Baby Josie Duggar at 17 months!
UPDATE 6/8, 7:35a: One other thing. When Matt Lauer asked all the kids if they plan on having large families, he showed he doesn’t get it, which is really no surprise.
The goal isn’t to have large families. The goal is to be open to receiving as many gifts of children as God wants to give. As Josh Duggar’s wife Anna wrote on their website:
In our vows to each other at the wedding ceremony, we committed to God that we would leave the timing and amount of children in His hands. Of course, both being from “large” families (Josh the oldest of 19 and Anna number 5 out of 8 ) we knew that the question would come up, “So how many children will you have?” Anna responds, “We would be happy with two or three if that is all God blesses us with, but we believe that children are a blessing from God and we look forward to receiving each gift that He gives us.”
The decision to trust God with our family size is based on our desire to serve God with every decision of our life.
[HT: Daena]
6/7, 9:53p: We’ve been following the growth of baby Josie Duggar since she was prematurely born at 25 gestation weeks on December 10, 2009.
Today, Josie appeared with her family on The Today Show.
The Duggar clan was on to promote the debut of Jim Bob and Michelle’s new book, A Love that Multiplies: A Close Up View of How They Make it Work.
In addition, Season 6 of the Duggars’ hit reality show, 19 and Counting, premieres tonight….
It’s great to see baby Josie looking so healthy, certainly an answer to prayer. This family is such a wonderful testimony. From Tonawanda News on June 3:
[S]aid Jana Duggar, 21, who echoed her parents about the media attention…. “We really think of it as a ministry. Our main goal is to let people know that children are a blessing from God.”
[HT: Laura Loo]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Theres another family that I read about I forget what state there in they had several children of their own and they adopted a lot of special needs children. I want to say they had more than 20 children all togethor. I think couples have to have a very strong bond to have families that size. I’m hoping though she pays attention to her doctors concerns over her health.
Some doctors will be concerned about health after a large number of children with no good reason.
Would you say the same of a woman considering birthing a first child? That her health might be more important than having a child? People are willing to risk a lot to have that first child… why should the twentieth be less loved and valued?
Hi YCW,
I think myrtle miller was referring to Michelle’s bout with pre-eclampsia and the fact this places her at increased risk of a repeat episode should she become pregnant again. This of course doesn’t mean she will have another episode, only that she is at increased risk.
Personally I would hope Michelle exercises good judgment and does not place herself at risk for a debilitating stroke, death, or another dangerously premature child.
Thankfully Josie seems to be doing well. I don’t know where she is developmentally or how she is progressing. Premature children are at increased risk for special needs and we can only hope Josie does not develop any.
Put simply, I hope Michelle quits while she is ahead.
Mary, we’ve been over this here before, and the risk to her is not necessarily that great.
Honestly, the decision to be open to life that the Duggars make is between them and their creator, and it’s not really appropriate for us to debate. The essential thing we lack in the conversation is the grace to make the decision. That will be given to the Duggars alone.
I have found that our society, which is generally anti-fertility, has turned pregnancy into a dangerous event which must be managed by medical professionals. In reality, pregnancy is a normal, healthy period in a woman’s life which occasionally has complications requiring intervention. Unfortunately, interventions happen much more frequently than “occasionally.”
God bless the Duggars. I find it hilarious that pro-aborts who will skin you alive over not giving a woman “absolute autonomy over her body”, still manage to sit in judgment over women like Michelle Duggar who don’t see their fertility as a disease.
Hi YCW,
A total of 125 women who developed severe pre-eclampsia in the second trimester underwent follow up for an average of 5.4 years.
108 women had subsequent pregnancies. 59 subsequent pregnancies were normotensive and 110 were complicated by PE. Overal 21% of the pregnancies were complicated by severe PE in the second trimenster.
Long term maternal complications included two maternal deaths and two other women with end stage renal disease requiring renal dialysis.
The authors conclude these women (Michelle) are at increased risk for repeat PE, especially in the second trimester as well as increased risk for chronic hypertension and maternal mortality and morbidity.
Severe Preeclampsia in the second trimester: recurrence risk and long term prognosis
Sibal BM, Mercer,B and Sarinoglu C.
I think this explains why a friend of mine was also advised to have no more children after a severe bout of PE. You can draw your own conclusions.
Mary, while I do believe that doctors and others in the medical profession often treat pregnancy as something less than a blessing, I really appreciate your presentation of scientific data to support your concerns. I think the more we can discuss issues here in a calm manner and exchange information, the better.
Vita,
Could you better explain how these people are so sick? I’m curious…
Mary: a one out of five chance is not precisely a death sentence. And as others pointed out, it’s not our decision to make. The chance of the really severe consequences. The chance of death was barely over 1%, and there is not really a large enough sample size to say for sure. The chance of end-stage renal disease was also only about 1%. There is risk; there is more risk than in an average pregnancy. But that is true in many situations.
Why do people assume a twentieth child is less desperately wanted, worth less risk, than a first? Why is it that for their first child, people will go to any length, but subsequent children just aren’t as worth it? If Josie were Michelle’s only child, would people be so quick to jump on her for being willing to give her daughter a sibling?
Her body her choice, right?!!
Silly me. That is only true when one is aborting.
I admire this family for enduring the absolute hatred and venom that is directed at them.
YCW,
I never said it was a death sentence, I said there was an increased risk. I never said it was our decision to make. This was a published study and criteria must be met to qualify as such.
The risks are there YCW, and they can be very serious to deadly. Personally I can see no sense it taking any risk, but that’s my opinion.
If a person who has survived a heart attack wants to continue high risk behavior such as smoking and bad eating habits, that is ultimately his/her decison. If Michelle wants to risk another bout of PE and a possible premature birth, it is her decision as well. I have no personal issue with the lady.
Good thing the Duggars rely on God and don’t sit and fret over risks and possibilities. They understand that all things are in God’s hands.
I have always thought the hate and venom directed at the Duggar’s to be strange. What is there to hate? They obviously love each other, take very good care of their kids, have a nice home, no debt, are self sufficient, and even home school (taking away any blah blah’s about tax payers supporting them via schools). The kids seem to be very emotionally and socially well rounded. So, what is it that makes people detest this family so? In all honesty I think the Duggars, by their life style, prove the pro-abortion feminist crowds wrong and they can’t stand being wrong. It stings a little when they look at them maybe glaringly showing what they themselves are not. Just my thoughts..
I so LOVE this family and the show they do. :) I hope and pray they have continued success. God bless them ALL!
Mary, there is a whole lot more benefit to a child than to smoking.
Having many children does not mean you will be in poor health. My grandparents-in-law had 13 children, and are now in their late eighties and are in reasonably decent health.
YCW, 3:42Pm
I’m aware of that. I was just using smoking as an example of how people choose to take unnecessary risks and it is ultimately their decision to do so.
There is not an example comparable to that of creating a new human life. Usually, taking medical risks has little benefit besides some passing pleasure. If there is risk in being open to a child–and as one gets older, openness is no guarantee of pregnancy–there is also reward. When one speaks only of risks, and not of rewards, the whole picture isn’t there.
YCW wrote:
If Josie were Michelle’s only child, would people be so quick to jump on her for being willing to give her daughter a sibling?
Excellent point! One could push it further: if the Duggars had no children yet, would people be so quick to jump on her for being willing to “risk” having an only child?
Hi Bryan, 10:28am
Thank you for your kind words, they are appreciated. I found it very significant that more women developed PE in subsequent pregnancies than didn’t. Also chronic hypertension which can result from PE can be a lifelong health issue. The fact that the number studied is a small does not make it less significant, in fact my daughter, a researcher, has said that smaller samples may give more accurate results than larger ones. Whatever, there would appear to be a significant risk factor.
YCW 5:14PM
I didn’t say they were equal, I said smoking is an example of risks people choose to take. Also, people smoke because of addiction, not necessarily because its fun.
young christian woman
Of course your right all children whether it’s the first child or the 20th should be equally valued. But Michelle compromising her health isn’t fair to her or her children. I’m just hoping she pays attention to what her doctor said about the risks to her health. And then of course that would be just her decision to make but I’m praying she makes a good decision.
YCW and Paladin 5:22PM
It would be unlikely that any risk of PE would be known until such time as pregnancy occurs so the question as to whether they would risk having the first child isn’t relevant. Unless of course she had a previous pregnancy and PE episode and lost the baby or safely delivered. Also, if a woman is young and wants to have more than one child, one can understand her taking a risk, under close medical supervision and with full awareness of what risk she is taking. My sister in law had PE during her first pregnancy, it was well and easily controlled, she delivered normally at term, and had two more children with no problem. Then there is the other woman I know who suffered a life threatening bout of PE during her first pregnancy, became pregnant again and had another episode of severe PE. Thankfully she and the child, her second, survived with no ill effects and she had her tubes tied. Two bouts with PE were enough, she wants to be alive to care for her children.
The situation with Michelle is different. She has 19 children, one at risk for being special needs, and she became so critically ill with PE that to control her BP an emergency CS had to be performed and a very premature child delivered. Michelle has described the tremendous strain this was on her family and even her marriage, not to mention her own brush with disablity or death. I saw a young woman seizure and die from brain death after becoming as sick as Michelle did. This is nothing to take lightly.
After what Michelle and her family went through, the severity of Michelle’s PE, and the risk of a repeat episode, and the possiblity of another premature child, I stand by what I said. Michelle is alive and well, Josie is doing remarkably well, 19 children still have a healthy active mother. I still say Michelle should quit while she is ahead.
Is it true that the Duggars qualify for a tax break because they are incorporated as a church?
Hi J.S.Bailey 4:10PM
Very true. Pregnancy in and of itself is not a sickness or unhealthy. But women can also develop risk factors that make pregnancy more risky. Diabetes and obesity come to mind, along with a history of post partum depression and psychosis, as well as a history of PE.
“The goal isn’t to have large families. The goal is to be open to receiving as many gifts of children as God wants to give”
So if “God” wants to “give” you children that you can’t afford or that you can’t raise for whatever reason, that’s good? I grew up in a white collar Catholic neighborhood where women were ”open” to having lots of kids. Many of the children born later in the mother’s life were medically compromised. A number of the women, who accepted “God’s” gifts, ended up as alcoholics and/or drug addicts because they couldn’t handle what “God” gave them. Obviously, some of the situations worked out well. Others didn’t. ”Quiver fill” isn’t the answer. but that’s the ideal pro-life world – where women are “handmaidens” or dare I say, brood mares? As is said about the anti-choice movement, it’s all about controlling women and what better way than to keep them “barefoot and pregnant!”
Paladin
Of course Paladin if they had no children and Michelle had known risks factors I would hope that she had a complete understanding of the risks involved. I think large families are beautiful. My dad had twelve siblings. He was born in 1918 and his parents farmed. So I have no issue with large families and I would never presume to tell anyone what size family they can or can’t have.I’m simply saying I hope that her decisions are good ones and of course that her decision should be hers.
Deanne
I agree I think a lot of people really would like government to determine the size family a couple can have. I think that’s a decision that isn’t ours to make. What I am saying is that I hope she takes the time to do some self-evaluating and just realizes that she is important too and makes a decision that is good for her and any future children she might have. Pre-eclampsia is life threatening this is according to the Pre-eclampsia foundation. http://www.pre-eclampsia.org/
I suppose I could say that those who are “hoping Michelle’s decisions are good ones” certainly mean well; but do you see how it might be taken (despite never intending this) to be a bit… condescending? It implies that Michelle has a better-than-average chance of being misguided, or implies that one thinks she isn’t very smart… or prudent, or wise, or possessed of a sense of self-preservation. In short: some of these gestures of “concern” (which I’m sure are meant well… especially given the people who are offering them) seem to suggest that Michelle (and Jim, by implication) is some sort of religious “nut” who’s willing to take unreasonable risks for the sake of her “ideology”. (I’d also argue, as have others, that such a criticism completely misunderstands their view.)
Oh for heaven’s sake Paladin,
Stop reading in something what isn’t there. Yes I hope she makes good decisions. I hope you make good decisions. I can think of a lot of decisions I’ve made that I wish I could change.
Misguided? Hardly. I respect Michelle as an intelligent woman. Paladin, have you never been concerned about someone not making what you think is the wisest decision? Are you implying they aren’t too swift? Hardly. Are you being condescending? No.
I am simply expressing an opinion that, given Michelle’s medical history, another pregnancy may put her at a serious and unnecessary risk. Much like you might be concerned about a co-worker or friend who persists with smoking after recovering from a heart attack.
I respect Jim and Michelle’s religious convictions, as I respect the religious convictions of a Jehovah Witness patient who refuses a blood transfusion. I don’t agree with them, their convictions may put them at serious medical risk, but I don’t view them as ”nuts” or people who are in any way incompetent. I have given an example of the Amish in a past post Paladin, who certainly have had religious reservations about using medical equipment. Yes I understand their convictions, yes their convictions could put them at risk. Also, no one respects the Amish people more than I do.
My comments concerning Michelle are strictly from a medical perspective. I have no issues with the lady.
CC
Thank God my generation wasn’t subject to such rules. I read a little about situations that you described and witnessed a few cases myself. We’re living in the year 2011 all women should have the right to decide if they want or don’t want to have children that is their right. I think we agree on that. Where I don’t agree with you is that anyone has a right to kill an unborn child.
People will throw hatred toward those they know are living the truth. For example, when I had 3 girls in 2 1/2 years, one of the managers where I worked was horrified that I should have such a “large family”in such a short time. She would catch me in the hallway about once a week and had the nerve to ask every time, “Was it planned?” This went on for over a year. Fearing it would be held against me, I always replied with a sheepish, “No,” and hung my head. It was infuriating though, mostly because I knew I was letting this selfish brat intimidate me. Finally I thought of an answer. The next week when she asked her little planning question, I said a quick prayer and replied, “Yes. Actually my children were planned by God and the timing was perfect. Thank you for asking.” That was the last time she asked.
I admire the Duggar family for letting God plan the number of children they have. After all, if God planned you and me and we believe we are all created in His image, surely we can let Him into all aspects of our family’s lives.
Whilst on a personal level I furrow my brow at the thought of having that many children, for a number of reasons, the bottom line is…isn’t it wonderful that she is able to have a choice.
Paladin
This is in response to your 8:02 post:
And your conclusion would be right assuming all the assumptions were correct. But hopefully your not assuming that I’m saying that because if I were saying that I would have said it. I think the Carpio family are beautiful too.
I agree, Reality. It is wonderful to have the freedom to choose if and when I have a family. I can choose to allow God to give me children as He desires, or I can carefully plan my children around school and work. I can abstain from sex, use birth control methods, plan via NFP, or have sterilization surgery. I can send out a survey and have children when the majority of my friends and family says it’s the best time. The one thing I differ on is I don’t agree with killing an already created child to make my family goals a reality.
Heather,
Is that you???
My name is Heather and I’m me, but I’m not sure if you are looking for someone else. ?
NFP anyone? hey God Bless them if they can love em, feed em, and if they can turn out somewhat normal. Just not for me lol.
We obviously differ on more than that one thing Heather :-)
I have to say that it always seemed to me that Anna was kind of a blank stare, but what she wrote was very well stated. I don’t have cable so I don’t watch the show, maybe she is just very shy on camera.
Mary said “I am simply expressing an opinion that, given Michelle’s medical history, another pregnancy may put her at a serious and unnecessary risk”
Why “unnecessary”? If it’s God’s will that another baby be born to Jim Bob and Michelle, then another pregnancy is *necessary*. If the Duggars make their decision about future children based on their knowledge of God’s will for their lives, then of course the decision will be a “good” one. Even if tragedy results and it looks to us outsiders like that decision was a giant mistake, doing the will of God is always good.
Just a note….Pre-eclampsia is generally abbreviated as “pre-e”. PE is normally the abbreviation for pulmonary embolism, something completely different.
I would like to add that Michelle Duggar’s medical complications during Josie’s pregnancy were triggered by a gallbladder attack (something that happens far more often in pregnancy than most people realize, even in first pregnancies). I believe that she no longer has her gallbladder.
Pre-eclampsia is a very serious disorder…. but it is one that we in the medical community are very experienced at monitoring for and treating. Recent studies have shown that one of the medications often used in the treatment of pre-e even has its own secondary benefits… Magnesium sulfate has been shown to lower the incidences of cerebral palsy in premature and low birthweight babies. What a blessing, as the one true “cure” for pre-e and eclampsia is delivery of the baby…. which means that often these babies are delivered early.
Mary wrote:
Oh for heaven’s sake Paladin, Stop reading in something what isn’t there. Yes I hope she makes good decisions. I hope you make good decisions. I can think of a lot of decisions I’ve made that I wish I could change.
I’m sure. But… forgive me… this particular comment of your strikes me as a bit odd. At least in my experience, the typical person doesn’t simply walk up and say, “I hope you make good choices!” without some sort of situational provocation (i.e. reason to worry). Perhaps your family and friends make unprovoked comments like this all the time; I don’t know. But I’ve found that those who bring up the subject at all do so because something has moved them to worry… and specifically (in this case), to worry about the real possibility that the person in question will NOT make good choices. It’s quite natural, I think, for me to presume that you’re not simply bringing up the topic of “good decisions” utterly at random, but that you genuinely think Michelle and Jim-Bob are at risk of a “not-good” decision: yes? (Forgive the pedantic detail, but I’m really not accustomed to explaining something which seems to be so self-evident, and which you seem to be trying to dodge.)
Here’s what I “read” in your messages, and you be the judge as to whether I read something into them that wasn’t there (and believe me: I find this sort of pedantry to be as tiresome as you do; I use it only out of necessity):
1) You don’t think it’d be a good choice for Michelle and Jim-Bob to try for another child, given Michelle’s history. True?
2) You think, given the Duggars’ history, that it’s not unlikely for them to try for another child. True?
3) Given that you think it’s probable for the Duggars to make what you take to be a “not-good” choice, and since you genuinely care about the welfare of the Duggars, you feel worry about that situation, and this led you to offer your not-very-specific “hopes that good decisions will be made”. True?
You, see, (and forgive the rant, here… it’s not meant to be aimed at you, specifically) one of the things that I find frustrating (especially with modern-day discussions) is the tendency *not* to say what we mean, clearly and unequivocally (not at all to be confused with “tactlessly”, “brutally”, or the like), as per Matthew 5:37; many moderns (who haven’t degenerated to troll-level, anyway) have a tendency to bob and weave, hint and use innuendo, dodge and use disingenuous “nuance”, usually for the sake of leaving themselves an “escape hatch”: “Hey, I didn’t mean *that*! No, no… what I really meant was [x]; I didn’t commit to saying [y], at all!” As a result, what started out as licit subtlety can gradually (or not so gradually) evolve into a dilute form of dishonesty. I’m of the personality type that guards quite stridently against that “quiet creep of dissimulation”. (end rant)
Misguided? Hardly. I respect Michelle as an intelligent woman. Paladin, have you never been concerned about someone not making what you think is the wisest decision? Are you implying they aren’t too swift? Hardly. Are you being condescending? No.
Here’s where we part ways, a bit. To answer your question: I find it quite possible to see someone (including myself) as quite smart, wise, etc., in general, while at risk of acting quite stupidly in another. You really do seem to be suggesting (without wanting to go on the record about it) that Michelle, an otherwise intelligent woman, might be led by irrational attachment to a religious ideal to make a “not-good”, “not wise” choice. True, or not true?
I am simply expressing an opinion that, given Michelle’s medical history, another pregnancy may put her at a serious and unnecessary risk.
“Serious” might make some sense, given the situation; “unnecessary” (which is certainly your opinion) really doesn’t make a good deal of sense, unless you’re of the mind-set which says, perhaps quietly and implicitly, “Michelle… what, exactly, are you trying to prove, here? 19 children really is quite enough, don’t you think? Why risk your health, the motherhood of your children, and the spousehood of your husband, simply because you seem hell-bent on having as many children as physically possible?” The very notion seems to exclude the idea that Michelle and Jim-Bob might want another child for that individual child’s sake; and, as YCW mentioned earlier, that mind-set seems to flourish mainly because people are boggled in mind at the extraordinary number of children; I suspect they would not have nearly so strong a reaction if the Duggars, even with the same risk of preeclampsia, were trying for their first or second child.
Much like you might be concerned about a co-worker or friend who persists with smoking after recovering from a heart attack.
As has already been mentioned: the analogy is inadequate, since it compares a dangerous thing whose purpose is “mere pleasure” (can you find another purpose to the smoking of tobacco?) to the procreation of another immortal soul.
I respect Jim and Michelle’s religious convictions, as I respect the religious convictions of a Jehovah Witness patient who refuses a blood transfusion. I don’t agree with them, their convictions may put them at serious medical risk, but I don’t view them as ”nuts” or people who are in any way incompetent.
All right; I’ll accept the fact that, while you disagree with the Duggars’ position (and you think it’s foolish and/or unnecessarily risky, in the abstract, but not a pronouncement on their general competence), you don’t write them off as cranks or fools (or any lesser criticism of that type). But one of my intentions is to get you (personally) to question a few of your own starting assumptions.. not the least of which is the idea that any future choice by the Duggars to seek another child is somehow an “unnecessary” risk.
Case in point (and I’ve mentioned this before): St. Catherine of Siena was the youngest of 25 children, and she was born in an age (the 1300’s) ravaged by the Black Death, high infant mortality, and high incidence of mothers dying in child-birth. St. Catherine (and I’d encourage anyone to read her story: it’s quite stunning!) was one of the most influential people of the Middle Ages, and she is an extraordinary Saint of God; I would find it difficult to argue, based on the “danger to the mother”, that the mother should not have acted as she did, even on the basis that the pregnancy risk was not “necessary”. (Oh, I’m sure there are very bland, mild, Romanita-laden, nuanced ways to say it: “One might, with all due regard to her freedom and family love, hope that this mother might embrace the fullness of the gentle but manifiold ways of prudence when making her future family decisions…!” To which I’m tempted to reply, with a sputter: “Oh, for crying out loud! Spit it out, already, and stop hiding behind fog!”)
(I hope that came across without irritating you too much…!)
Lrng, 10:27am
I respect your opinion but I do believe that when God put a brain in our head, it wasn’t to seperate our ears. I believe that is why we have free will and judgment.
Hi Elisabeth 10:32am
Thank you, I stand corrected. PE is an abbreviation for pulmonary embolism, not pre-eclampsia. I must admit PE was an abbreviation I used on the spur to save myself some typing.
You’re certainly right about gall bladder disease in pregnant women, who I have seen require surgery or ERCP, but I have never seen it evolve into pre eclampsia. I also have seen pre eclampsia develop without gall bladder disease, or any other apparent cause. I understand Michelle was misdiagnosed with gall stones initially and the diagnosis was changed to pre-eclampsia. Whatever the cause, it was severe enough to cause her BP to climb dangerously high and warrant the premature delivery of her baby.
Yes these women can be treated, but as pointed out in the study, there can be serious and fatal consequesnce, despite the best treatment. The young mother I saw seizure and die was also being treated and was thought to be well controlled. In fact she was full term and had just delivered. Very tragic. The friend I mentioned was also treated and closely monitored, but the pre-eclampsia was serious and life threatening during both pregnancies. My sister in law had it in her third trimester of her first pregnancy, and had two uneventful pregnancies after.
Very interesting about the Mag Sulfate. I well remember the pre-eclampsia patients in the ICU on these drips, and me on the phone to the OB nurses who were always very patient with me! Something about pregant patients struck fear in us who did not work with them all the time. I understand that many heart problems are in fact a Mag Sulfate deficiency as well and that most of us are Mag sulfate deficient. I take my supplement every day!
Again I only give an opinion. Given Michelle’s brush with disablity or death, a child who survived and is thriving, and who hopefully will not develop special needs, the strain, according to Michelle, this put on her marriage and family, and the risk of a recurrence of pre-e(got it right this time), my opinion is to quit while she is ahead.
Hi Paladin,
I’m not the least bit irritated but please take my advice and not read into my posts what isn’t there. You’d save yourself a lot of time and energy, not to mention your fingers.
You take my quotes then give an in depth analysis of what you assume I am insinuating. Please Paladin, you have too much time on your hands. My posts are not that complex or deep, but rather straightforward. They have no hidden meanings.
Please question specifically what I say, not what you assume I am insinuating.
Given that I will not waste my time and energy addressing your assumptions as to what I am supposedly insinuating but rather will patiently give you another opportunity to use a direct quote, minus the analysis and assumptions, for me to address.
Mary says: “I respect your opinion but I do believe that when God put a brain in our head, it wasn’t to seperate our ears. I believe that is why we have free will and judgment.”
Of course we’ve been given free will. And we are free to make decisions for our lives with complete disregard for God’s will. But living your life in accordance with God’s will is certainly not the action of a person refusing to use their brain. I hope that’s not what you were insinuating with your comment above.
Despite your response to Paladin, it’s pretty clear from your posts that you’ve decided that Michelle doesn’t need to have any more children and to do so would not be a “good decision”. You’re entitled to your opinion. But only Michelle and Jim Bob can discern what God wants them to do.
I would define a “good decision” as one that is in accordance with God’s will. You seem to be defining “good decision” differently.
Lrng,
I said in my opinion another pregnancy could be dangerous for Michelle considering the serious complication she suffered with her last one. I never said living one’s life according to God’s will, which by the way is open to any number of interpretations, is refusing to use one’s brain.
Again, please look at what I say and not assume insinuations.
Speaking as a medical professional yes, I do believe another pregnancy could put Michelle at serious risk and possibly leave 19 children without a mother, or one that is disabled. The situation did not turn out as catasrophically or tragically as it might have and for that Michelle, her family, and all of us can be grateful. Keep in mind the premature delivery was to save both Michelle and Josie’s lives, as efforts to control Michelle’s BP were failing. The uncontrollable BP could have resulted in death or severe disablity. She might not be so blessed as to survive unscathed again. Do I think another pregnancy under these circumstances is a good idea? Frankly no. I said nothing about Michelle ” not needing” anything.
Does “God’s will” include emergency C-sections, drugs, hospitals, and NICUs? Some would argue emphatically it does not. Again, I maintain that God did not give us a brain to seperate our ears. I believe we are to use our good judgment that God saw fit to give to protect our lives and health.
Mary,
First of all, thanks for being a good sport, even in the midst of another joust! (Wasn’t this very topic the motive for our first joust?)
Second: I have a natural tendency to take what you say on good faith: but at least to some extent, you’re walking like a duck, talking like a duck, acting like a duck, and then expecting me to nod in immediate approval when you call yourself an eagle! It’s patently obvious that you’re not comfortable with the idea of Jim-Bob and Michelle having another child, and [yes, this is a presumption on my part, but a very likely one, I think] you’d be very likely not to have another child if you were in the same situation. I ask only that you consider this possibility: that your sensibilities in this matter (re: thinking that running another such risk would be unwise, or even outrageous) might not be in proportion to the situation on the ground.
Does “God’s will” include emergency C-sections, drugs, hospitals, and NICUs? Some would argue emphatically it does not.
Hm. This sort of phraseology is typical of what set my “alarms” off, before: it’s quite easy to say that “some people” argue [thus-and-so]… but that’s so vague as to be silly. I can find “some” people who will argue almost anything, no matter how absurd (e.g. flat earth, etc.). Do YOU argue emphatically that it (cf. your quote, above) does not?
So, milady… how’s about you “cowboy up”, and commit yourself?
Paladin,
Thank you for the kind words. This time I have more sense than to try to address insinuations.
Again, in reference to your second point, please spare me the analysis. Its a waste of time and energy. Just pick a quote and I will address it.
Does God’s will” included emergency C-sections, drugs,hospitals, and NICUs? Some would argue emphatically it does not.
No need for any alarms Paladin. There are religious sects, one near us in fact, who are emphatic about avoiding medical care from cradle to grave. The parents of a child are on trial for refusing to have the child’s diabetes treated, with the child dying as a result. They would consider the intervention I mention as a violation of God’s will. Simply stating a fact here Paladin and pointing out there is not universal agreement as to what “God’s will” consists of. Nothing terribly profound and no hidden meanings.
As a medical professional myself, one specializing in mothers and children, I hasten to point out that medical complications can crop up in ANY pregnancy. Did you know that one of the biggest risk factors for severe PIH is being either a first time mother or having the first child with a new partner? If we play “what if”, then no woman would ever get pregnant.
She was not misdiagnosed with gallstones. She did have to have her gallbladder removed. It just triggered further complications. Pregnancy (any pregnancy, not just numbers in the double digits) raises the incidences of gallbladder complications and kidney complications, including UTIs, pyelonephritis, and kidney stones. We had many moms in our antepartum unit with these issues… almost all of them first time moms. (Mostly, I’m sure, because there are more first time moms in the world than moms with double digit pregnancies).
I believe she also had pre-e with one of her previous pregnancies…. an early one. I can see her feeling that since it took 13-15 pregnancies to end up having a second bout of it, the odds are more on her side than otherwise.
Please forgive any typos, I have a broken finger and it is making typing very challenging.
In regards to those who believe that God’s will does not allow medical intervention, I respect their decision and they have the right to make it. There is a difference between neglect (just ignoring needs) and a prayerful determination to allow God to work.
I don’t agree with them, but it is not my place to judge them, any more than it is my place to force a Jehovah’s Witness to have a blood transfusion.
Hi Elisabeth 7:34PM
I’ve read varying accounts of Michelle’s diagnosis but the final one was Pre-e. Also I have read the gall bladder wasn’t removed or was ruled out. Also, that the two conditions just happened to occur together. Reporters aren’t always the most accurately informed people. Whatever, it hardly matters, the pre-e is the main concern here. I’ve never heard of Michelle having pre-e before, she always spoke of healthy uneventful pregnancies, with the exception of c-sections. Maybe like my sister in law she had a well controlled and uneventful bout of pre-e, and no recurrence. Well, like with the gall bladder, it shows that stories are not always accurate or consistent.
How true about medical complications cropping up with pregnancy, however healthy the mother. I have seen some very sad cases. Women developing cancer, a woman who developed severe DIC after an otherwise normal pregnancy and delivery. The young mother who seizured and died.
It is my opinion that someone like Michelle is at very serious risk should she become pregnant again. Its one thing when there is no history, but for someone who was as critically ill as Michelle, I would be very concerned about another pregnancy.
I share your opinion considering those who are doing what they see as God’s will, this however is in the mind of the beholder. Amish patients, as rarely as we see them, may have issues with the EKG or automatic BP. I had to explain to an Amish husband that I wanted to place an IV in his wife and he reluctantly agreed, but it had to be removed on delivery of the twins, and the equipment removed. The JW just has concerns about the blood. However unnerving it may be for us, (I just imagine you with a JW patient bleeding from placenta previa that has refused to by typed and crossmatched. much less transfused), the patient’s wishes have to be respected.
Oh, and take care of that finger!
Hi Elisabeth,
I mentioned placenta previa since I had a patient, who even though she was not bleeding and her section was scheduled, began hemorrhaging on delivery of the baby but fortunately it was controlled. Of course she was typed and crossmatched so at least I could give blood, but the experience was unsettling to say the least. I can’t imagine being in this position with a woman who had refused blood. Ever since then these cases leave me a in little unnerved before I even start, though my last one was totally uneventful.
Hi, Mary,
I think I may take your route, and let this particular issue drop; I’ve put forth my view as thoroughly as I could, so there’s not much more point in rehashing the whole affair. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide how much innuendo (or “implicit criticism”, if you prefer) was in your comments regarding the Duggar approach to family planning. No offense intended, and no ill will attributed; I rather suspect we’re using different definitions of “insinuate”, etc. So be it… and not a monumental issue to resolve between us, anyway.
Mary, as a homeschooling (well, up until this past year when we moved into a teensy rural community with excellent schools) large family mom, I take what I have learned about the situation directly from the Duggars themselves, not news reports. I follow their writings and own their books. I agree with you about how poorly informed news reporters are, especially when it comes to people they don’t understand, like the Duggars.
Elisabeth: ugh! God speed your healing! (Been there, done that…)
Hi Elisabeth,
Good point. Go to the source. According to reporters Michelle had kidney stones, gall stones, premature labor, no gall bladder problems, gall bladder and pre-e, a misdiagnosed gall bladder, you name it. I only started watching when her treatment for pre-e began and Josie was eventually delivered.
I also checked their site for progress on Josie, who is doing remarkabley well considering her rather rocky start in life. She is small and her development sounds like she’s around the 10 month to 1 year level, which is to be expected. Hopefully she will continue to progress well.
In all your spare time( :)). try to nurse that finger!
Hi Paladin 10:12PM
Agreed, thank you. Insinuation is definitely in the eye of the beholder. How often have we made what we thought was a completely innocent comment only to have someone offended or angry because they KNEW what we were really insinuating, or have we misinterpreted what someone else says?
Its much easier and far more sensible to simply take someone’s direct comment, as it is written, and go from there. Arguing insinuation is an exercise in futility. I think I have been very forthright in giving my opinion and why, and nothing about my posts is so complex or profound as to merit extended analysis. You’re flattering me too much to think there is.
Hm. There are many points on which I’d disagree with the above, Mary… but we’ll let it be.
Having skimmed the comments so far, I’d like to postulate that this discussion (Michelle’s increased risk-factors, taking the risks into account, hoping that they consider these things in their decision to have more children) rather misses the point.
The Duggars have already made their decision, several children ago.
They decided that they would leave it in God’s hands to give them whatever children He deems best. If they have chosen to trust God in this manner, then that trust extends to all areas in all situations. That trust doesn’t change all of a sudden because Michelle had PIH. In their situation, would it truly be faith if they only “let God decide” (as if any of us *lets* God do anything) when things turn out well, but all of a sudden decide “God can’t handle this, I need to be in charge of this decision myself” when they feel threatened- real or perceived?
God knows best for that family and each individual involved and has His wise and good purposes for everything that has happened and will happen. I personally would much rather rest in His good, loving, holy (without err or evil), sovereign, providential, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, and loving care – than my own very very limited knowledge, power and wisdom (and the equally limited and short-sighted knowledge and “wisdom” of the medical community – and I say that as a health professional specializing in perinatal care).
From what I’ve seen and read from the Duggars, unless God closes Michelle’s womb, I expect there to be #20 sometime in the future.