Believe it or not, doctors are human – which is why we hear more and more stories about medical malpractice on the news every night. Unlike most other professions, be expect them to make accurate diagnoses and appropriate treatment plans each and every time they see a patient – particularly when it is for our self or someone we love. And more often than not, they do this. Unfortunately, despite years of education and training and access to the latest advances in technology and pharmacology, our doctors can (and will) make mistakes.

The “Octomom” is the latest hot news story that raises questions not only about medical ethics but also about medical malpractice. In this case, the patient was not injured; in fact, Nadya Suleman was brought through 31 weeks of pregnancy with not only her health intact, but with relatively few complications for her newborns (other than those typically associated with premature infants). So what’s the problem? And how could this be considered malpractice?

If you look up malpractice in the dictionary you are likely to get two related definitions, such as these found at dictionary.com: 1. “Improper or negligent treatment of a patient, as by a physician, resulting in injury, damage, or loss.” 2. “Improper or unethical conduct by the holder of a professional or official position.” The Suleman case doesn’t clearly fit the first definition. As noted before, both the mother and her children came through a remarkable pregnancy in relatively good health. The second definition, however, might have great relevance in this case, given the physician’s responsibility to not only respond to the wishes of his patient, but also to take a global approach to the situation. This was not merely another in vitro fertilization procedure for a family seeking a child to love; this was one in a series of fertility treatments performed on a woman who was already the single parent to six children, some with special needs, who had little financial means to care for them. Beyond that, the procedure itself – the implantation of six embryos at once – has been roundly criticized by other physicians in the field who state that most typically only two to four embryos are placed during a single procedure. The media and the public at large have certainly had plenty to say about Nadya Suleman’s case.

Both her judgment and her physician’s ethics have come under fire and this situation is likely to bring about hundreds if not thousands of new dialogues in legislative sessions, insurance companies, medical schools and law practices around the country. But rather than centering on Suleman, perhaps the most interesting discussions will revolve around her physician and his medical practice, and how his actions in this case may be found to be malpractice.

What kinds of consequences might he face if found guilty of malpractice? Certainly one can only speculate right now, as all of the facts of the case would need to be gathered and examined. But aside from any financial repercussions, a physician found guilty of malpractice could find his license suspended or revoked. If found guilty of some type of criminal activity, he could also face jail time.

In the Suleman case the important issue of medical malpractice is being lost amidst the buzz about her supposed plastic surgery and courting of the media to garner fame and financial reward. But when the dust settles and her fifteen minutes have passed, the larger questions about the conduct of her physician – and others like him – will remain, and future treatment for infertile couples will most certainly be effected by the answers.