Nadya Shulman is a one woman mini bail out. Taxpayers are going to pay for her and her 14 kids while she pursues a masters degree.
A lot of people seem to be blaming the doctor. I don't see why you'd want to do that. The doctor had 2 options, say "yes" or "no". He's screwed either way:
If he says "no", he's a villain denying care. As people on this website have said, what they want is care delivered as requested by the patient.
Note: "That's what a human right looks like and feels like. Care given when care is needed. Period."
Who decides? The patient. Most of the healthcare articles seem to mirror this desire; Donna Smith's article very eloquently conveys it.
On the other hand, people seem to say the doctor is at fault, he should have denied her this treatment she sought. Well, isn't that the fundamental principle of an HMO? If I were a doctor, I would never deny care. Let the insurance adjudicator be the bad guy. I don't need that patient's anger directed at me. Who am I to be an ethics judge? Let the elected judges do that. My job as a doctor is to provide care as care is requested. The courts are very clear about embryos, they are the property of the patient. If a patient has 8 embryos and wants 8 implanted, the doctor must do so. That is the legal precedent.
It's a tough problem. My solution is to have voluntary taxes. If you as a CA taxpayer wish to bail her out, pay the tax. If you do not, do not pay the tax. Consider the consequences. If you do not pay the tax, you are more than likely condemning her & her flock of children to a rather inhospitable life, possibly death.