'Octomom' doctor stripped of medical license

Jun 02, 2011

The fertility doctor who helped a woman give birth to octuplets in 2009 will be stripped of his license by the California Medical Board because of "gross negligence."

The board revoked Dr Michael Kamrava's effective July 1, according to documents on its website alleging a number of cases of malpractice, chief among them the creation of the tabloid sensation dubbed "Octomom."

The Beverly Hills-based board said Kamrava had committed "gross negligence, repeated negligent acts and incompetence" when he repeatedly implanted multiple into Nadya Suleman, identified as "N.S." from 2002 to 2008.

In 2009 Suleman -- who was unmarried, unemployed and already had six children -- gave birth to octuplets after Kamrava implanted 12 embryos the year before, far more than the maximum recommended three.

The medical board filed two lawsuits against Kamrava in 2010, accusing him of negligence and of failing to recommend that Suleman consult a mental health specialist.

The board has faulted Kamrava's treatment of other patients as well, including his alleged failure to tell one of his patients she was at risk of after abnormal .

Explore further: Early use of tracheostomy for mechanically ventilated patients not associated with improved survival

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Octuplets' birth raises bioethical questions

Feb 04, 2009

The birth of octuplets to a Southern California woman has raised several thorny ethical questions and trained a spotlight on the practice of reproductive medicine.

Malpractice caps lure docs to Texas

Oct 05, 2007

Medical malpractice award caps in Texas have swollen the ranks of medical specialists and license applications at the state medical board, official said.

Single embryo implants work better: study

Mar 25, 2009

Implanting single embryos into the wombs of women seeking to boost fertility is more effective and less costly than placing two embryos at a time, a pair of studies released Wednesday found.

Baby born from embryo frozen almost 20 years ago

Oct 12, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A healthy baby has been born from an embryo that was kept frozen for nearly 20 years, smashing the previous record of 13 years. The new baby is a biological sibling of a child born to the ...

Recommended for you

People on higher incomes are happier with new knees

17 hours ago

Knee replacement surgery is a very common procedure. However, it does not always resolve function or pain in all the recipients of new knees. A study by Robert Barrack, MD and his colleagues from the Washington University ...

New search engine finds rare diagnoses

17 hours ago

Doctors are trained to think "common disease" when they meet patients in their practices, and as they rarely or never meet a rare disease, it often takes many years to reach the right diagnosis. A new search tool called FindZebra ...

User comments : 10

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2011
Good. Took too long, but glad the board finally revoked his license.
PJS
3 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2011
why does this shit take 10 years??
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
It takes 10 years because Conservative Libertarian Lawyers have been arguing that not allowing women to have litters of children is a violation of their personal liberties, and that requiring the licensing of doctors is a violation of personal liberty and creates artificial scarcity that drives up the cost of medicine.

In the Conservative Libertarian view, Licensing societies must be abolished and that consumers - like octo-mom are the best people to judge the quality of their doctor, and not a panel of experts in the field.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2011
I think you will find rather that it is liberals who encourage multiple children. It is the social welfare state with its monetary rewards for mothers with multiple children which encourages such idiocy.
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2011
Dogbert, how is it that the same group of people who fight for a womans right to choose wether to have a child or not in the first place, are the ones who want more children in the world?

Are those "monetary rewards" enough to fully pay for the care of a child? If not then your argument must be false because there is no real financial gain.

It is obvious to me that you are disingenuous in your claims, and only seeking to distort the truth so you can feel better about your personal beliefs.

dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2011
J-n,

Facts remain facts even when you don't want them pointed out.

Many people choose immediate gain even when the long term effect is a net loss.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2011
Okay then, since this is a science site, prove your facts. Prove that Liberals as a group all want for people to have more and more children. That this is their motivation in their actions.

It seems that your definition of Fact, and the dictionary definition may be different.
J-n
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2011
Average Vaganal child brith cost $7,737 in 2004.

Here in wisconsin W2 (our welfare program) provides the following

A monthly cash benefit of $250 for the first eligible child living with his/her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) parent, and $150 for each additional eligible child.


So to make up the cost of the birth alone that would be over 2.5 years of welfare payments (if it's the first child, much more if not).

On average it costs aproximately 90$ per month just to feed a child of 1 year old (using the USDA's Thrifty food plan, which does not include much). Add in costs for clothing, school supplies, healthcare, ETC and you get FAR more than 250 a month, and MUCH MUCH more than 150$ per month.

-------

Liberals tend to be Pro-BirthControl, Pro-Condoms, Pro-Choice, Have smaller family sizes and encourage sexual education to prevent Teen Pregnancy.

Now that i've done my Due Diligence to prove my facts where is your proof?
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2011
So to make up the cost of the birth alone that would be over 2.5 years of welfare payments (if it's the first child, much more if not).


No, Medicaid pays for the birth of the child [or the hospital is stuck with the cost of providing indigent care].

On average it costs aproximately 90$ per month just to feed a child of 1 year old (using the USDA's Thrifty food plan, which does not include much).


You fail to count WIC vouchers, child support payments from the biological father, etc. You don't count the support payments directly to the mother from SSI (above the allowance for children), housing, medical care, etc.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2011
"I think you will find rather that it is liberals who encourage multiple children" - Dogbert

Gosh, I seem to remember you ConservaTards whining about how Liberals are anti-children because they defend a woman's right to choose abortion if she feel it is necessary.

Consistency is clearly NOT a hallmark of Conservative thought.

More news stories

If you can remember it, you can remember it wrong

(Medical Xpress)—Native peoples in regions where cameras are uncommon sometimes react with caution when their picture is taken. The fear that something must have been stolen from them to create the photo ...

B vitamins could delay dementia

(Medical Xpress)—Despite spending billions of dollars on research and development, drug companies have been unable to come up with effective treatments for dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Now, A. ...

Reducing caloric intake delays nerve cell loss

Activating an enzyme known to play a role in the anti-aging benefits of calorie restriction delays the loss of brain cells and preserves cognitive function in mice, according to a study published in the May ...

New method for producing clean hydrogen

Duke University engineers have developed a novel method for producing clean hydrogen, which could prove essential to weaning society off of fossil fuels and their environmental implications.