The Daily Beast has a really interesting
article about the planet's ten oldest mothers—from the 59-year-old British woman who conceived a child without any fertility treatment, to the 66-year-old who lied to her doctor about her age in order to receive IVF. Another woman, a 70-year-old from India with who had two grown daughters, spent her savings on fertility treatment in the hopes of finally having a son. (She wound up with twins, a boy and a girl, the latter of which she's labeled "an extra burden.")
Many of these women had to employ what the Beast calls "fertility tourism"—traveling to another country with more lenient IVF laws. But it's questionable whether
any country should allow woman of a certain age to undergo fertility treatment. The 66-year-old who lied to her practitioner actually died two years after giving birth, leaving a pair of orphaned twins. I guess it's true that parents of any age can die, but having a child in your 60s and 70s only increases the odds.
I'm not a mother, but I know from my own childhood that parenting is one crazy roller coaster, and I can't imagine having a child so late in life—if you get pregnant in your 60s, you'll be in your late 70s or 80s at your child's high school graduation, and the responsibilities don't end there. I can think of so many moments in my life where I really
needed my parents, and I'm glad that they were young and healthy enough to be there for me. They still are.
Do you think women of a certain age should not have children? Should countries enact stricter laws regarding IVF?
The Daily Beast has a really interesting article about the planet's ten oldest mothers—from the 59-year-old British woman who conceived a child without any fertility treatment, to the 66-year-old who lied to her doctor about her age in order to receive IVF. Another woman, a 70-year-old from India with who had two grown daughters, spent her savings on fertility treatment in the hopes of finally having a son. (She wound up with twins, a boy and a girl, the latter of which she's labeled "an extra burden.")
Comments (27)
Are some women too old to take care of kids? No.
Are some women too old to HAVE children? Yes.
i feel like women shouldn't be allowed to have ivf/fertility treatment over the age of 55 or something. you're just too old! adopt kids instead if you're that age.
I'm not sure about other women as I think that like many things pregnancy and childbirth are personal decisions, but for me, I would say I'm definitely too old to start over with a newborn. I can't even imagine going through another pregnancy and childbirth right now and I'm much younger than those women. If I decided to have more children I would adopt, probably older teens who are difficult to place.
I think women of any age who are able to have children on their own should of course be allowed to do so. Otherwise, we are taking away a basic human right. However, I don't think IVF should be offered to most people that it is offered to. Age, size of family, etc. should all be factored into whether or not a woman should receive fertility treatments.
Sadly, if we were to start regulating things like that, it would open the door to regulate other things related to that field. For example, if it became the standard to refuse treatment to patients over a certain age, what's to stop laws and common practices like refusing treatment to patients under a certain age, or patients who haven't been through enough simpler methods of conception before moving to "bigger" treatments like IVF? Patients who are homosexuals? Patients who aren't in committed, married relationships?
Lawmakers, and everyone else, are just not able to make fair decisions regarding something like that because we aren't really capable of "walking in the shoes of others". We don't know the options and the pasts of every person affected by those laws, so we're not in a position to make that decision for them.
I think it's completely unfair to the child if a woman attempts to conceive at an older age (40ish and above). A woman's eggs age, too. The aging cells can lead to susceptibility to other diseases, genetic disorders and cancer. I don't understand how a person would want to conceive a child knowing they may not be there for their children to finish high school; people might ridicule their children because their parents look older. Anyway, personally, I would not want to have a child after I'm 40. I'll adopt older children who need homes. Here is a link to a UK website: http://www.mothers35plus.co.uk/down.htm.and one on older dads and autism rates:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/05/health/webmd/main1970863.shtml
In most cases (the 59 year old that did conceived naturally being an exception to the rule), nature does kind of seem to say, "Uhm, hey...you're done." I think doctors should respect that in most cases. (I say "most cases" because I'm sure as soon as I hit 'submit' someone is going to come along with all the details on some disease that I've never heard of before that causes women to go through menopause at, like, age 20 and flame the living daylights out of me.) Yes, anyone can die at any time, but there is definitely an increased risk after a certan age; that's why it costs so much more to obtain life insurance after a certain age, etc..
I will say that I find it interesting that there are such strict ethics policies on, say, people applying for sex changes. They have to go through all this counseling and live for so long as a member of the opposite sex. And that's something that's really only going to affect the person having the sex change. I'm not well versed in the process for IVF (I managed to get pregnant while taking the pill...I couldn't be more of a stranger to that world. Forgive my ignorance.), but it doesn't seem like nearly as grueling of a process. To my knowledge, the people signing up for IVF do not have to live with a child/be a parent for a year before having the procedure. It strikes me as a little odd that we take something that does affect another living being so lightly in comparison to that doesn't. It's just socially acceptable (and almost expected of us) to have children...not so much with the people having sex changes.
@filtered_sunlight - In terms of IVF being a grueling process, it is, but not for the same reasons as processes like applying for sex changes. Clinics can and some do refuse to treat patients based on factors like age, orientation, family history, etc. In fact, I was originally rejected for an IVF cycle because I had not been trying long enough, according to the clinic I used. Potential IVF patients go through all kinds of screenings and tests and evaluations. At least they probably should, if their clinic is following the ethics set by the associations they belong to. But that's what they are, ethics. I think I prefer that over a law.
@SeeBeeWrite@xanga - It just seems (and I'm fully willing admit that it could just be perception) that there are quite a few providers that are willing to do the procedures for anyone with the money to hand them, everything else be damned. In the best interest of the potential children, I think I'd prefer that it be legally restricted to some degree.
Having children at those ages does more than increase the risk of leaving orphans behind due to the mother dying "too soon" just simply because of how old she was already.
The older you are when you conceive a child, the more likely it is that there will be complications, including developmental issues in the child. Physical health issues, as well. And for the mother physical health issues are more likely to occur, as well. Its just not safe health-wise for either the mother or the baby or babies. That doesn't mean that it always happens, just that the risks for it are far higher.
And, naturally, as you mentioned there is a heightened risk that the child will be left without a mother, or without either parent, not long after he/she/they are born.
In my opinion, its just selfish. :/ I can understand the need/want, but its still selfish because in the end you are thinking of yourself more than you are of the child(ren) that you are bringing into the world at such a late time in your life.
There is a reason that the female body is designed not to have more children past a certain age. Sometimes our "biological clocks" run a little fast or a little slow, but there is a reason that our bodies do what they do. :p
I think its unethical for any provider to do this for a woman who has gone through or is going through menopause and I think that there should definitely be tougher laws in place. I also think that tougher penalties for breaking laws designed to prevent this kind of thing from happening to be in place, as well.
The answer to this isn't blanketed, so no, I don't think their should be laws about being "too old" for IVF. It should be up to a woman & her doctor.
@tracezilla@lovelyish - @MangoWOW@xanga - I concur.
What worries me about older women having children is the children that may be prematurely left behind when mom dies.
I would never want to be that old like in my 60's, 70's or 80's just to have kids. That would be hard on an old person. Especially if their health deteriates. And they start to move slower or forgets to do stuff with or for the child. Why would older women at that age have kids anyway? Most women can't even take care of themselves at that age.
No I don't think that IVF should be allowed past the age of menopause. The older the woman is the greater the risk to her health and the child's health. This is an elective procedure. Should it be a law probably not. I would like to think that any health care provider that I would see would have the ethical backbone to say no. Technology is great but sometimes it allows us to do things that we just shouldn't do. Yes there should be a cutoff. There should be guidelines. Would we want doctors performing IVF on a 16 year old?
First off its kind of gross when older women have children and second, your menstration stops in your 40s or so for a reason. Just because science can do whatever ,nature's not going to allow what isnt right. When people are in their 60s,70s,80s they're pretty much babies themselves because we regress in functional skills and other things. Adopt an older child who needs a home and stop with the weird test tube babies.
I personally think that you should stop having children in your 40s. I think it's disgusting that women have children so old -- because they know that they are not going to be there for a lot of their child/children's lives.
@MangoWOW@xanga - actually no. the womens eggs in her uterus stop producing at age 50. so women any age can have children IMO
my mom had me at 33. I think this is the biggest stereotypcial blog ever
womens eggs stop producing at age 50. So women should be able to have children whenever they want....
stupid blogs
I think that as long as nature permits it, you can have a child. I don't think anyone should conceive a baby using artificial intervention, regardless of age.
@Jeremy_Sheer@xanga - That just means they CAN continue having children. Should they? Not in my opinion.
@MangoWOW@xanga - I love your statement.
@SeeBeeWrite@xanga - I agree with you completely, though I am glad that for the most part people use better judgment. I think this could easily lead to laws claiming people with various health conditions as unfit for parenting and having their children taken away, in addition to the scenarios you mentioned.
@iiinfinitesimal@xanga - my mom adopted me when she was 57. i lived a normal childhood, and she said i helped keep her young :) you're right!
If we can't keep sex offenders and murders, and drug dealers from having childrenthen we shouldn't keep older people from it either. I also am not for the government getting involved with private practices on this matter. As long as the patient is a consenting adult the clinic should be allowed to have their own standards.
@filtered_sunlight - you are right about the disease thing. I have a friend with a rare form of dwarfism. It caused her to start menopause while she was still in highschool. She had eggs frozen so she had have IVF when she is ready.