Woman gives birth at age 66

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).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

66 is too old!!!
60 is too old
heck, 50 is too old
you have to consider being there for your kid, and having a kid at 50, you are just being selfish,
then again, i'm assuming it's a 50 year old mother, not father..
a 50 year old father seems to not be as big of a deal..
hhhmmmmmmm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah but what about those women who miraculously conceived naturally in their late 50's? Should they have an abortion or something? :shrug:

Also a young parent can also die and leave children behind. I mean I see your point, I'm just saying.

I ask because I too thought it was selfish and 'unnatural' until I discovered that there are some cases where this does happen. Then I had to re-consider the argument that 50 is too old and its selfish and unnatural. But yeah I do agree that this woman is a little odd to go through with this. And since she has refused to give interviews on the subject its difficult to ascertain why she went through all this trouble outside of the obvious fact that she wants children.

A 50 year old male fathering a child is not a big deal for two reasons:

1. He generally isn't the one taking full responsibility for raising the child

2. He is biologically capable of fathering a child

In short its not really a double standard as much as the way nature dictates.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what women?? i dont' think there have been any women who concieve "naturally" over the age of 50.
i'm not saying a woman should abort, should she fall pregnant naturally at the age of 66, but i do think, that if you "try" to become a mother at 66, then you have selfish reasons for doing so...
i've only just reached my 30's..and if i dont' knuckle down and have kids in the next 5/10 years...then i won't have kids full stop..

 

I just listed examples of documented cases in the OP of women who have naturally given birth over 50. Go back and take a look!!

So you think the IVF clinics should have an age cap? If so what would the criteria be for such a cap?

Also I don't buy the 'selfish' argument. Many women have children for selfish reasons. Actually I cannot think of a woman who would have a child out of selfless reasons unless its a product of rape or something.

 

yeah, you did list examples...my bad there.
but still..
my argument is
no woman over the age of 50 should be trying to have kids..
she should have thought about kids long before turning 50..or 66.
if it happens naturally, then so be it..
not sure what the IVF rules are..but i would think they wouldn't consider anyone over the age of 50??. i could be wrong however... everyone has a price..it's prob all about $$$

 

i concur bells.

 

You know what my gut reaction is the same as yours. I'm kind of playing devils advocate with the topic to try and figure out why I find it disturbing. As for IVF they will do the procedure on anyone who can afford it, if you read the article links you would see that there have been several cases of women who've had the procedure done over fifty. Thing is its difficult to make an argument these days based on what is natural or timely as there are many aspects of life that no longer obey those rules. Its more than natural from a biological point of view for a teenager to give birth at 15 and 16 for example but there are social and cultural reasons why we frown against it; they too are deemed unprepared, irresponsible, etc. One of the articles pointed out that it was once frowned upon for woman to have a baby in their 30 yrs instead of earlier but now its acceptable to have a child in ones 40's and many of those women become pregnant through IVF. So is it a cultural-social bias that will change with the advances in technology? Who knows. The woman had it done in the Ukraine because it was cheaper not because she couldn't get it done in the UK, but you know its like...where are they going with this. Is there an ethical argument perhaps on why this is wrong?

I don't know I'm starting to think its a prejudice of mine more than a legitimate case against it but its definitely a weird choice for some of these women to make.

I wonder if these women can breast-feed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*shudders at the thought*

 

Nadya Suleman a single woman on welfare who is now 35 years old used fertility clinics to have 14 children and does not rule out having more children.

Some people who want children decide that they provide for children and they therefore don't have children. But others don't worry about whether they can or can not provide for their children and just have children.

Larry King was criticized for becoming a father at age 67 (with his seventh wife who would later attempt suicide when the child was 10 years old).

How old is too old for fatherhood? How poor is too poor for parenthood?

The money needed for one liver transplant could save thousands of third world children from dying from severe diarrhea. On the other hand if you save the poor children's lives somebody may also have to say the lives of the saved poor children's future children.

Traditionally you need parents to stay alive because children without parents tended to die.

Parenthood is not just about money but money is important. But saying wealthy 70 your old women can be allowed to have fertility treatments but less wealthy 70 year old women can't be allowed to have fertility treatments is problematic because it creates class based rights. But should taxpayers be forced to pay for "irresponsible" parents children?

Instinctively most young people are not willing to have sex or marriages with old people and therefore the problem of men being to old to be parents was not a problem. Their is a hostility that many feel towards old guys with young women that is probably coming from some instinct against producing children that won't have the support of a father. The unease at old women having children is probably the same issue.

I suppose if the old woman had plenty of money and loving nieces and nephews or some other close younger people willing to take over parenthood of the child then it would be OK for the old woman to have a child.

 

If she is healthy, I don't see why it's wrong.

I know people of 90 and older near me who are still perfectly healthy and have better endurance than me. Seriously. Old doesn't mean decaying.

 

Wow, having children later = more risk of low weight and development problems? Eek...

There's a huge mismatch between fertility and being emotionally ready for a kid, I think.

If I wanted a kid, I know I wouldn't want to have one until I was waayyyyyy older. I'm 20, I'll be 30 in 10 years, and that still seems far too young. 50/60 seems a better age.

 

The very fact that they bother list the names of women over 50 who've had children shows how unusual and rare it is.

I'll admit that i find this somewhat disturbing, but I wouldn't ban it. I would, however, suggest that there's no need for insurance to cover IVF in a 66 year old woman.

If someone wants to have children at such an advanced age, they ought to pay for it themselves.

 

Healthy...

Advanced age doesn't just mean old. It means the systems are worn. Advanced age means much higher risk for cardiac arrest, liver problems, stroke, certain cancers etc.

Reading that article, it said she's soon to turn 67 years old.

I can't help but think, she'll be 70 when the child's still learning how to walk and talk- IF She's still alive at 70.

I can see it now: "Oldest mother goes into cardiac arrest at childs first birthday."
Aye, hectic day... the moment was too much.

"I don't remember my mom... She got old and died while I was still young."

 

She will be 80 when her child is 13. 13 year olds still need parents. This child may need to take care of his mother at age 13 instead of having a social life.

 

i'm 43 and recently married. neither my husband nor myself have any children from previous relationships. he would like to have a child. i would not mind having a child. i have been both encouraged and discouraged by different people in regards to pregnancy. some say i'm too old and because there are risks, i should be using some type of birth control. some say i'm getting old, and because my window of opportunity is closing, we should be using fertility drugs or an in vitro process. i have no inclination to do either. i believe in god and fate, and so i figure if it's meant to be it will be, and if it's not it won't.

 

Those are just a few examples but of course its rare. I was surprised to discover it happened at all! I was always under the impression that fertility ended with menopause BUT there seems to be this thing called menopause babies, where some women become incredibly fertile and become pregnant.

You forget women in their 60's who choose IVF are also rare.:shrug:

These women do pay for IVF themselves. Its difficult to get IVF in the national health system no matter how old you are.

 

Why would a woman wealthy enough to hire a full time, live in, nanny (I can tell a few people, not you, didn't read the links) and lives a life of privilege need a 13 year old to care for her when there are full time nurses? She's not some middl-class worker, she's a woman of means.

Can you think of a moral argument of why they should have an age cap on IVF? Something other than the knee-jerk 'she's too old'. We have the same resistance in our society towards the disabled having children, very young girls having children etc and it seems as if what is acceptable on those grounds are changing. For example go back not too far in history and it was acceptable for a 14 year old to be married and get pregnant at 15 (now its taboo), technology has allowed the disabled freedom to do things they wouldn't naturally be able to do and many demand the right to reproduce, women at 40 were considered too old to have children and now we consider a 40 year old pregnant woman 'ok', the technology has made it okay. Is it that there is simply a bias that could conceivably change with time?

IVF wouldn't be affordable for younger woman in her late 20's or early 30's if she had problems conceiving unless she had a lot of money. IVF is for the well healed who can pay for it, not something that is payed for by national health via tax payers dollars except under the strictest guidelines and there is a waiting list to boot. This being the case it is something only available to wealthy women, poor women who cannot conceive also have a very very difficult time adopting. Its just the way things are. So in this case IVF is more accessible to a 60 your old woman than to a 30 year old poor woman who is having trouble conceiving.

What boggles my mind is why the procedure was able to take in her body in only a year. I mean I thought her body would struggle to resist such a condition, it turned out ok and the baby is fine and healthy. So what's unnatural? Heart transplants aren't natural either.:shrug:

I'm asking if anyone here can provide MORAL argument for why this is wrong and needs caping. Its obvious she's too old but one could argue that Stephen Hawking shouldn't have had any children in his physical condition and he does.

 

Yep, and she's too old.
It's just the way things are. After all, if we can discriminate against the poor...

Agreed.
It's just the way it is.


Moral?
Who cares.


To be utterly apocalyptic about it...

Discrimination is just a part of life. Whether or not people have kids? We are going to have to face the pool of bad genes, someday...

I also have a problem with little old blue haired ladies behind the wheel. Had one cut left right in front of me not long ago. I had to slam on the brakes and cut right- HARD. The two wheels on the passenger side of my vehicle left the pavement. What did she do? Kept moseying along... Yeah I honked at her old butt. Yelled a choice name out the window, too.

People like to whine and cry about discrimination, then they put up no smoking signs.

Do I think anyone should stop what's been done by that selfish old hag? No.
Too late now. But it's not about the baby- it's all about HER. If she gave a damn about that baby, she wouldn't have gotten herself knocked up by a Russian syringe.
I can call it for what it is and if anyone says I'm discriminating against foolish old bats birthing babies- I'll just say, "Damn right."