Giving birth to eight children to bring the total number of family members to 16, father and mother included can be a tricky decision. This could trigger conflicting responses from all concerned subjects including close family members and friends. This is what Suleman expected when she decided to keep all her eight children when she gave birth to octoplets. After the issue became public, several steps were taken including investigating the concerned doctor to establish whether he had observed biomedical ethics during the process of planting the six embryos in Suleman’s womb. The doctor’s decision to implant six embryos and allow them to grow was quite unprofessional. He completely failed to consider the ethics before making his decisions. Before tackling the issue, it is important to understand the four major ethical principles that govern doctors’ decision making processes. The four principles include the principle of autonomy, the principle of beneficence, the principle of non-maleficence and the principle of fairness or distributive justice (Mappes & Degrazia pg 448). The principle of autonomy usually determines a patient’s own decision concerning medication. These are decisions that he makes and feel that are of his interest. The principle gives the patient rights to make decisions that promote his interests. It also gives the right to the patient to choose whether to accept medication or not, the kind of privacy he needs and also the issue of truth telling. The doctor is therefore placed under obligation to obey all the decisions made by the patient during decision making. The doctor’s treatment decisions are not supposed to interfere with the patient’s rights. Under the principle of beneficence, the nurse is given the right to make decisions that will benefit others. The needs and welfare of the clients have to be given priority in every ‑­decision making process. The doctor is therefore given power to make a decision which he deems fit for the patient. This is one principle that has caused debates due to its controversial status. In some instances, the principle has led to paternalism, a state that favors the decision of the doctor without putting into consideration the patient’s views. This principle places the doctor under obligation to make decisions that are sound and informed during the process of care giving and treatment. This can also happen when the patient is seen to be in a condition that will not allow him to make sound decisions due to unavoidable circumstances including illness. The principle of non-maleficence prohibits the doctor from inflicting any harm to the patient and also protecting the patient from any form of harm. In some cases, there are situations that inevitably require some form of harm. In such instances, the doctor has to minimize such harm to the lowest possible rate. In addition, the doctor should also be in position to anticipate any form of harm that the patient is likely to face under the given circumstances. This harm does not only include physical harm but also making the patient feel powerless and helpless is a form of harm (Mappes & Degrazia pg 450). This principle can be achieved by ensuring that the there is a good communication network between the doctor and the patient. The doctor can also fulfill this principle by ensuring that he meets all the standards of care that are not below the professio