Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Octuplets doctor has another patient expecting quadruplets
Los Angeles Times ^ | February 13, 2009 | Kimi Yoshino, Jessica Garrison and Alan Zarembo

Posted on 02/13/2009 6:54:59 AM PST by Zakeet

The patient, who is in her late 40s, wanted one baby. Dr. Michael Kamrava transferred at least seven embryos to her. She is now hospitalized without insurance.

A few months after Dr. Michael Kamrava helped Nadya Suleman become pregnant with octuplets, he transferred at least seven embryos to another patient.

She was in her late 40s and wanted just one baby.

Now she's five months pregnant with quadruplets and hospitalized at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, according to several sources familiar with the situation.

The new case could add to concerns about Kamrava's practice and about whether the fertility industry needs more regulation.

[Snip]

The woman has three grown children from a previous marriage but wanted another child with her second husband, who is in his early 30s and doesn't have any children, sources said. She works as an apartment manager; her husband is a contractor.

She started fertility treatments seeking one baby, but after becoming pregnant with quadruplets, declined medical advice to reduce the number of fetuses, the sources said.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: chilcren; fertility; morality
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 02/13/2009 6:54:59 AM PST by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The good doctor, having done the implanting, should be responsible financially for the care of the offspring.


2 posted on 02/13/2009 6:58:17 AM PST by Malesherbes (Sauve Qui Peut)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Knockeduplets


3 posted on 02/13/2009 6:58:29 AM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

It’s a good thing CA has plenty of money to pay for all this extravagant medical care when this nutcase doctor impregnates welfare mothers with their litters.
In the immortal words of that Democrat icon, Jocelyn Elders,”It’s for the churdrun.”


4 posted on 02/13/2009 6:59:10 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

This jerk should be billed the total cost of the Octotots. The prosecutor should SUE his sorry arse for every single dime he’s costing the taxpayers and make him pay child support.


5 posted on 02/13/2009 6:59:15 AM PST by Kieri (The Conservatrarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
"She started fertility treatments seeking one baby, but after becoming pregnant with quadruplets, declined medical advice to reduce the number of fetuses, the sources said."

At least she didn't abort any of them.

6 posted on 02/13/2009 7:01:43 AM PST by Tidbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Quadruplets?

No volume discount for her!


7 posted on 02/13/2009 7:02:06 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

“...about whether the fertility industry needs more regulation.”
Jezzz, ya think?


8 posted on 02/13/2009 7:03:06 AM PST by duckman (Jesus I trust in You. Mary take over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes

I’m sure that he has his patients sign a release and also they probably have to sign a promise to “reduce the number of fetuses” prior to birth. So the mom can either kill her children or just suck it up and deal with it. Evil.


9 posted on 02/13/2009 7:03:12 AM PST by Mercat (There will be a day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tidbit

One bright spot, I agree. I’m not sure why anyone would intentionally have a baby (especially after having at least one) without any medical insurance. Babies are expensive, especially if you have to come out of pocket for medical care.


10 posted on 02/13/2009 7:06:03 AM PST by brytlea (You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

They shouldn’t just take all his assets and send him to jail after revoking his medical license, they should hang him.


11 posted on 02/13/2009 7:06:31 AM PST by fightinbluhen51 ("...If it moves, tax it, if it moves faster, regulate it, if it stops, subsidies it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kieri

Should this be done in EVERY case of IVF?


12 posted on 02/13/2009 7:07:27 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5721333.ece


13 posted on 02/13/2009 7:07:36 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckman

Yes definitely. We need a government agency to decide who can and cannot have children.

You must be joking.


14 posted on 02/13/2009 7:08:41 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

15 posted on 02/13/2009 7:09:56 AM PST by maggief (Rome is burning . Chickens are roosting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

People have been having babies for a long time, irrespective of the state or availablity of medical treatment and the means and mechanisms to pay for it.


16 posted on 02/13/2009 7:11:17 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: maggief

guilty.


17 posted on 02/13/2009 7:12:09 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: maggief

Whoever it is.


18 posted on 02/13/2009 7:12:35 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
It's all in the name of reproductive freedom. I know it is sad for some, but maybe these people should just realize they can't procreate and live with it. A Pandora's box has been opened.
19 posted on 02/13/2009 7:13:30 AM PST by stayathomemom (Cat herder and empty nester)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Good grief!
Shut this guy down immediately!!!!
He should have been shut down a long time ago!


20 posted on 02/13/2009 7:14:25 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("No pale pastels,but bold colors".....Ronnie,we sure do miss you,sir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Dr. Michael Kamrava, 57, leaves his Beverly Hills, Calif. office on Monday, Feb. 9, 2009. Kamrava’s name emerged Monday as a result of an interview aired Monday on NBC with Nadya Suleman, who gave birth to eight babies Jan. 26. Kamrava is the director of the West Coast IVF Clinic.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/IVF-Clinic/photo//090210/480/c3d7444cd9694a52876b99e2e1feadf7//s:/ap/octuplets


21 posted on 02/13/2009 7:14:54 AM PST by maggief (Rome is burning . Chickens are roosting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
You must be joking.

The joke is on the taxpayer who has to support these fatherless children-and it's a joke that has never been funny.In order to receive implantation you should be able to show you are in a stable relationship in order to provide a healthy enviornment for a child or children,as the case may be. You have to be able to pass certain standards in order to adopt a German Shepherd from the local Humane Society,but not to have embryos implanted.That's just WRONG.
22 posted on 02/13/2009 7:19:17 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("No pale pastels,but bold colors".....Ronnie,we sure do miss you,sir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The doctor can support these kids - I sure as hell don’t want to...


23 posted on 02/13/2009 7:21:53 AM PST by GOPJ (What's caused 19 deaths, makes travel difficult, and won't melt til April? Global Warming.FR:Dentist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Anybody...Kamrava is a Persian (Iranian) name no? Ethical background of Iranian physicians?
24 posted on 02/13/2009 7:22:09 AM PST by meandog (The two named Bush get the bird from this hand!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

This woman had:

1) No job;

2) Was receiving disability payments (which means her health was in question);

3) No house;

4) Lives with her parents, and

5) Had no private health coverage.

In other words, no PERSONAL financial responsibility for paying the costs of raising these kids. Why bother when the taxpayers can be extorted instead?


25 posted on 02/13/2009 7:24:47 AM PST by Kieri (The Conservatrarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I’m thinking the doc needs to pay child support.


26 posted on 02/13/2009 7:26:10 AM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Of course not..but we should not allow elective procedures to be paid by medicaid.


27 posted on 02/13/2009 7:26:54 AM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

When a man impregnates a woman, that makes him the daddy, doesn’t it?


28 posted on 02/13/2009 7:27:33 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

That’s not my point. This woman, who already has kids, has no medical insurance, and goes to what most would consider extraordinary lengths to have another child. That is showing a great lack of common sense. I don’t understand it.


29 posted on 02/13/2009 7:29:07 AM PST by brytlea (You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

These procedures are expensive, right? Both these women are on welfare. So who the hell is paying for this? They should ship this Dr. back to Iran. And tell them he converted.


30 posted on 02/13/2009 7:29:22 AM PST by 70th Division (I love my country but fear my government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Should this be done in EVERY case of IVF?

Of course not. Many infertile couples seek IVF as a means to bring children into the world,not as a means of sucking the taxpayers dry,or out of some perverse need to have something to cuddle and dress up like a doll,but because they REALLY love children and want to be parents.There should be guidelines for IVF,such as age limits,personal history (married,single,etc.),and income.Even my cat knows that if you don't have a job,or a home of your own,and six other kids without fathers,YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE.
31 posted on 02/13/2009 7:30:02 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("No pale pastels,but bold colors".....Ronnie,we sure do miss you,sir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom

JMO but I am not a fan of IFV esp when the donor is unknown of either the egg/sperm.

Could end up with related IVF babies down the road not to mention the ethics of what is popping up in the news now.


32 posted on 02/13/2009 7:34:42 AM PST by Global2010 (God Will see us through. Persevere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

Your cat is clearly smarter than some people.


33 posted on 02/13/2009 7:39:05 AM PST by brytlea (You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes

I may consider bringing suit against him as an LA County resident.

I believe I have standing.


34 posted on 02/13/2009 7:42:15 AM PST by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: duckman

But “regulation” can never control imbeciles or thugs.


35 posted on 02/13/2009 7:42:54 AM PST by Oldpuppymax (AGENDA OF THE LEFT EXPOSED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Global2010
I believe there was a story a few years ago of a doctor in a fairly small community who was the previously anonymous donor on a large number of IVFs. What a mess for the resultant offspring and that community!
36 posted on 02/13/2009 7:54:06 AM PST by stayathomemom (Cat herder and empty nester)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

“You must be joking.”
I am against this type of regulation. However how do you stop doctors from giving people children they did not want? I am sure the lady who wanted 1 child and received 4 was not prepared to take care of that many. IMO


37 posted on 02/13/2009 7:59:40 AM PST by duckman (Jesus I trust in You. Mary take over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mercat

All fertility doctors do that, and I’m sure they’re required to by their insurers. It’s completely unenforceable, and most women realize that up front (and any woman actually faced with the decision would find out quickly, if she didn’t already know). It a smart thing to do, since it forces the patient to think about the reality of what could happen if she has more embryos transferred than the doctor is recommending, and about that the fact that she won’t be able to get any money from the doctor or his insurer if her gamble goes bad and she isn’t really willing to reduce.

In this case, however, I assume that this rogue doctor was encouraging patients to have lots of embryos transferred and just having them sign the promise to reduce “as a formality”. In which case, the document won’t hold up as a defense for him or his former insurer (and believe me, he doesn’t have an insurer now — he is utterly and completely uninsurable).


38 posted on 02/13/2009 8:18:58 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stayathomemom

I remember that creepy dude doctor.

He used his sperm on a majority of his patients.

Yeah what a mess and he was not exactly Mr. Handsome either with a big ole fat gene factor.


39 posted on 02/13/2009 8:23:24 AM PST by Global2010 (God Will see us through. Persevere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

ANY cat is smarter than most people. :D


40 posted on 02/13/2009 8:38:48 AM PST by gimme1ibertee ("No pale pastels,but bold colors".....Ronnie,we sure do miss you,sir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

“...stable relationship...healthy environment...certain standards...”

And the government would estasblish and administer these criteria, eh?

And just for IVF? Why? The vast majority of kids on the dole were created the traditional way. Shouldn’t these standards you suggest apply to anyone who wants to have kids?


41 posted on 02/13/2009 9:03:17 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kieri

Yeah, I agree.

But my question was in reply to your assertion that the IVF doctor ought to be prosecuted, and sued, and forced to pay child support for the kids. I asked if you thought this should happen in every case of IVF.


42 posted on 02/13/2009 9:18:41 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I agree that elective procedures (whatever they are) souldn’t be paid by medicaid. I’m not sure, but I don’t think medicaid paid for the IVF. But that’s not the issue anyway, is it?


43 posted on 02/13/2009 9:22:31 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

Again, what you suggest is that some govenment agency decides who can and who cannot have children, right?

And then, even if the decision was well-made according to SOMEBODY’S standard, circumstances change. people lose jobs. Relationships fracture. people get sick or go insane. So you really couldn’t guarantee that your IVF babies would be raised well and financially supported anyway, could you?


44 posted on 02/13/2009 9:29:53 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: duckman

I don’t think the doctor forced the procedure on her. Women take fertility drugs and allow multiple fertilized embryos to be implanted in their wombs and don’t want the children that ensue? Huh?? Now it’s getting really weird.

This is a big story because she DID NOT HAVE MULTIPLE ABORTIONS. Get it? This happens all the time, but the women allow the doctors to destroy the EXTRA babies.


45 posted on 02/13/2009 9:35:52 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes

It is the patients undergoing IVF who ultimately choose the number of embryos to replace, not the doctors, unless the doctor disagrees with the number and simply refuses to.

In the United States, the final decision is generally made on the day of transfer—after consulting the embryologist, the reproductive endocrinologist may suggest to the patient a number to replace, or may leave it entirely up to the patient. Most patients are not crazy, however, and are informed of the risks of replacing more than three.

In any case, the embryos belong to the patient, not the clinic.


46 posted on 02/13/2009 9:43:07 AM PST by olivia3boys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: duckman

The fertility industry in the United States is the probably the most free in the world. Freedom is a good thing. Be careful with your calls for more regulation. . .


47 posted on 02/13/2009 9:45:18 AM PST by olivia3boys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gimme1ibertee

Hmmm...my dog disagrees with you, but you know how dogs are... ;)


48 posted on 02/13/2009 12:30:51 PM PST by brytlea (You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib

“when this nutcase doctor impregnates welfare mothers with their litters”

They aren’t litters. They are children. Sick!

These stories really bring out the ugly at FR


49 posted on 02/13/2009 4:22:55 PM PST by Cherokee Conservative (Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

“Yes definitely. We need a government agency to decide who can and cannot have children.

You must be joking.”

Several freepers have suggested forced sterilization, and just taking peoples children away and giving them to someone else. We’re headed back to the 1920’s I guess, when Eugenics was all the rage, and useless eaters needed to be killed and sterilized. I wish people would read their history on this. They’d be more careful about what they propose to deal with it. It makes Conservatives sound flat evil sometimes.


50 posted on 02/13/2009 4:26:42 PM PST by Cherokee Conservative (Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson