Politics | 02/13/2009 9:05 am

Octo-Mom Nadya Suleman Receives Death Threats; Her Octo-Doc Over-Impregnates Again!

More shocking details surrounding the octuplet mother Nadya Suleman and her fertilization specialist Dr. Michael Kamrava

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Octo-doc giving Suleman an ultrasound in 2006

© AP

C’mon, people, lay off Nadya Suleman’s innocent children! They never asked the fertility clinic to over-impregnate their single, unemployed mother.

According to reports, the Los Angeles police are currently investigating death threats aimed at Nadya Suleman — the octuplet-bearing mother who recently gave birth to eight babies to boost her brood to 14 children — because she enjoys the company. The police are also assisting Suleman’s publicist handle angry e-mails aimed not only at Suleman, but at her family. How are the children responsible for this? Why take aim at the young ones?

This week Suleman launched a website asking for donations, but also inviting visitors to send comments. A furor of controversy has erupted since Suleman’s pregnancy, from physicians questioning the regulations of fertility clinics to women questioning Suleman’s objectives.

The fertilization specialist responsible for over-impregnating Suleman is also under fire. Not only is the American Society of Reproductive Medicine investigating the octo-doc Michael Kamrava for implanting too many embryos in Suleman, the octo-doc is also reportedly under investigation for over-implanting another woman! Dr. Kamrava reportedly implanted a 49-year-old mother of three with seven embryos — when the woman already had three grown children from a previous marriage and just wanted one more child.

Yesterday, TMZ got their hands on a photograph of Suleman looking enormously swollen and ready to explode shortly before her miracle delivery on January 26. Meanwhile, Suleman is living in an undisclosed location and spends time with all her children. Her eight newborns are expected to remain in the hospital for several weeks.

95 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I don’t think it will jeopardize her career; headline grabbing doesn’t.

By Marina B. on 02/15/2009 3:22 pm

Marina, Check out these stats for year 2004 in California. During that year there were some 37,317 kids removed from their homes. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table6_4.htm Of those, some 2,016 were removed for reasons other than physical abuse, neglect, or sexual abuse. [Granted, not all of the 2016 kids may have been emotionally abused.] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/table6_5.htm I don’t know that emotional abuse is what the psychiatrist is basing her report upon, although that seems to me to be the logical deduction. Nonetheless, what it does is put the wheels in motion for the State agency to keep an eye on the kids. That’s a very reasonable step in my opinion.

By Andrea Brandon on 02/15/2009 3:41 pm

e-mail alert

“Psychological maltreatment” is not the same as emotional neglect. It’s things like killing the child’s puppy in front of the child, to punish the child or teach it a lesson. Abuse or maltreatment are different, legally, from neglect. Physical and educational neglect are categories for which children are removed from the home because they are categories that have physically proveable manifestations. The same is not true of emotional neglect (vs. emotional abuse or maltreatment), because, unless the emotional neglect is so severe that the child “fails to thrive” physically, there is little or no physical (as opposed to psychological) manifestation.

By Marina B. on 02/15/2009 4:05 pm

And again, unless this psychologist has observed the family, or someone who has contact with the family has reported something to her which she is passing on to the authorities, she has nothing to go on other than what she has read in the papers. Have you read anything that rises to “abuse” that has actually occurred?

By Marina B. on 02/15/2009 4:09 pm

Interesting conversation … don’t you think it will be just a matter of time before real “physical” neglect comes into play. No single person, especially one who seems seems to suffer from serious delusions, is capable of taking care of 14 young children. There just aren’t enough hands to go around. And if she is getting threats and needs to be isolated from the public, that will just add to the stress she is under. This thing is going to blow up very soon.

By EKA - on 02/15/2009 9:24 pm

e-mail alert

EKA, I agree that this is a very, very bad situation, and I feel for all the children. I do hope a very careful eye is kept on this family, but people like this psychologist crying “wolf” will just make it less likely that the authorities will listen if/when something actually happens. Actually, my biggest concern is that there is no way this many very young children will get the emotional nurturing they need, even if their physical needs are met.

By Marina B. on 02/15/2009 10:15 pm

The difference between emotional abuse and psychological abuse????? We were fielding that question in the late 1960s on a state mental health commission, and into about 1972. Not now! One expert that delineated it was Burton White (The First Five Years of Life), and in the 80s we had children removed from their homes for the potential itself. Problems are, often the wrong kid is removed, when they should all be removed. The possibility with this mother in question are so numerous it’s frightening, one is MCP, and that must be considered. Look at the infamous Texas case that “traveled” to Illinois, where authorities caught the mother, but she moved back to Texas (several of her babies die or were disabled by then), and no one could find her. Guess where she was? Working in the pedi dept. of a Texas medical center’s ER!!! Some smart person I knew then, realized who she was … thank goodness.

By C jay on 02/16/2009 1:59 am

e-mail alert

I hope I didn’t do that. :0(

By C jay on 02/16/2009 2:00 am

e-mail alert

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/disorders/factitious_disorders/hic_munchau…

By C jay on 02/16/2009 2:02 am

e-mail alert

The boyfriend should be held responsible for child support as he willingly provided the sperm for this use. He is the father, whether the pregnancy was natural or not. In addition, this woman obviously has some mental health issues and the people around her continue to act as enablers. I can’t fathom why the Doctor didn’t recognize that there may have been some deep seated issues and recommend that she get help before she continued with the fertility treatments after the third or fourth baby. Especially since some of these children have developmental problems and need special care. How can he call himself a “professional”? Obviously her open checkbook was his only concern.

By Susan shubi on 02/15/2009 6:04 pm

e-mail alert

I agree on all counts, Susan.

By Marina B. on 02/15/2009 6:09 pm

Good points.

By EKA - on 02/15/2009 9:25 pm

e-mail alert

Marina: I understand your point, although it should be noted that the definition of “psychological maltreatment” is far from standardized. In the context of the links I listed, “maltreatment” includes all reasons why a child would be removed from a home; “psychological maltreatment” refers to all causes other than physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect, for which a child may be removed from a home. Psychological maltreatment is considered severe if it produces harm or severe emotional disturbance. Has that occurred in the Suleman family? I don’t know. Some experts have commented on the similarity of Suleman’s actions related to reproduction as compulsive and similar in some ways to animal hoarders. Compulsive hoarding is commonly driven by obsessional fears. It is distorted beliefs about the importance of possessions, and excessive emotional attachments to possessions. UCLA has been studying this. The DSM-IV-TR defines compulsions as “repetitive behaviors” and gives examples that all have an active motoric or cognitive component. The actions or mental acts “reduce anxiety.” In short, one wonders if Suleman has been reproducing as a means of reducing her anxiety [in spite of what she says]. There are several other psychiatric and psychological reasons that might also come into play. We do not know the details of the report filed by psychiatrist [not psychologist] Carole Lieberman. I can only assume that she has credible information that can be acted upon.

By Andrea Brandon on 02/15/2009 8:23 pm

e-mail alert

Here, here, Andrea, excellent synopsis. It is certainly a serious professional concern why the woman favored IVF, too instead of direct impregnation. Dr. Lieberman is a most credible professional.

By C jay on 02/16/2009 2:06 am