More Disturbance...

So many of you have probably read about the octuplets born in California recently, and some of the rather unusual circumstances surrounding the family (mom already had 6 kids at home, ages 2 to 7, all conceived by IVF, and is not married- she lives with her parents). Of course medical ethicists are having conniptions about the fact that someone apparently agreed to implant 8 embryos ("in a woman under 35 who already has children"- which I'm not sure should be relevant, but anyway...)

I'm not here to discuss the ethical implications of IVF as a whole, or this woman's personal choices in her journey to being a mom of 14. I just want to comment on a couple of quotes I read in a CNN article this morning...

Once it was clear that the the woman was carrying octuplets, her doctors suggested "reduction"- aborting some so that the rest would have a better chance at survival. The woman refused this option and decided to keep all 8. The ethicists in this article were asked to comment about her decision:

George said that, based on the information available, his personal ethical decision would probably support the woman's choice to carry all the babies to term. But he said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy.

"The babies didn't put themselves there; it's not their fault," George said. "There does seem to be a serious ethical question about killing one or more of them, even for the sake of maternal health."

I just want to know, what in the WORLD does he mean by "The babies didn't put themselves there; it's not their fault"- is this his way of explaining why "reduction" is not the same as "traditional abortion"??? So if a woman gets pregnant unintentionally, does that mean it IS the baby's fault, thus making it worthy of being killed?!? Are the only babies with a right to life those who are intentionally conceived?

But wait-- it gets worse!

Rosenthal, on the other hand, questions the woman's capacity to make a good decision under the circumstances. Some neonatologists believe that when pregnant women are told about dangers of prematurity or have great expectations about giving birth, their judgment can be impaired, she said.

The situation raises the issue of whether a doctor ought to override a patient's wishes for the sake of saving lives, she said. Although the health care system in America gives patients autonomy in making decisions about their own bodies, when emotionally distraught, some people decide poorly, she said.

When I read this, I could not believe this statement was made publicly by a doctor in the 21st century. Is it 1700 again?? Do we think women need hysterectomies because they are, by nature, Hysterical?? The medical field's stereotype of women in general, and pregnant women in particular, as incapable of competent decision making due to their "overly emotional" natures is a disgraceful prejudice that should have disappeared ages ago with the likes of bloodletting. Yes, under the great emotional distress that comes with MANY health care situations, people may (in a doctor's opinion) "decide poorly"- but isn't that truly what "autonomous decision-making" is all about? One of the cornerstones of modern medical ethics is that mentally competent adults have the right to make decisions about what kind of treatment to pursue, or whether to pursue treatment at all, as long as those decisions are intended to protect, not destroy, life. That fundamental right is not subject to compromise due to a supposed state of heightened emotional lability.

Do people think this isn't a big deal? This kind of attitude, expressed by this doctor, is why women don't trust their OB's. This is part of the reason the homebirth movement is growing, for better or worse. For those of us giving birth, this is a Very Big Deal.

Neb