Iowa Septuplets and Fertility Drugs

* The Times’ Nov. 21 editorial concerning fertility drugs was far too timid. Dose for dose, those drugs are far more devastating than crack cocaine. How much do those underweight babies cost taxpayers (or other insurance plan participants) and how many of them grow up to lead normal or better lives?

The drugs should be permitted--if at all--only to couples who can post a $2-million bond for the medical costs and show sufficient means to raise at least five children without burdening society.

Fertility drugs offer absolutely no redeeming social value. A couple capable of raising a family and unable to have children of their own have the option of adopting.

GEORGE TUCKER

Redondo Beach

* Re “Oh, Baby! Iowa Woman Has Septuplets,” Nov. 20: Is there any reason this needs to be on the front page, reminding me that there are people out there so desperate to have additional children that they will go to any length to give birth?

Nowhere in your article are such issues noted as overpopulation, or the fact that thousands of orphaned children could use a good home. Neither is it mentioned whether the McCaugheys ever took into consideration how they would be able to support eight children (the septuplets and their first child), not to mention plan for their college expenses, etc., when they decided to use a fertility drug.

This isn’t “Little House on the Prairie” or “The Waltons.” I don’t think most families in this day and age need as many as eight children. The decision to use fertility drugs and risk multiple births is a serious issue.

BRIAN ROSENBERG

Los Angeles

* Though I congratulate the McCaugheys on a successful birth, I find myself growing more and more sickened by the awards placed upon a couple (and their physician) who willfully choose to endanger a mother’s life, a child’s life and ultimately, a society’s life.

Every day, I witness families struggling, working two jobs to support their two children. Never do I see a year’s worth of free baby food, a new car and other cash and prizes going to the average man, wife and child (Nov. 21). To applaud a couple, who have one child already, for entering the celebrity sweepstakes is alarming.

KATHERINE FUGATE

Los Angeles

* Once again, Julianne Malveaux manages to turn over enough stones until she can find an element of racism to support her position (Commentary, Nov. 23). With regard to the Iowa septuplets, she poses the question, “Why is society so eager to embrace some of its children uand so reluctant to provide a safety net for others?” The answer is that some were an accident of technology, but the vast majority were an accident of lust or foolish choices.

Let society tell people that there are consequences for making foolish choices. Get the government out of the business of giving unconditional support and give the money back to the taxpayers (the “village,” to use Malveaux’s term). I’m sure the “village” will be much more willing to help.

MARK A. OVERTURF

Reseda