Nadya Suleman: Octuplet Mom!

In January 2009, Nadya Suleman, a single mother already of six children under the age of seven, gave birth to octuplets. All 14 of her children were conceived by in vitro fertilization. That is an issue all in its self. This extraordinary conception has been the focus of many ethical debates. Why would someone want 14 children all under the age of seven? I have a three year old and to me 14 is suicide, especially when your living conditions are not stable. She is reportedly $23,225 behind on their mortgage payments, which may lead to a public auction on May 5. How is she going to support all of these kids? I think she’s counting on endorsements and possible television show interest to profit from her situation. So that raises the question, did she conceive her children to gain personal and financial benefits? She apparently asked for 2 million dollars in endorsements shortly after the birth of the octuplets. It was also reported that Suleman is in the market to buy a $1.24 million home. But there is no financial benefit in that huh? She has made interviews on several shows, Dr. Phil, Today show, & Dateline just to name a few. To defend herself from selfish accusations, Suleman said that she dreamed of having a "huge family" because she lacked a "feeling of self and identity", but on January 10, 2009 it was revealed that Suleman, who suffers from a "depressive disorder," collected nearly $168,000 for a work-related back injury she sustained in 1999. Is just me or isn’t a vast amount of money being circulated by woman that does not have a JOB! So let make sure I got this right, she receives disability money from the state of California for a “severe” back injury that occurred in 1999, but she is able to give birth eight children. Not to mention she has had other children since 1999 before the octuplets. So how is she going to care for fourteen children? Newborns demand a lot of care and attention and she has eight of them not to mention six other children under seven. I could go all day on this because there are so many angles and that can be explored.

Conscientious Objection

Pertaining to the debate on conscientious objections, I do understand that different people have different values, beliefs, etc. and it is under their own discretion of what they will and will not do, but where do you draw the line. It is the duty of physicians to act in the best interest of the patient. If physicians are able to refuse care to patients because of personal beliefs, then that is diminishing the role of medicine and the duty to care in the best interest of the patient. It would then be in the personal interest of the doctor. Doctors do have a right to refuse care, but letting them refuse care because of personal beliefs broadens the spectrum of prejudice. What if a doctor refuses to treat black people or homosexuals because of his/her personal beliefs? Is that right? People enter the occupational field of Medicine because they want or have a passion for helping people and does that mean filtering the people who he/she helps and cares for. If there is no imminent danger to the physician or patient, I don’t think it is right to refuse care because of personal beliefs because it is a moral obligation for a physician to care for a patient in a patient’s best interest disregarding their own interest.

Spreading a man made epidemic!

“Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus” read the front page of the London Times newspapers on May 11, 1987. The story suggested that the smallpox eradication vaccine program which was sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO) was responsible for the emergence of HIV/AIDS in Africa. The smallpox vaccine connections to AIDS explains why Brazil, which was the only South American country covered in the WHO eradication campaign, has the highest incidence of AIDS in that region. Robert Gallo, a co-discoverer of HIV and director of the Institute of Human Virology, stated "The link between the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say it actually happened but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV." This raises a very controversial question. Was AIDS really introduced in Africa during the WHO vaccine program?

This is very controversial topic that has ignited the notion that HIV/AIDS is a man made disease and “us” humans were the test subjects. I find it very hard to believe that HIV/AIDS is not manmade and the fact that the WHO aided in its emergence around the world makes me believe that at any time we all can become “lab rats” without giving any consent. AIDS has the highest prevalence in Sub-Saharan “Black Africa” where the vast majority of the people are dark skinned. “I’m not gonna even jump into this big racial spill but facts are facts.” Or maybe the fact that in the US, the virus was thought to only be a homosexual disease, “but I’m not gonna get into a big spill about prejudices either”. The HIV/AIDS epidemic gives me the feeling I felt the first time I heard about The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Except in this case it is on a much larger scales and more lives have been sacrificed, but for what? Science? Is it not wrong to target human beings and make them your “lab rats”? Experimenting on human being especially to the extent of giving people HIV/AIDS or letting them live with Syphilis to monitor the effect it has on humans if untreated is devaluing the life of a human being. We have come so far in society but yet we are still so far away from where we need to be.