Too old to be a Mum?

[rynnor]

Anyone else see this tonight? I thought the main woman they featured had terrible reasons for wanting to have a child as a pensioner 'to have someone to love me etc.' - she should have gotten a dog tbh.

Apart from the basic yuck factor the child has a high chance of becoming an orphan or potentially even worse may end up as a carer for its elderly parent as her health fails.

Plus the logistics of caring for a child challenge young people in good health let alone the elderly and then finally the enormous generation gap with its impact on the parent/child relationship.

Still on that note perhaps they might have something in common - both wearing nappies

 

[cHodAX]

Silly bint, acting on selfish reasons and quite possibly dying before the child becomes an adult, what the fuck is she thinking?

 

[kirennia]

I have a sort of mixed view about the whole thing but then, I'm acting on a bias. For a woman to go through childbirth, obviously the body goes through a lot and you can be fit as a fiddle beforehand but no-one knows what can happen afterwards. The woman in the program is a prime example, being well beforehand, then having one miscarriage and now having a host of health issues, arguably issues she wouldn't have, had she of had the child at an earlier age or adopted. The elevated possibility of defects in the child and substandard parenting are simply an unfair burden to risk putting upon your child who wont have a mother post-teenage years.

Despite the child growing inside the woman, it will have no DNA attributes of the parent so what would be the difference in her having adopted? There are only a host of problems with IVF at that age and I can't really think of any benefits other then the unquantifyable variable of a 'bond' being formed pre-birth. This is hardly an issue though; it would be folly to contest the love of an adopted parent. It seems nothing more then a selfish act from her part and extremely irresponsible (possibly spurred on by her husband as he wanted children?).

As for adoption at that age, well I'm not against it, especially when one of the parents is much younger and can look after the child well into their life. If both were 60+, it would be a different matter but even then, foster parenting can be a very rewarding alternative.


I mention a personal bias only because my grandfather fathered my mother from the age of 60, while my grandmother was in her mid-40's. Sadly he died at the age of 79, 3 years after retirement and neither of them could have foreseen my grandmother dying shortly after so my mum was left parentless in her early twenties which she didn't take too well. When deciding to have my mother, they had built a substantial fortune, had other family members around for support, maids, carers and plenty of love yet upon their death, it sadly wasn't there in its whole anymore.

You simply cannot foresee an unpredictable future, even in the best of circumstances. No matter your age, the death of a parent isn't going to be easy but I can't help but feel that the later in your life, the better for you.

Only having a theoretical age limit is ridiculous but then, if tomorrow a limit of 45 was introduced for IVF, you can be certain that other countries would still hold differing laws and thus, it would just be undertaken in another country, potentially with lower standards and more problems would occur. We wont be able to fight this type of idiocy as a single country and it's morally questionable whether we should even try.

One question I would ask however is, should a couple be considering having a child yet both have a family history of early deaths, should they also be stopped from having a child? If not then what really is the difference and if so, then this is all a question of eugenics which I don't think anyone would truly want to happen... thus the difficulty in truly opposing their standpoint.

 

[kirennia]

Final note...

Also worthy of a mention was one of the people in the documentary mentioning the amount of attention given to a child. An eldery couple can theoretically look after a child for longer periods of time then a young, career driven couple... this should also be taken into consideration.

 

[Ctuchik]

Final note...

Also worthy of a mention was one of the people in the documentary mentioning the amount of attention given to a child. An eldery couple can theoretically look after a child for longer periods of time then a young, career driven couple... this should also be taken into consideration.

sure, but they will also die a whole lot faster then a "normal" parent...

 

[Zenith.UK]

I remember a case a couple of years ago in Spain where a woman in her late 60's had twins. She died last year. Who the hell is looking after those children now?

On a more ordinary note, a friend of mine was born when her mother was 40 and father was 47. Her father died in 1996 when she was 23, and her mother died in 1999 when she was 26.
By comparison, my mother had me when she was 22 and neither of my parents are even pensioners yet.

 

[Chilly]

I remember a case a couple of years ago in Spain where a woman in her late 60's had twins. She died last year. Who the hell is looking after those children now?

On a more ordinary note, a friend of mine was born when her mother was 40 and father was 47. Her father died in 1996 when she was 23, and her mother died in 1999 when she was 26.
By comparison, my mother had me when she was 22 and neither of my parents are even pensioners yet.

And you wont get any money off them until you dont need it either

 

[DaGaffer]

I remember a case a couple of years ago in Spain where a woman in her late 60's had twins. She died last year. Who the hell is looking after those children now?

On a more ordinary note, a friend of mine was born when her mother was 40 and father was 47. Her father died in 1996 when she was 23, and her mother died in 1999 when she was 26.
By comparison, my mother had me when she was 22 and neither of my parents are even pensioners yet.

Speaking as someone who's about to be a father for the first time in his forties, I'm conflicted. Personally I feel I'm right on the upper limit of "too old". My girlfriend is in her mid-thirties though so that helps me deal with it, but I have thought long and hard about the fact I'll be retiring when my kid is at university-leaving age, and yes, it does bother me.

On the negative side there is the generation gap thing (although I really don't think that's the issue it was - I sometimes think kids would prefer the cultural gap to be larger than it is, but old 'uns are generally refusing to grow old gracefully), but on the positive side I can actually afford to have them, I'm healthy now and life expectancy is still on the up, so I can be reasonably confident of seeing my kids into adulthood. But ten, or even five years from now I'd probably make a different choice.

I do feel there should be a cut off date for IVF (I'm not a huge fan of IVF anyway - if it had turned out I couldn't have kids I'd have taken it on the chin, although of course my gf has a different view...), and if that can't be done then the IVF fees should ramp up to include insurance to cover the full costs of raising the child if you're unlikely to be around to see them grow up.

 

[Chilly]

too old to be a mum? probably.
too old to pork? nah.

 

[cHodAX]

My mum is 55, I am 34, my sisters son is 15. I think that is a healthy age spread for 3 generations of one family, my mum had her kids at her physical and mental peak and my sister followed suit. We are all fit and healthy because of it plus my mum has been fortunate to see her own children approach middle age and is on the verge of seeing her grandchild become a man.

I honestly don't see people having kids over the age of 50 as healthy, either for the child or the parent, physically or mentally. The taxpayer should not be subsidising it either, there are plenty of more appropriate ways to spend that money as well.

 

[Cadiva]

On a more ordinary note, a friend of mine was born when her mother was 40 and father was 47. Her father died in 1996 when she was 23, and her mother died in 1999 when she was 26.
By comparison, my mother had me when she was 22 and neither of my parents are even pensioners yet.

What age you have your children isn't related to what age you're going to die and shouldn't be a deciding factor in whether someone is able to birth naturally.

My parents had me when they were 22, they're now both 62 as I will be 40 this year. My best friend's mum was 42 when she had her and her father was a couple of years younger. Her mum died at the age of 74 and her father at 72.
However, our other friend, whose mum was 40 when she had her, her mum is still living and is still very healthy and yet her father was killed in a car crash when she was just five - his age being completely irrelevant in his death. There is no defined time when someone is going to die. Just because a mother is older does not mean she is automatically going to die before a younger mother. One of my mum's best friends died of breast cancer at the age of 36 leaving two young sons behind.

Artificial help in having a child is a different argument altogether and there should be a cut off point for that and I believe the age which they use now (which in the UK I think is 45?) is entirely appropriate as this is when women start to become far less fertile leading up to the menopause.

However, speaking as someone who had my son at the age of 38, I defy anyone to tell me I should not have had him or that by not being a "young mum" I will be a worse parent to him. Having had a 20 year career, I am able to spend time at home with my son, taking him out to playgroups and to spend time with other children which young parents are often not able to do because they both need to work.

There is no "right" time to have children. Whenever you have children is the "right time" for you as parents.

 

[Zenith.UK]

The ones taking issue with my comments seem to think I'm judging all people who have children later in life. The age you have children NATURALLY is entirely up to the parents to be. I have a problem when IVF is used after a woman's natural menopause. The woman's body has said "Time's up" and changes accordingly. Using IVF after the menopause is like cheating IMO.

With regards people having children in their 40's, they're simply closer the biblical age of "3 score and 10" (70) and are therefore less likely to live to see their grandchildren. Referring back to my friend again, her father never knew her children and her mother only knew her son for one week before she died.
By comparison, my mother not only knows all her grandchildren, she's still active and able to enjoy them. Accidents and illness aside, she's quite likely to live to see her great-grandchildren as well.
It also helps that the women on my maternal side have all lived to over 85 for the last 3 generations.

 

[cHodAX]

Cadiva much of what you said is spot on, however the law of averages dictates that most of those older parents 40+ will not see thier children reach middle age, at 38 you have a great chance going by the average lifespan of a woman these days but these people over 40 and especially 45+ worry me greatly. They are risking many birth defects for the child by having offspring so late in the cycle but also the odds of that child ending up an orphan become so much higher.

Of course it is the individuals right to choose and I would never want to see that stop, I just think the taxpayer forking out thousands for women who are blatently too old to be having children is immoral. 45 is a good cutoff point but to be honest I would like to see it lowered to 40, everyone in society then becomes accutely aware that they need to be having kids before 40 to avoid any issues with fertility but also to qualify for help if they do have issues.

 

[Chilly]

ignoring the social factors, humans are designed to start manufacturing babies from late teens. Adding 5-10 years to that is fine imo, but anything more and you start fucking about with the basic biology involved and things go wrong.

 

[rynnor]

This is the main problem - they are self deluding to think they will neccesarily have years to watch their kids - as this lady did.

BBC NEWS | Health | World's oldest mother dies at 69

The one featured in the BBC program developed a brain tumour shortly after the pregnancy - the doctor re-assured her that it wasnt related but a more honest answer would be 'I dont know'.

There are so few of these women that no studies have been made as to the health risks of elderly pregnancy.

The american woman featured in the program had a placenta that kept growing in a way very like cancer and had to spend the last few months of pregnancy in a specialist hospital.

None of this sounds like a good idea to me - why not adopt an older child?

If we couldnt have had kids I would have adopted and loved the child no less than one that was genetically related.

 

[Zenith.UK]

That's the one I was talking about!
Had the babies, and got ill not long after. I remembered the general points, not the details.

 

[DaGaffer]

ignoring the social factors, humans are designed to start manufacturing babies from late teens. Adding 5-10 years to that is fine imo, but anything more and you start fucking about with the basic biology involved and things go wrong.

We're also "designed" to die at 35. Bottom line is that women are "designed" to have babies until they hit the menopause, and not after .

Yes, there are increased odds of congential defects and other problems as you get older, but a major percentage of the human race carry various undesirable traits in their DNA anyway, and provided you're not a God-bothering lunatic, you can screen for most of the major problems in the womb. Older mothers have to be regarded as a fact of life in western societies unless we roll back the last 50 years of female equality, but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate post-menopause selfishness at the public expense. Like everything in life, there's a line, and in this case nature gave us a pretty unequivocal one.

 

[Sparx]

I love this link title

BBC NEWS | Health | World's oldest mother dies at 69

Im pretty sure 69 isnt the oldest mum. I mean my other gran is still alive and she is 75 and shes still a mum

 

[Cadiva]

Cadiva much of what you said is spot on, however the law of averages dictates that most of those older parents 40+ will not see thier children reach middle age, at 38 you have a great chance going by the average lifespan of a woman these days but these people over 40 and especially 45+ worry me greatly. They are risking many birth defects for the child by having offspring so late in the cycle but also the odds of that child ending up an orphan become so much higher.

Of course it is the individuals right to choose and I would never want to see that stop, I just think the taxpayer forking out thousands for women who are blatently too old to be having children is immoral. 45 is a good cutoff point but to be honest I would like to see it lowered to 40, everyone in society then becomes accutely aware that they need to be having kids before 40 to avoid any issues with fertility but also to qualify for help if they do have issues.

Oh I totally agree, I don't think there should be any medical intervention past the age of 50 at the absolute limit, although I think 45 is also a reasonable cut off point.

However, it's not a black and white issue, I have a friend who has been unsuccessfully trying for children for pretty much all the 15 years I have known her. During that time she's been able to have one course of IVF, which failed, and then couldn't afford any more (IVF in her NHS area is only paid for the first time).

She hasn't sat back though, she became a foster parent and has successfully brought up two seriously disabled children before they were returned back into full time care (because of their disabilities not because she wished to have them taken away) and is now fostering a young brother and sister who've been taken into care from an unsatisfactory home life.
But, the point I'm making, is that if she was suddenly able to afford more IVF (she's two years younger than me so is 38 this year) should she be prevented from that due to age if there was a lower cut off point?

I think it's because this is such an emotive issue that it's so difficult to argue and to quantify and also, lets be honest, there's far less stigma about a man fathering a child in old age than there is a woman giving birth - there seems to be a bit more of the "wayhey randy old devil" etc instead of the argument that he might not be around either

I don't, however, believe that having children is a right, I firmly believe it is a privilege and one I've been very lucky to have.

 

[Kami]

My wife and I are slightly split (pun intended) over this, surprisingly she thinks that the IVF cap should be hard set at 50, I'm in favour of leaving it up to the clinicians with some guidance rather than rules. We both agree though that there should be a hard limit on at what age the NHS offers free treatment of any kind though.

There are a lot of foster kids in the UK, my parents always had a foster sister when my brother and I were growing up (my god he got middle child syndrome, it was great being the youngest!). So I think people need to look at adoption or fostering more, there's too much negativity, I loved having a foster sister and would be seriously considering it now if my wife and I get a bigger home.

Wife is currently 9 weeks pregnant but even if we couldn't add our own baby we'll be looking to adopt or foster once we find a larger home anyway, I think we're both in broody moods since we got married! It does annoy me that people can get free IVF where we're only getting one scan at 12 weeks then shown the door, no second scan unless we pay for it - despite it being part of the NHS requirements for health boards in Scotland.

 

[DaGaffer]

Wife is currently 9 weeks pregnant but even if we couldn't add our own baby we'll be looking to adopt or foster once we find a larger home anyway, I think we're both in broody moods since we got married! It does annoy me that people can get free IVF where we're only getting one scan at 12 weeks then shown the door, no second scan unless we pay for it - despite it being part of the NHS requirements for health boards in Scotland.

Its all very well talking about fostering or adoption as alternatives; but in many ways adoption is the harder option, and near impossible if you're older or have had any kind of illness; a friend of mine had breast cancer when she was 30, can no longer have kids, but they won't let her adopt (despite a clean bill of health) because she's had cancer. This is despite being a stable relationship with her (perfectly healthy) husband. Its always a bit annoying when people start to talk about all the orphans who need parents blah blah blah and then see the reality of the adoption process.

Didn't know you only got one scan in Scotland. Makes me feel slightly better about the FOUR AND A HALF GRAND we have to pay for maternity treatment in Ireland.

 

[cHodAX]

She hasn't sat back though, she became a foster parent and has successfully brought up two seriously disabled children before they were returned back into full time care (because of their disabilities not because she wished to have them taken away) and is now fostering a young brother and sister who've been taken into care from an unsatisfactory home life.
But, the point I'm making, is that if she was suddenly able to afford more IVF (she's two years younger than me so is 38 this year) should she be prevented from that due to age if there was a lower cut off point?

Nice, I take my hat off to her, she sounds like exactly the kind of person we should be helping more.

The way I look at it is this, if we had a cutoff of 40 then there would be more money in the pot to treat the more viable candidates (age-wise) such as your friend. Instead we are giving treatment to people who have a very low chance of success, to me it is a waste of money and borderline immoral. Help the viable more and those over the age limit should have to self fund, if not then they should do the world a favour and adopt one of the millions of orphans in this world.