What person in their right mind with 6 kids would undergo fertilization treatment? Oh yeah, the dumb bitch that just had 8 more. All through in vitro. And without a partner.
Now, let's put aside her mental and financial condition for a minute. What doctor in his/her right mind would agree to this knowing her history? Or, what health plan would cover it?
This last point is important because as the government gets more and more involved in health care decisions (and with Obama as president and Daschle in his cabinet--if he pays his taxes it will), one thing they'll talk about is reigning in costs. The Prez talks about using technology to reduce costs, but at some point, someone's gonna have to talk about rationing care. Yup, doctors not treating everything.
Our country's attitude towards no limit health care does increase costs. We want every procedure, every new test (OK, that's also driven by avoiding malpractice suits), and every new drug. When Oregon tried to do this in the 90's, the health care reformers in the Clinton administration were less than happy. And it's the same folks running things now in that arena.
However, we cannot control health care costs without limits on care. Rationing care pits the interests of those who are sick with rare, but expensive to treat conditions against providing more basic care to the poor. With even more limited funds, a government funded system that is getting less revenue cannot do both. Policy decisions will have to be made as to where to draw the line.
Oregon ranked conditions and their treatments and every two years the legislature decides where to draw the line based on the state's budget. Forgetting about the scary part that politicians do this instead of doctors, someone (some group) will have to do this. And that's because we, the health care consumer, and doctors, who only get reimbursed for doing something, can't say no. But, if we want less expensive health care, we're going to have to. Even if that means not having more than 6 babies through in vitro fertilization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i take issue with your "without a partner" comment. i've been a single mother, first from pregnancy through the age of 2.5 years with C1 and then again when C1 was 10-11 and C2 was 6-7 years old. i can absolutely, positively state that it is MUCH easier to parent alone, at least for me. if i had not gotten knocked up and/or married by the age of 30, i would have absolutely gone to a fertility clinic as a single woman and had multiple embryos introduced! i can't imagine triplets as a single person, but i would have most likely stopped the embryo transfer at two.
everything else, you're spot on.
I'm not down on women raising a child alone when that's the best of the possible circumstances for the kid. But 6 or 14? That's just nuts.
Post a Comment