Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Okay how old is too old for a woman to have children?
Elizabeth Adeney from the UK decided late in life that she wanted to have a child and embarked on successful IFV treatments to finally give birth in 99' at the age of 66 to a healthy baby boy:
"Mrs Adeney first had fertility treatment two decades ago during her short-lived marriage to Robert Adeney, now 71, but was told by medical experts at the time that she could no longer continue with attempts to fall pregnant. A source close to Mr Adeney said the marriage foundered as Mrs Adeney became consumed with the desire to have children. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ey-gives-birth-5lb-3oz-boy.html#ixzz10WQMMnvl
Should fertility clinics allow women of that age to go through treatment?
"Bioethicist Professor Severino Antinori, who is horrified by Munro’s pregnancy. Unfortunately, when asked to elaborate on why Munro’s pregnancy is so wrong, Prof. Antinori’s logic is painfully weak (also, he sounds like a total dick):
“I am shocked by the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth,” he said. “I respect the choice medically but I think anything over 63 is risky because you cannot guarantee the child will have a loving mother or family.
“It is possible to give a child to the mother up to the age of 83 but it is medically criminal to do this because the likelihood is that after a year or two the child will lose his mum and suffer from psychological problems."
http://www.blogher.com/elizabeth-adeney-too-old-have-baby-do-we-have-right-judge
Although I disagree that a child will go through psychological problems simply because they lose their mother at the age of one or two, still being a geriatric mom could be strange experience for a young child. Given the doctors response a woman can now have children at the age of 83 years old but why would anyone want to encourage that?
Should modern women simply take responsibility for the fact that there is a window of time for pregnancy and if they miss the opportunity then that's just tough luck? We wouldn't allow a single woman to adopt at that age so why allow them to undergo IVF treatment?
On the other hand I think its kind of a miracle that the bloody thing worked at all, and since she is financially able to care for a child whether she lives long enough or not, I'm starting to think my opinion is based on age bias more than anything else. Obviously its not a natural occurrence to have children so old but I was shocked to discover that some women do indeed go on to naturally conceive and deliver late in life (though not that late!!) and no one would deny those mums the pleasure of going through with a pregnancy:
1956: Ruth Kistler of Portland, Oregon gave birth to a daughter in Los Angeles, California on October 18, 1956, at the age of 57. The birth predated the advent of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) making Kistler one of the oldest women known to have conceived naturally.
1987: Kathleen Campbell of Kimberley, Nottinghamshire gave birth to a son in
1987 at the age of 55, having conceived naturally.
1997: Dawn Brooke of Guernsey gave birth to a son by caesarian section on August 20, 1997, at the age of 59. She became pregnant unexpectedly, initially mistaking the symptoms she experienced for cancer, and is the oldest mother currently known to have conceived naturally. It has been speculated that the hormone replacement therapy which Brooke had may have contributed to her ability to ovulate past menopause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50
So what say you folk? Does there need to be a cap on what age a woman can undergo IVF? If so what would be the criteria for establishing an age cap?
To note these procedures are generally so expensive that most women couldn't afford them anyway so I doubt there will be many geriatric mums running around. Having said that I think its a little unfair that the opportunity to produce a child if one is having problems is only available to the well healed (but that's a topic for another thread).
Elizabeth Adeney from the UK decided late in life that she wanted to have a child and embarked on successful IFV treatments to finally give birth in 99' at the age of 66 to a healthy baby boy:
"Mrs Adeney first had fertility treatment two decades ago during her short-lived marriage to Robert Adeney, now 71, but was told by medical experts at the time that she could no longer continue with attempts to fall pregnant. A source close to Mr Adeney said the marriage foundered as Mrs Adeney became consumed with the desire to have children. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ey-gives-birth-5lb-3oz-boy.html#ixzz10WQMMnvl
Should fertility clinics allow women of that age to go through treatment?
"Bioethicist Professor Severino Antinori, who is horrified by Munro’s pregnancy. Unfortunately, when asked to elaborate on why Munro’s pregnancy is so wrong, Prof. Antinori’s logic is painfully weak (also, he sounds like a total dick):
“I am shocked by the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth,” he said. “I respect the choice medically but I think anything over 63 is risky because you cannot guarantee the child will have a loving mother or family.
“It is possible to give a child to the mother up to the age of 83 but it is medically criminal to do this because the likelihood is that after a year or two the child will lose his mum and suffer from psychological problems."
http://www.blogher.com/elizabeth-adeney-too-old-have-baby-do-we-have-right-judge
Although I disagree that a child will go through psychological problems simply because they lose their mother at the age of one or two, still being a geriatric mom could be strange experience for a young child. Given the doctors response a woman can now have children at the age of 83 years old but why would anyone want to encourage that?
Should modern women simply take responsibility for the fact that there is a window of time for pregnancy and if they miss the opportunity then that's just tough luck? We wouldn't allow a single woman to adopt at that age so why allow them to undergo IVF treatment?
On the other hand I think its kind of a miracle that the bloody thing worked at all, and since she is financially able to care for a child whether she lives long enough or not, I'm starting to think my opinion is based on age bias more than anything else. Obviously its not a natural occurrence to have children so old but I was shocked to discover that some women do indeed go on to naturally conceive and deliver late in life (though not that late!!) and no one would deny those mums the pleasure of going through with a pregnancy:
1956: Ruth Kistler of Portland, Oregon gave birth to a daughter in Los Angeles, California on October 18, 1956, at the age of 57. The birth predated the advent of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) making Kistler one of the oldest women known to have conceived naturally.
1987: Kathleen Campbell of Kimberley, Nottinghamshire gave birth to a son in
1987 at the age of 55, having conceived naturally.
1997: Dawn Brooke of Guernsey gave birth to a son by caesarian section on August 20, 1997, at the age of 59. She became pregnant unexpectedly, initially mistaking the symptoms she experienced for cancer, and is the oldest mother currently known to have conceived naturally. It has been speculated that the hormone replacement therapy which Brooke had may have contributed to her ability to ovulate past menopause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50
So what say you folk? Does there need to be a cap on what age a woman can undergo IVF? If so what would be the criteria for establishing an age cap?
To note these procedures are generally so expensive that most women couldn't afford them anyway so I doubt there will be many geriatric mums running around. Having said that I think its a little unfair that the opportunity to produce a child if one is having problems is only available to the well healed (but that's a topic for another thread).