SPONSORED BY:

The Baby Keeper

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Elliott can come off as a cowboy—he occasionally wears a gold chain under his scrubs, and he says there's something to the idea of Phoenix as the academic "Wild West," where doctors take risks and "think out of the box." Still, with patients, he is gentle, thorough and not in the least intimidating. He uses very few technical terms; he refers to a "baby" instead of a "fetus." "A lot of OBs are very busy, and they don't spend much time explaining things," he says. "It's amazing how a patient responds to that."

Few of Elliott's out-of-state patients are referred by other OBs. He does not advertise, either. Instead, nearly half the patients find him through enthusiastic postings from other moms on Web sites such as Mothers of Supertwins and The Triplet Connection. At least one patient saw him on a Discovery Channel show and came all the way from St. Maarten. 

Despite his high profile, Elliott did not set out in medicine with a plan to become the go-to OB for the highly multiparous. During his fellowship in Phoenix, from 1978 to '80, he says, "there was only an occasional triplet. You never saw quads." But as numbers of multiple pregnancies started increasing in the '80s, Elliott began to experiment with magnesium sulfate, a drug that was used to treat pre-eclampsia. The drug had extremely unpleasant side effects, including severe fatigue, muscle weakness, low blood pressure, and difficulty breathing; while on it, Elliott's patients told him, only half-jokingly, that for his own safety he'd better hide his surgical knives. But Elliott thought "mag" might be useful in extremely high doses for prolonging large pregnancies. In 1992, he published data showing that 10 local women on his protocol had carried quadruplets on average for 32 weeks and a day—a paper he describes as "saying to the world, 'it's not as bad as you think it is'."

For quadruplets, 32 weeks and a day is indeed impressive. Most quads, if they're lucky, are born at 31. (As a rule of thumb, every extra baby in a pregnancy subtracts three weeks off the standard 40. Twins are born at 37 weeks, triplets at 34 and so on.) Each extra day in the womb is precious, allowing the babies to develop their lungs and pack on the ounces, potentially avoiding long-term neurological problems such as cerebral palsy, which are linked to low birth weight. For women carrying multiples, then, every day that they manage to stay pregnant is a good one—no matter how painful and weak that day may make them feel.

With multiples, there's also a higher risk of going into labor before the babies are viable at all. In 1996, Elliott got a call from a woman's husband in Peoria, Ill. She was pregnant with quads and had started having contractions at 23 weeks—so early that all four babies would surely die if they were born immediately. "Her doctors basically told her and her husband that she would be delivering and that there was nothing that they could do," says Elliott. "They weren't giving her enough [magnesium sulfate], and they were afraid to go any higher than they had." Elliott wasn't so reluctant. After trying, and failing, to convince the Illinois doctors to up the woman's dosage of magnesium sulfate, he said he'd take over her care himself. She managed to get to Phoenix, where he put her on bed rest and a high dose of "mag," and the babies stayed put until an astonishing 34 weeks. Word spread and suddenly, other women from outside Arizona started flocking to Banner Good Samaritan.

Delivering triplets, quads and quintuplets is a regular part of Elliott's practice now. His quints, he says, generally stay in utero even longer than his quads, for 32 weeks and four days. (He is writing up the data for publication.) In 2007, Elliott delivered a set of quints that broke the world record for total weight. He also delivered the Masche sextuplets, that entered the world relatively healthy in the same week that another set of six, under the care of doctors in Minnesota, was born too early to survive. But of course other examples of large sets of surviving multiples abound—just watch the Discovery Health Channel or TLC for a few hours and you'll hear their stories.

Elliott is puzzled as to why other doctors do not use very high doses of mag, as he does, to prolong pregnancy. They prefer lower doses of mag, bed rest or other drugs, including antibiotics, beta-mimetics, calcium channel blockers and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—none of which is guaranteed to stop early labor. "Many places today don't think you can be successful [with large multiple births]," Elliott says. "We're just more willing to do the best we can."

If using magnesium sulfate in extremely large doses makes Elliott "radical"—and he himself says that it does—he is doing so in a fairly radical country. Magnesium sulfate is widely used in the U.S. and Canada to forestall labor, albeit at much lower doses than Elliott's. No other country in the world uses it so widely for that purpose. A Cochrane Review—a scholarly survey that many doctors look to for guidance—recently found that mag doesn't actually work as a tocolytic (a type of drug that prevents labor). "There was never any scientific foundation for using it to stop labor in the first place. It was based on theory, and on several flawed, uncontrolled studies," says Dr. David Grimes, an obstetrician-gynecologist with the Durham, N.C. nonprofit Family Health International, who wrote an opinion piece in "Obstetrics and Gynecology" based on the Cochrane data. "Anyone who's using it to prevent labor at this point is out on a limb."

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: tj48 @ 07/25/2009 11:42:48 PM

    I don't agree with the entire process. Women are not biologically engineered to carry litters of fetuses to term. If implanted women are so averse to selective removal of fetuses, are they willing to accept the responsibility of the death of a child after birth, or the cost to the child and the family of the very real risk of having a profoundly impaired child? I smell hypocrisy.

  • Posted By: cpritchet @ 03/17/2009 7:56:12 PM

    I can only hope that in the future, the number of couples who decide on IVF will decrease. I think its popularity is primarily based on the fact that it's a relatively new procedure, and that we never hear about the heartbreaking ordeals that can come from it - you only read about the 'miracle births'. To me, it's shocking how many women (and their husbands) are willing to spend thousands of dollars and put their health, and the health of the children they are trying to conceive, at risk. We need to step back and take a good look at our lives, and appreciate the children we do have, the husbands who love us, and the friends and family that are by our side. Shouldn't we at least try to be happy with the hand God dealt us? I am not implying that that IVF should never be considered. I realize it's not a black and white issue, few things are in life. What's right for one person, may not be right for another. But, we owe it to ourselves, to make the best decisions we can, and I think IVF needs to be taken more seriously. Before you risk your life for something you think you want, take into consideration all the things that are good in your life that you could be gambling away. As for selective reduction, how can so many women be against it? They have already tampered with nature to get pregnant, and yet refuse to tamper with nature in order to ensure the health and safety of themselves and the child (or children) they wish to bring into the world. These mothers need to step up and take responsibility for their actions, and do what's in the best interest of their family. If you can't bear the thought of reduction, you probably shouldn't even consider IVF. It's time we stop glamorizing IVF, and see it for what it really is.

  • Posted By: RMcD @ 03/04/2009 3:03:16 PM

    I believe it is completely natural for a woman to want a child, and it must be heartbreaking to be infertile. That being said, there is no excuse for going forward with an IVF pregnancy of so many children, or for doing it again after already having more than one child. Considering the realities of our planet and the already massive overpopulation that exists, I believe that people should voluntarily choose to have only 2 children- the number that would replace the parents. Certainly if someone naturally gave birth to triplets, or had one child and then twins, that would be different, but we have all forgotten to think about the old saying, "just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD." There are millions of orphaned and unwanted children in the world, children who desperately need families, just as there are families that need children. It seems to me the epitome of narcissism to insist on children with your DNA when so many need your love. On the other hand, someone who cannot manage to love a child that does NOT have their DNA would be a pretty lousy adoptive parent. Nonetheless, given the expense and dangers of the multiples, adopting the British regulations where government medical insurance covers a certain number of IVF attempts but forbids transfer of more than one embryo at a time, seems like a good idea.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now