Doctor Defends Nadya Suleman’s Fertility Treatments

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A doctor testifying on behalf of “Octomom” Nadya Suleman’s fertility doctor repeatedly defended the in vitro treatments she received, saying it was appropriate considering her impaired fertility and desire for a very large family.

Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg testified in a hearing that resumed Wednesday in Los Angeles in the Medical Board of California’s licensing hearing for Dr. Michael Kamrava.

The state licensing agency is seeking to revoke or suspend the physician’s license, accusing him of gross negligence in his treatment of Suleman and two other patients.

Steinberg, a longtime professional acquaintance of Kamrava’s and a fertility doctor, says Kamrava has to take into account his clinic’s low success rate when treating patients for fertility.

Closing arguments are expected to begin Wednesday or Thursday.

(© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

  • Teufel Wolf

    Octo mom was on welfare and you allowed her to have 8 more children. As a taxpayer I want this doctor tarred and feathered!

  • Al

    Since when is a facility’s “low success rate” a consideration when treating a patient, other than perhaps it is a reason why the physician should not be practicing that type of medicine to begin with . . i.e., low success=lousy work ?!?!? If anything, a “low success rate” is clear evidence that Kamrava’s treatment of Suleman was grossly negligent . . he should have never touched her to begin with . . . along with all the other reasons why he should not have touched her that have been brought out in previous articles regarding this situation . . .

  • bdj

    It may be that the treatment in general is appropriate, but as it relates to Nadya,certainly not. With no steady income and I believe six children already, this doctor should have his license revolked, or at least suspeneded.

  • Saber 1

    Let this doctor pay for those kids. If he wants, he can move in with the fugly mom.

  • guest

    At her age,total generation gap! I know, Mom was 40 when I was born.not the same as 20 and haviing kids!!

  • bigjiim1

    Who cares she wanted a large family. she cannot afford one and I am tired of working my a** off to pay for all these kids these lazy people are having that I end up supporting with my tax dollars. If you have a child and go on welfare then you should be the public concubine or protitute, I am already paying for the kid I should be entitled to have the se*. If tyhat is not possible then income tax rate for ACLU attornies should be 75%

blog comments powered by Disqus
Sandwich Generation

Listen Live