babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
OctoMom 2? Woman on 12th Kid with IVF
An Australian woman who just gave birth to her eleventh and twelfth children – most with the help of fertility treatments – may be on track to become the next OctoMom.
Nadya Suleman made headlines first for having eight babies at once, but the outrage was over the six kids she ALREADY had at home. And much of that swirled around the doctors who allowed it happen.
So what’s the story with Dale Chalk? The first woman in the world to successfully carry two separate sets of quads (sadly, one of girls born the second time around did not survive), she has also had two single pregnancies – all thanks to IVF. Now she’s on birth numbers eleven and twelve thanks to a set of twins delivered recently in a Brisbane hospital.
Unlike OctoMom, Chalk is married, and her husband has income coming in to help support the family. Also unlike OctoMom – she says she’s done at eleven kids (remember, one didn’t survive). So hopefully not on track to fourteen like Suleman.
Still, her case has drawn criticism in her native Australia, especially after the second set of quadruplets were conceived. And it offers a look at one major bone of contention in the fertility debate: if the numbers per pregnancy can be kept down to just one or two, is it a family’s right to keep on going for fertility intervention if they can provide for the resultant kids?
After all, we might make fun of the Duggars, but no one is stepping in to tell Michelle and Jim Bob’s doctors to tie her tubes or give him a snip. They’re conceiving without fertility help, but like the Chalks, they’re also supporting their kids. Overpopulation issues aside, if the risks of a single birth – or even a twin birth – are not the stuff of the quadruplet or octuplet births that forced a major look at Suleman’s doctors’ ethics.
Image: Courier Mail (the Chalks with the bulk of their brood back in 2007)
More by this author:
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
Barb commented on Oct 13 09 at 11:04 amI’m not going to say people should stop at X number of kids, but I think it’s irresponsible to bring this many kids into the world because I DON’T put overpopulation issues aside. It’s a very real threat to our kids, grandkids, etc.
Kikiriki commented on Oct 13 09 at 11:44 amI think some of us would really like someone to step in and tell the Duggars they can’t have any more kids, precisely because of overpopulation issues. But the only people we can say ‘no’ to are those who can’t do it themselves, and the only way we can do that is by regulating their ability to have multiple births multiple times through IVF or IUI.
Em commented on Oct 13 09 at 1:24 pmInfertility treatments are “big business”. There will always be people out there capitalizing on their profits. Unfortunately this is not the norm, despite the popularity of news stories such as this.
lems commented on Oct 13 09 at 2:49 pmThe Duggars do not support themselves, by the way. Daddy Dugar served one term in the Alabama state legislature and has free (government run/provided) health care for him and his entire family FOR LIFE. They registered their home as a church – so they don’t pay taxes. WE pay for the Duggars. The Duggars beg for “special treatment” from local businesses for everything from food to furniture. They are insane and should not be allowed to continue contributing to the world’s overpopulation.
Elendy commented on Oct 13 09 at 8:06 pmSo I am no fan of the Duggars, but I do have to say that what they are doing is quite different from what this Australian woman (and that awful Octomom) are doing because having 17 (or however many children) babies as individual pregnancies is completely different; and carries a great deal less risk, than carrying even 2 fetuses at a time.
The human uterus was made to carry one fetus at a time. Twins (and sometimes, though rarely, higher order multiples) do happen naturally, but those pregnancies and deliveries carry a great deal more risk – to the mother, and to the babies. It is very difficult to carry multiple fetuses to term; and, even though we have become so inured to it due to how common it has become with fertility trts, babies born at 35 weeks or younger are a lot more fragile, require time in NICU (which requires A LOT of money) and may very well have physical or developmental problems for the rest of their lives.
Coincidentally, there was an excellent front-page article in last weekend’s NYTimes all about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/health/11fertility.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=IVF&st=cse
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Wendy Michaels 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0