or at least plausible, if she was using a US fertility expert.

Consider this: in order to have done so, this means Suleman would have needed to find, at age 26, a fertility doctor who would implant six embryos. ASRM guidelines are no more than 3 embryos for a woman under the age of 35, and that's if she has a history of problems with conception. With a 'clean' history, only 2 embryos are recommended. Now, it sounds like Suleman might have qualified as having difficulty conceiving, with several ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages prior to IVF. But even accounting for that, it's double the recommended standard. For each pregnancy.

But stop to do the math. While one vial of donor sperm would be more than enough for all of this, it means that they collected at least 36 eggs from Suleman, and that all of those eggs were viable enough to implant once fertilized. Realistically, not every egg retrieved is going to be mature, and not every egg is going to fertilize (unless you're using something like ICSI). Realistically, you're looking, at the very least, at 1/3rd more eggs than that being pulled out (and even that is a very, very low number - remember, they're saying that there were six viable eggs to implant per cycle. A quick web search shows that 1/3 of the eggs removed at any time are not mature, and of the ones that are mature, only half reach the point of being "good enough" to implant).

Now let's go over to CDC stats. While the last data is from 2005, which was going on 5 years ago, Suleman started her IVF course in 2001, so some of this data is specifically applicable (and some of it only extrapolation). According to the CDC, only 35% of ART cycles resulted in a pregnancy, and of those, 82% resulted in a live birth. So again, Suleman seems to have defied the odds. A lot. And as the CDC says about frozen eggs, "[b]ecause some embryos do not survive the thawing process, the percentage of thawed embryos that resulted in live births is usually lower than the percentage of transfers resulting in live births." While only 15% of embryos transferred were frozen, of those 15%, only slightly more than 1/4 ended up in live births.

Again, the odds make this seem incredibly unlikely.

Finally, fertility clinics are required by law to report their ART data, under the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act. This gives us a decent way of tracking ART results - and also who is doing ART. In 2005, eleven clinics in California did not report their ART data (which would include embryo transfers/live birth data/etc). Of those eleven places, it looks like seven were within an hour of her home (keeping in mind her back injury likely limited the distance she could travel). Of the clinics that did report their data, 35 are within an hour of Whittier, California. However, given these clinics are compliant with reporting their data, it seems safe to eliminate them from immediate suspicion. (As for the potential Mexcio connection, Tijuana is approximately two hours away. Certainly not out of the question; an hour was a random number drawn from thin air. Suleman has certainly shown herself to be willing to go to significant length, and pain, to achieve her goals.)

All in all, what does this mean? Not much. Over 300 pages of records on Suleman have been released to the press, under a public records request to California's Division of Workers' Compensation. While it doesn't appear that the fertility clinic (or doctor) that treated her is in those records, there is ample evidence to support that she did have problems conceiving, and that she had known psychiatric issues, including what was diagnosed as either postpartum depression or PTSD. Issues that should have limited, if not prevented, future implantations.

Ultimately, until Suleman names her doctor, or said doctor speaks out, little will be conclusively known. But the facts remain simple: the facts do not add up.
-Kelly Hills

More on the Octuplets

Our friend and supporter, Art Caplan, sheds some more light on the ethical implications of the octuplets in his Philly op-ed:

"Something has gone terribly wrong when a 33-year-old single woman - who has no home of her own, no job, and a mother who worries her daughter is "obsessed" with having children - winds up with 14 of them. And all are under age 8, including eight newborn babies now in a neonatal nursery in various states of prematurity.
Examining what exactly went wrong may shed some light on what ought to be done. If doctors cannot prevent such a shambles from recurring, then society must.

The woman in question, Nadya Suleman, lives with her parents in a small home near Los Angeles. She has had infertility problems linked to blocked Fallopian tubes. She can make eggs, but they cannot be fertilized naturally because of the blockage.

Suleman apparently used donated sperm and in vitro fertilization to create all the embryos that became her children. She underwent treatment to cause her to produce many more eggs than the normal one per month, and they were surgically removed from her body and fertilized in lab dishes. Some of the resulting embryos were put back into her body, and that is how her first six children were made.

Unhappy with only six, Suleman sought further fertility treatment and had an additional eight of her embryos defrosted and implanted. They produced the now famous octuplets who, after a Caesarean section, are in intensive care at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Bellflower, Calif. Sadly, there is no known case of octuplets in which all escaped severe disabilities.

The most obvious questions raised by this sad saga include: How did Nadya Suleman become a fertility patient? And how did she get eight embryos implanted when she already had six young children to care for in a tiny house, with no partner and no income?
Some fertility doctors would answer that it's not their job to decide how many children a person can have. Jeffrey Steinberg, medical director of the Fertility Institutes, which has clinics in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York City, was quoted as saying: "Who am I to say that six is the limit? There are people who like to have big families."

James Grifo, a renowned fertility specialist at New York University, had little time for those wondering why Suleman was a patient. "I don't think it's our job to tell them how many babies they're allowed to have," he reportedly said. "I am not a policeman for reproduction in the United States."

With all due respect, the idea that doctors should not set limits on who can use reproductive technology to make babies is ethically bonkers.

If someone comes to a clinic with a history of child abuse, active drug addiction, and a rap sheet with serious felonies, should the doctor simply say: "If you have the money, I will make all the babies you want"? That gives cash and carry a whole new meaning.

Doctors have an obligation to consider patients' requests for treatment, but they do not have to honor them. One very good reason not to do so is if a doctor believes that what the patient wants would put children at grave risk.

Putting eight embryos into a woman is exactly that - putting kids at grave risk. Putting eight babies into the family of a single mom already trying to cope with six other young kids, with no money and little help, is putting kids at grave risk. The doctors who allowed Nadya Suleman to receive multiple embryos engaged in grossly unethical conduct.

The other major ethical problem raised by this story is the hijacking of health-care dollars by someone acting irresponsibly.

Suleman had to know that starting a pregnancy that might create eight tiny lives was to risk killing herself, as well as killing or severely disabling one or more of the babies. Fortunately, she made it through the pregnancy. But the cost of neonatal care for her eight new children probably will exceed $1 million.

When they are discharged from intensive care, more millions of dollars in medical costs likely await, not to mention the help Suleman will need just to handle all of her children's basic needs.

Society needs to discourage mega-multiple births. And it is clear what needs to be done to accomplish that.

If the medical profession is unwilling or unable to police its own, then government needs to get involved. We already have rules governing who can get involved with adoption and foster care. Shouldn't these minimal requirements be extended to fertility treatment? And shouldn't some limit be set on how many embryos can be implanted at one time, along with some rules about what to do with embryos that no one wants to use?

Other nations, such as Britain, keep a regulatory eye on reproductive technologies and those who wish to use them, knowing their use can put kids at risk in ways that nature never envisioned. We owe the same to children born here."

Original article here.

Reproductive Autonomy Runs Amok

In a follow-up post to Kelly's previous post, it seems that Nadya Suleman's use of IVF technology is clear misuse and abuse of ARTs (Assisted Reproductive Technologies). The doctor who implanted the embryos should be investigated, because in helping this woman become pregnant with 8 children, he or she violated one of the basic tenets of medicine -- "Do No Harm". Hopefully, the Board of Medical Licensure will investigate and determine what the possible motivation was for this doctor's actions, whether it was a one time lapse in judgment due to extreme personal difficulties, or if it represents a small part of a larger pattern of unethical behavior and practice for the doctor and the fertility clinic.

There are multiple ethical considerations at play when an IVF specialist is approached by any woman and a 'burden vs benefit' analysis is employed. When someone who has already had six children through the procedure seeks more, I cannot imagine a valid or justifiable benefit -- the burdens include physical and financial costs to the mother (who has already declared bankruptcy), to the grandmother, to the siblings, to the children born, and to society. And while one might argue that this is an exercise in reproductive autonomy, we, as a society need to ask 'how far does reproductive autonomy go?' Does it include the right to create children who been disabled or dis-enhanced? (A nightmare scenario vaguely reminiscent of Dean Koontz' novel, One Door Away from Heaven). How we answer this question will have an impact on how we deal with future cases, such as those involving genetic engineering.

Hopefully, this case will call attention to the need for regulation and oversight of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Currently, we have a laissez-faire attitude towards ARTs and fertility clinics; we have trusted the doctors and clinics to regulate themselves, via the American Society for Reproductive Medicine --and this case demonstrates that we can no longer simply turn a blind eye.

How Many is Too Many?

Unless you've been hiding under a rock this last week, you're aware of the octuplets born to California single mom Nadya Suleman, and the intense ethical debate surrounding her pregnancy. Even before it was revealed that she has six other children (apparently all from IVF, although details are a bit fuzzy), medical experts were ready to lynch the IVF specialist who implanted that many embryos into Ms. Suleman. And since then, the information that has come out has been more and more dismaying. The problem is, much of the information coming out is still speculation, and few solid facts are known. This makes it difficult to do more than speculate and contribute to the signal to noise ratio, which at the moment is definitely loudly on the side of noise.

So rather than continue to discuss the particulars of Ms. Suleman's case, which will have to be dissected in its own due time, I want to open to forum to a related question that has been repeated in the discussion of her story: how many children is too many children? Not how many implanted embryos is too many embryos, but at what point (if any) do fertility doctors say sorry, no more kids? Should Ms. Suleman have had any embryos implanted at all, given her six other children? Or is the ability to pay for IVF the only thing that should be considered? Should the financial state of the individual or couple be considered? Job? Income? What factors should go into deciding whether to treat for infertility via IVF? And should the "how many is too many" question be posed to adoptions, as well (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt clearly coming to mind)?

Or put another way: is the problem with the birth of the octuplets the fact that they were born all at once, and if Ms. Suleman had continued to quietly have eight more children via IVF, no one would have said a thing?

It seems like this single question - if an outside source is utilized to have children, is there a point at which it can be determined that the person has too many children to have more - is fraught with the potential of paternalism and of violating the choice of family construction.

I don't even begin to have an answer to this; I doubt I've even begun to tease out all of the potential questions wrapped in what is an incredibly thorny issue. But let's open it to debate - what do you think?
-Kelly Hills