I think they should take those kids and give them to people who can afford them, love them, and support them.

I think the Dr. that did the procedure is getting looked at also. I talked with Dr.'s at work and they all said it was unethical. i hope he loses his licenses. What was he thinking? What was she thinking? Like the rest of you, I think she invisioned big money for a TV how and publicity. Do we want something like this rewarded? Not me! if there is a TV show, I, for one, will not be watching it. Like kids, you don't reward bad behavior.

I

If she does end up getting rewarded for her apparent bad behavior.... then we'll be setting an example to other people out there and there will be more people trying to vie for their moment of celebrity and chance to be on tv - at the cost of innocent childrens lives.

I think the doc here was totally irresponsible. I also think she has mental health issues. I would think that there would be some sort of mental health check before someone gets IVF, especially for someone relatively young. Its a shame, I feel for her kids and hope she gets some help.

CA Taxpayer over here!! Not happy! Not happy at all with the crazy doctor implanting a gazillion embryos in the crazy lady! That is my take on it.....

I wish the Dydee Diaper service would kick in a few million diapers a week.....I did cloth with both of mine, I think plastic diapers are an ecological disaster, def this crew will take up a couple of landfills all by themselves!

Apparently, she received a disability settlement because she was injured when she worked in a mental hospital. When she and other staff were attempting to restrain a patient, another patient threw a desk at her, seriously injuring her back (I believe several disks were damaged in her back).

It is with this money that she apparently paid for the artificial inseminations. If she were only on SSI or even SSDI, she would not have had the money to pay for the insemination. It's sad, but in this country, you can get almost anything you are able to pay for. In our society of open morality, a doctor who asks questions like "are you married," or "how many children do you already have" or "how do you intend to support these children," could be as easily "called on the carpet" as for not asking these questions.

Only thirty years or so ago, a woman (unless she was quite wealthy) whose husband died could have her children taken away, regardless of how good a mother she was for the "good of the children."

Personal freedoms and where the line is drawn is getting fuzzier and fuzzier, and there are positive and negative results. The questions and the answers aren't easy. Who should be allowed to be a parent? How many children should any single or two parent household be allowed to have? Should we be able to take children away because they "might not" get the amount or type of attention or care some folks would wish (and who gets to decide)?

What about the families like the couple who adopted 20 disabled children? Neither work, because the care of the children takes all of their time, and they and the children are supported by the children's disability checks?

Are they "good people" or "bad people" because they are being supported by government assistance?

I do suspect that the woman does have a mental problem. Her own mother calls her a good mother who is "perfectly normal" except for her baby addiction. Why aren't there laws to protect her and her prospective children from herself? Why didn't her parents attempt to talk her out of the procedure, or contact the doctor and the friend who was being the sperm donor. Why was the doctor willing to do the procedure - did he ask questions - is he legally allowed to?

A lot of people failed this woman and her children (and her future children) long before it got to this point, and it's going to take a lot of people to help them.

"A lot of people failed this woman and her children (and her future children) long before it got to this point, and it's going to take a lot of people to help them."
VERY VERY well said!

I don't think it's a "good vs. bad" issue. It's a sensational story, one of which has an astronomical financial consequence to taxpayers (considering this is just one woman on a mission) and raises questions within all of us about where we stand on certain issues of ethics, which is always good IMHO.

Her parents DID beg her doctor to not do the procedure. Her mother has said this much. Clearly this woman's will won over all attempts at reasoning.

My point was only that it is a complicated issue. She still had "help" along the way, in the biological father and the doctor(s). My understanding of fertility treatments is fairly rudementary, but I did read that implanting more than 2 embryos in a woman under 35, especially if she has been able to conceive in vitro before is generally not the normal practice, so why on earth did the doctor implant s many (I think 6 and then two split into twins)?

This is a story of many people's mistakes not just one. Why did the doctor (I will assume a he, but the doctor could be female I just don't want to type he or she so many times) not refuse to help her sooner after maybe child 3 or 4 (especially after 3 of the children were receiving disability payments - did the doctor even know this - could he even legally ask)?

There are so many unanswered questions in this case, and the mother is the least of mine. She's crazy enough to want 14 children she could not conceive on her own, well someone crazy enough to want 14 dogs would have trouble in most cities getting away with it. Why and how did she accomplish this without more barriers. Did her parents bring up their concerns to her doctor (he can't legally talk to them, but they can legally talk to him)? Did the same doctor or fertility clinic oversee her previous 5 in vitro pregnancies? If so, why and how on earth was it so easy for her to accomplish, not just once but over multiple pregnancies?

Ya exactly, if Pampers doesn't want to help with these kids (I believe that was said in a previous post) I can't blame them because then they'd be enabling this kind of behavior. I'm not cold hearted and I am a mother but personally I believe this is her problem not the tax payers of california, not pampers, not huggies, nadya's problem and she needs to deal with it on her own. Or at least sue the doctor claiming duress or something but it's ridiculous to assume that state assistance should take care of her.

In an interview she said that it takes a village to raise a child so it will take a lot more to raise mine.....um ya maybe back in the turn of the 20th century but not anymore take care of your own kids!!!

I have suffered infertility. My husband and I went through 10 years of fertility treatments and were finally blessed with our little guy through IVF. Where I had IVF done, the most embryos they will implant is 2 for a woman under 35 and 3 in a woman over 35. I can't believe they implanted 6 in her. She said in her interview that 6 were implanted each time. I have a hard time believing that she has had at least 42 embryos implanted in her. I think the doctor is very irresponsible. Those poor kids are bound to have issues because they were born as octuplets. I just think it is so sad for the children. I do believe she loves them; but I think she is mentally disturbed as well. There is no possible way to care for all those children on her own. I feel sorry for the taxpayers of California who are undoubtably going to have to pay for the hospital bills. I guess there were 46 people in the delivery room to make it happen and now the babies will stay there until they are well enough to go home. That hospital bill is going to be huge. She says she doesn't want to go on welfare; but thinks it is OK to start a page on the internet asking random people to support her children. I don't get that.

I think that it does take a village to raise a child, but what I think the mother doesn't realize is that help doesn't always come in the way one might expect it. I don't see any companies wanting to risk negative press by donating supplies to her. I don't know about private citizens, if she has a website and enough folks contribute to it, she may be able to support her kids (basically by becoming a circus act), but what I think is more likely is that her situation will make many, if not most folks, too uncomfortable to help - because of not knowing what is the best way to help, or feeling that they are only rewarding and encouraging irresponsible behavior. If that is to occur, the woman will be mostly stuck with her parents, and even three adults trying to support 14 children, I think it's very likely that they will be unable to do it, and social services will be getting involved.

And the village will be watching her. At any sign of neglect of those kids, social services will be involved. And because of the notoriety of the case, the caseworker, no matter how overworked, will probably make sure every i is dotted and every t crossed. No social services department is going to want to be known as the organization that dropped the ball on such an infamous case.

It may be a case of be careful what you wish for, because the village will be in her business like she never expected. Even when aid is given, she is going to be held to a higher standard than even than the mother who "accidentally" had 14 children, or the mother who had 14 children and was supporting them until her husband died or left. If you need the village to help you raise your child or children, you have to accept that the village may have very different ideas on how that should be done, and there may be strings attached to any help that IS offered - very big strings.

I do think that laws are likely to be proposed and perhaps even passed, because of this case, to prevent such things from happening again. I just hope this case doesn't panic folks to where they're willing to give rights away for themselves and future generations. Any law would have to be worded very carefully, that attempts to penalize folks for having children, because the example in other countries often hasn't been very positive.