Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


So this is what a mother who is about to give birth to eight babies looks like

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 February 2009
THIS is the dramatic picture of Nadya Suleman just eight days before she gave birth to octuplets last month.
Given her size, it is a surprise that doctors did not know how many babies the 33-year-old was about to have until they were born.

The photograph was published as more concerns about the cost of looking after the babies – along with Ms Suleman's six other children – emerged.

Even before the single, unemployed mother gave birth to the octuplets, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 (£345) a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. That amount is set to rise with her growing brood – all born using fertility treatment.

On top of this bill, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested undisclosed reimbursement from Medi-Cal – California's Medicaid programme, for care of the premature babies, according to reports.

News of the growing costs has increased criticism over Ms Suleman's decision to have so many children. "It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments," wrote Tim Rutten, a Los Angeles Times columnist.

On the internet, bloggers heaped insults on the mother-of-14, calling her an "idiot" and criticising her decision to have more children when she could not afford the ones she already had.

Ms Suleman's spokesman, Mike Furtney, asked for understanding.

He said: "I would just ask people to consider her situation and she has been under a tremendous amount of pressure that no-one could be prepared for"

Mr Furtney added that he, Ms Suleman and her family had received death threats and had received messages that were "disgusting things that would never be proper to put in any story".

Ms Suleman said she did not consider the public assistance she received to be welfare and did not intend to remain on it for long.

A Nadya Suleman family website has also been set up to help collect donations for the children.

It features pictures of the mother and each octuplet and has instructions for making donations by cheque or credit card.

Ms Suleman, whose six older children range in age from two to seven, said three of them received disability payments.

She said one was autistic, another had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, known as ADHD, and a third experienced a mild speech delay with "tiny characteristics of autism". She refused to say how much they received in payments.

In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child.

The Suleman octuplets' medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Californian governor who is struggling to close a $42 billion budget gap by cutting services, declined to comment on the octuplets.

Read more at www.tmz.com








Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 February 2009 9:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Pregnancy and birth
 
1

Rob Bennett,

Point Piper Australia 13/02/2009 00:35:58
Come on, if the US can afford to spend more than 3 trillion dollars on the Iraq war under false pretenses then why not look after it's citizens and do the right thing for once.
2

SouthernGent,

13/02/2009 00:40:04
"Ms Suleman said she did not consider the public assistance she received to be welfare "

Hence the problem.........

Unfortunately for this country and many others, this is the mind set of many like her.

I once talked to a 33 year old man that was "determined" to be unable to work (he wasn't, just lazy (proven), and never worked a day in his life) and he refers to his monthly check from the gov't as his "pay check".

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 13/02/2009 00:58:43


That's the biggest tummy I have ever seen, for a pregnant lady, but I agree with Rob @#1!
Nadya Suleman's babies, are each and one, an individual, that should and receive, the best we can give them, this is 'new-life' after-all!

4

SouthernGent,

13/02/2009 01:09:19
#1
"why not look after it's citizens and do the right thing for once."

So you are saying the "citizens" should not be required to "do the right thing".

Had she made a responsible choice, the gov't wouldn't NEED to "do the right thing".
5

ScotLJM,

Richmond 13/02/2009 02:06:31
This woman really needs to have her head examined ASAP, she's a nut case!!! She already has six children at home, three are special care, paid for by welfare, and being looked after by her parents, and now she has eight more. These babies will cost $1.3 million dollars for the current hospital care, then we taxpayers will have to support them too. The doctor that gave her the in vitro insemination should lose his license. It is criminal.
6

Miss A.,

13/02/2009 02:53:23
Medical will cover very little of this. When I think about how hard my husband and I work each month to scrape by, while raising 2 kids, trying to squeeze a dollar out of a dime, I get very angry that people like her find ways to bilk the system and make me pay for it. This is a bitter pill to swallow.

I think the doctor that did this procedure should be responsible for child support until the kids are of age. He certainly can afford it and he is the closest thing to a father they've had so far.


7

Farmernot,

13/02/2009 10:00:29
Too many Killie Pies I reckon !!!
8

Number 6,

Germany 13/02/2009 10:17:41
What a revolting specimen.

God help those poor little mites and her current children who will now be abandoned for the new goldmine in the house.

Only in America would you find doctors agreeing to treat this woman after she had already bred half a dozen others.

How on earth is she going to afford their upkeep?

How will she remember their names.

Will they all be allocated names ?.
9

Sgian Dubh,

13/02/2009 11:27:52
#8Number 6,
She is not going to 'afford their upkeep', the American tax payers are going to do that for her.
In an interview with this woman some weeks ago, she revealed that she had 'a right' to have ivf treatment for her children because, in her words, all she ever wanted to do since being a young girl, was be a mum!!
Disgraceful.
At least it is American tax payers who will fork out for this woman's irresponsibility and then some of the assistance she receives is in the form of 'food tokens'.
One more reason why IVF treatment should be banned!
Unfortunately, this situation can happen here too:-(
10

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 13/02/2009 11:30:55
yes she has recieved some harsh words and treatmeants from joe public,but what about foreigners who come here and produce large families,also bring uncles and aunts and even the village idiot as well
no one says anything ,because they get branded a racist
no doubt thats what ill get called as well
but i remember a coloured family who had so many kids ,the local joke was the next ones getting called apollo after all the rockets(high numbers)
well they are here now so hope they get treated well
11

Sgian Dubh,

13/02/2009 11:31:01
The children should be taken from her and offered for adoption by parents who are responsible enough to care for them properly, and not a selfish, irresponsible, immature scrounger like this woman.
12

Arbroath1320,

13/02/2009 11:58:51
Totally agree Sgian Dubh.
This woman is irresponsible and selfish.

The whole issue of IVF should be reviewed as the immoral disgrace that it is.
13

Scottie,

South Africa 13/02/2009 12:00:47
This women should have been sterilized after she had her first 6 children imo, and the doctor who gave her this round of treatment should be struck off the roles. In today's times, when 2 countries have over a billion people, nobody should be having more than a couple of children anyway, how inconsiderate and terribly selfish.

But I had to laugh at Schwarzenegger not being brave enough to comment on this ... so much for the Terminator ;)
14

Tartan Viking,

13/02/2009 12:22:42
That photo reminds me of my childhood when I had a spacehopper.
15

Maximus,

Roberton 13/02/2009 12:49:30
It is interesting to note that whilst Ms Suleman is happy to trust God with providing for her family, she was less trusting of his provision of the family in the first place. Whilst this must surely be an exception for a deeply troubled woman, IVF remains a selfish act and panders to the ‘I want’ and ‘I must have’ culture that pervades our society today.
16

,

13/02/2009 13:24:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

wee_one,

13/02/2009 13:48:30
Woah....! Much as I agree that this a disgraceful case, I must take issue with numbers 9 and 12 calling for banning of IVF and calling it an 'immoral disgrace'.

That's like banning cars because some people behave recklessly in them! As someone who is currently having problems getting pregnant, IVF may well turn out to be the only way I can have a child of my own - although we are not quite at that stage yet. And before someone says anything - yes, I would love to adopt, but no doubt someone will find some ridiculous reason why we cannot do so. I am led to believe that adoption is a very, very difficult process and can understand why it puts a lot of people off even trying.

The doctor who allowed this woman to be implanted with 8 embryos is the one who should be criticised, not IVF itself. In the UK I'm pretty sure there are laws that only allow a maximum of 2 embryos to be implanted in a woman of Ms Suleman's age. Are there no such laws in the US?
18

Incandescent,

13/02/2009 15:00:21
Expect to see her on Extreme Makeover or The Swan getting a freebie tummy-tuck. The ratings practically guarantee it.
19

SouthernGent,

13/02/2009 15:16:43
You do mean "poster child for the I don't want to work so give me free money for me and my kids Democratic Party"

I thought that is what you meant.
20

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 13/02/2009 15:53:52
"Ms Suleman said she did not consider the public assistance she received to be welfare and did not intend to remain on it for long."

Presumably she won't be on it "for long" because of the fortune to be made from media deals.
21

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

13/02/2009 16:08:29
18...I agree..ridiculous to state that this is "Another reason to ban IVF"...what are the others pray tell?...

Psychiatric intervention is in order here...and that is only for the doctor/surgeon who gave this woman the go ahead...she...is either a selfish amoral wretch or badly in need of psychiatric intervention herself...either way I feel for her first children gawd knows what this state of affairs is going to do to them psychologically..and as for her new babies...hopefully the social work services in the USA will be keeping more than an eye on this woman's mothering capabilities....
22

kieran.....,

la havana 13/02/2009 20:59:45
She found enough cash to get her lips done, she should be fixed.
23

SouthernGent,

13/02/2009 22:34:37
To add insult to injury..... this woman reportedly received a one time settlement from an on the job back injury to the tune of 164k dollars. She hid it from her parents and her parents filed bankruptcy trying to help care for her kids. Pathetic and sad.

Does the above picture look like someone with a career ending back injury?????? Don't think so.
24

,

14/02/2009 00:07:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

,

14/02/2009 02:47:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Yankee girl,

California 27/02/2009 21:08:32
Gadzooks, that's quite a belly. Imagine all that skin she has left...(shudder).

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.