Posted on 01/27/2009 11:26:12 AM PST by gallaxyglue
By Associated Press Writer Raquel Maria Dillon, Mom delivers rare octuplets AP A woman gave birth Monday to eight babies, only the second time in history octuplets have survived more than a few hours, doctors said. The mother gave birth to six boys and two girls weighing between 1 pound, 8 ounces, and 3 pounds, 4 ounces, doctors at Kaiser Permanente Bellflower Medical Center said. The hospital had scheduled a Caesarean section for seven babies, but doctors were surprised when an eighth came out at 10:48 a.m. "My eyes were wide," Dr. Karen Maples said, explaining her reaction to the last birth. Doctors said the babies were born nine weeks premature but are in stable condition. Two newborns were placed on ventilators and a third needs oxygen. Hospital officials would not release any information about the mother, including her name, condition or whether she used fertility drugs. They did, however, say she planned to breast feed all of them. "She's a very strong woman, so she probably will be able to handle all eight babies," said Dr. Mandhir Gupta, a neo-natologist who cared for the infants. All eight babies will probably remain in the hospital for at least two months and the mother should be released in a week, Maples said. Forty-six hospital staff and four delivery rooms were used for the latest octuplets' births. After one baby was born, staff rushed the newborn into another room and waited for the next, the hospital said. But despite weeks of preparation, doctors did not expect the eighth child. "It is quite easy to miss a baby when you're anticipating seven babies," said Dr. Harold Henry, chief of maternal and fetal medicine at the hospital. "Ultrasound doesn't show you everything."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It’s not probably what most people would opt for but I wouldn’t call it a disaster. Her mother calls them “blessings” What a grandma, huh?
Actually I read that with IVF, much higher numbers than three can be implanted if....the mother agrees for selective abortion for more than 3 that take. Nice, huh?
I hate thinking about selective reduction. What a euphemism. I have heard of people choosing to “reduce” from three to two babies and losing all of them. It’s not good to start killing your babies.
There is no formal agreement. Often two (or three) embryos are put into the uterus and one splits into twins, giving the mother three (or four). Doctor may offer to “reduce” at that point. Some women get into this position because they have put back 2 embryos and not gotten pregnant, so they think the next time that “more is better.”
I wonder what their names will be. Right now they are called Baby A B C D E F G and H.
Henry the 8th would be a fitting name for Baby H.
This is not the way humans were designed to reproduce. These fertility drugs are way too unpredictable. Babies are not supposed to be part of litters like little dogs.
If this woman is married it is unlikely the marriage will survive and in any case the social costs will be enormous. These babies will have close medical supervision for months before they can even be sent home and some may already have irreversible damage from the low birth rates. Just the medical costs alone will be over 10 million and who knows what the future ones will be.
Well I am sure a woman who doesn’t follow medical advice and produces a litter is going to be a great mother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.