Having a baby at 66 - too old?

[shortbun]

I was 41 when my son was born. It was tough physically because at 2 he was a runner, lol! He's still a runner at 13 and qualifying for the city track meet in the 800 meter. I can not imagine being 79 right now. My mother just died, she turned 79 just prior to her death. At 66, she was still running 3 miles 4X a week.

 

[alexandria674]

Are there not medical facts that state that there is a higher risk to the older mother and the child?

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I think it is hard to really say. Do I personally think that 66 is too old? Yes. The reason I think that is because I keep thinking of a young teen taking care of an elderly parent. What 15 year old should have that burden? You will see many threads on here from grown adults that are having a tough time with such a thing. Why saddle a child with that? Sure, nothing in life is promised but if you were honest, the likelyhood that the woman would live for another 20-30 years is slim to none. I understand wanting a child. I wanted my children with every ounce of my being. Part of being a parent though is not being selfish. I think on some level this woman is very selfish. I feel bad for the child and for the parent.

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

Its not about her. There are a lot more issues to consider as well as other people's experiences, namely her future child's.

If it's about a woman and her constitutional rights at other times, then this would be her constitutional right also. I never said rather I agreed or disagreed. My point is that people of America can't have it both ways. From what I understand a woman can have a child or not have a child, nobody gets to tell her what to do, also anyone could drop dead at any moment regardless of age. The issue of taxpayers and this child is a joke. We've been supporting people for their entire lives for decades. Rather it was by IVF or not, her body accepted it and she is now 8 months pregnant (I believe that's what the story said).

 

[Laura]

Is it what I would choose? No.

However, from what little bit of information I have seen, she sounds like she is in very good shape for her age and is able to financially and physically support having a child at this time.

I think we are getting into very dangerous territory here. There are many women out there who may have chronic illnesses that could *potentially* limit their lifespan or cause complicaion that would make physically caring for a child to be difficult.

I have diabetes. That means that there is an increased risk of complications for me during pregnancy and birth defects for my child. It also means that I could potentially suffer complications such as amputation, blindness, kidney damage, etc. Does that mean that I (or any other woman with diabetes) should not have a child?

What about a cancer survivor who could have a relapse at any time? Or somebody with a strong history of a genetic problem in their family? Nobody wants their child to be born with an illness or condition, but I think we need to be careful about saying things like parents playing russian roulette. I knew a couple that had a child with spinal muscular atrophy. Better parents you couldn't imagine, sadly their little boy died before he was three years old. But he was a happy little boy while on Earth and such a bless in their lives. This recessive condition means that they have a 25% chance of having another child with the condition. Does that mean that they shouldn't ever have another biological child?

They took the chance, and thankfully the next child did not have SMA, but would his life have been worth any less if he did? I'm sorry, but that comment just reminded me so strongly of the days when it was considered shameful to have a child with a disability and families hid them away out of shame. It's not up to us to judge what lives are "worth" living.

As long as this mom is physically and financially capable of supporting the child now (which is all we can ask as nobody can predict the future) and has arrangements made for whatever the future might hold, as any good parent should do, then I don't think it is too old or the concern of anybody else.

I'm with you. I lost my mother just before I turned 18; she died of cancer, though, not old age. But if she knew that she was going to die young, would my parents still have had kids? Should she not have? (Well, what she should have done is gone to the GYN yearly and gotten Pap smears....)This 66-year-old may die while this child is still in elementary school. Or she may live another 30 years, which is 12 more than I got with my mother.

I'm married to a type 1 diabetic. I'm likely to outlive him, maybe by a good 20 years (I have good genes; one grandmother died last year at 97 and the other turned 90 this year). I know our daughter would like her dad to live as long as he can, and he'll try. I think a lot of the issue here, though, is that this woman is doing this alone, sort of like the outrage against octomom. If she had a 40-year-old husband, people might think differently. I'm sure she knows what she needs to do to make sure this baby is cared for.

 

[themilesfamily]

If it's about a woman and her constitutional rights at other times, then this would be her constitutional right also.

I don't think a woman has a "constitutional right" to IVF. In fact, most IVF clinics in the United States and Great Britain WILL NOT provide treatment to women over the age of 50. Women over 50 can go to a country like India or Ukraine -- there they will find clinics that will treat them at any age. (Thus the 70-year old women giving birth in India.)

There was a lady who came to the US from Spain, who lied about her age to get treated. She ended up giving birth to twins one week before her 67th birthday. Within a year she had cancer, which doctors believe was brought on by the hormones they gave her to reverse menopause. This woman is now single, with twins, and has cancer. She said that she has a nephew -- and the godfather is very good with kids -- so they can raise the twins if she dies.

Most clinics have a 50-55 year cutoff for a reason. They don't just come up with this to discriminate against the elderly. There are serious health risks for women who give birth in their 60's and 70's, aside from the possibility that their kids may end up losing their mom at a much earlier and more vulnerable age.

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

A constitutional right to IVF, no, but she does have a monetary right to it. Who cares about the 67 yr old who ended up with cancer, it was her choice. What about the kids I know whose mom died of cancer in her 20's....they didn't even know who there fathers were....where were the outcries against children out of wedlock?...serious health risks, then don't do it, but don't make others do what you think they should.....why not just dictate to everyone what they can and cannot do?? Again, Americans cannot have it both ways.

 

[rie'smom]

Her life, her business.

My friend is 80 and babysits her very young toddler grandchildren everyday. My mother-in-law is 84 and she could run circles around most of us.

Any of us could die tomorrow, so should we not have children? Maybe it's selfish of us to have them when we might get sick? Do we say that single women should not have children because if the die, they have no husband?

Why should it bother us if this woman wants to have a baby at 66? We keep hearing 30 is the new 18. My doctor told me a couple of months ago that 50 is the new 30, so by that reasoning, she's only about 40.

 

[DISUNC]

Why should it bother us if this woman wants to have a baby at 66? We keep hearing 30 is the new 18. My doctor told me a couple of months ago that 50 is the new 30, so by that reasoning, she's only about 40.

And by all that Math..I AM 19!!!!!

 

[themilesfamily]

Her life, her business.

Then why do you think doctors put an age limit on the women they will treat with IVF? Why do you think the cutoff age is 50-55? If it's her life, her business...

 

[MarriedToAPrince]

Yes I think she is too old.

 

[rie'smom]

And by all that Math..I AM 19!!!!!

Then why do you think doctors put an age limit on the women they will treat with IVF? Why do you think the cutoff age is 50-55? If it's her life, her business...

Apparently not all doctors do because that is how the woman in the OP conceived.

 

[themilesfamily]

Apparently not all doctors do because that is how the woman in the OP conceived.

She had her procedure done in the Ukraine. Here's a line from a news article on the topic:

"She was given IVF treatment using a donor egg at a controversial clinic in Ukraine."

Clinics in the U.S. and the UK, (where she lives), will not implant a 66 year old woman.

ETA: It makes me think of the Octomom and the doctor who implanted her. He is now under investigation by the California Medical Board and American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Octomom may have wanted all six embryos to be implanted to "use them up," but in the U.S. we have medical ethics and standards of practice that govern these kinds of procedures, IVF included. It's not just a "her life, her business" decision. That doctor has to answer for the outcome of his treatments and for the type of care he gives a patient. I think that's why you don't see 66-year old women being treated with IVF in the United States.

 

[PrincessSuzanne]

It is not for me, but if she feels it is right for her, who am I to say it isn't. After all I have been through and still can't have a baby, I know how she feels to finally be able to.

I feel like at almost 36, it is time to stop trying, but if she doesn't feel that way, then by all means she should have her baby and ignore what other people say, who are we to judge.

Suzanne

 

[rie'smom]

She had her procedure done in the Ukraine. Here's a line from a news article on the topic:

"She was given IVF treatment using a donor egg at a controversial clinic in Ukraine."

Clinics in the U.S. and the UK, (where she lives), will not implant a 66 year old woman.

and? My post said apparently not all doctors put an age limit on the IVF procedure.
There are not a lot of babies available for adoption in the US, so people go overseas. If someone wants to get pregnant, so what if she travels to another country?

 

[themilesfamily]

If someone wants to get pregnant, so what if she travels to another country?

And I go back to my question, why do you think doctors put an age limit on the women they will treat with IVF? Why do you think the cutoff age is 50-55?

Why do you think these women have to either lie about their age or travel to "controversial clinics" in other countries to do this? If it's just "so what" why aren't docs in the U.S. willing to do this?

Physicians in the U.S. have to think beyond "so what" and "her life, her business" when treating a patient. There are standards of care and practice in the United States. Physicians have to consider what is in the best interest of the health of their patient. It appears that the medical community in the U.S. does not currently think IVF on a patient over the age of 55 is in the best interest of the health of that patient, or they would be doing it.

 

[rie'smom]

And I go back to my question, why do you think doctors put an age limit on the women they will treat with IVF? Why do you think the cutoff age is 50-55?

Why do you think these women have to either lie about their age or travel to "controversial clinics" in other countries to do this? If it's just "so what" why aren't docs in the U.S. willing to do this?

Physicians in the U.S. have to think beyond "so what" and "her life, her business" when treating a patient. There are standards of care and practice in the United States. Physicians have to consider what is in the best interest of the health of their patient. It appears that the medical community in the U.S. does not currently think IVF on a patient over the age of 55 is in the best interest of the health of that patient, or they would be doing it.

The doctors in the US and the UK are not the be all and the end all. There are doctors in other countries that are just as good and I'll wager that some are better. Just because dcotors in these 2 place have set ages limits it doesn't mean that all doctors are obligated to do so. Eventually, doctors here may accept older patients, who knows.

This really is a pointless discussion because neither of us is likely to change our mind. I believe it's a woman's choice and if you choose not to do IVF over 55-good. If other women do choose to do it, good for them. It's not for me or for anyone to judge what other people choose to do with their lives.

 

[Aisling]

It's not for me or for anyone to judge what other people choose to do with their lives.

I try not to judge, but I can't help having an opinion, and if the woman was a close friend of mine I'd tell her honestly that I believe she's putting her own desires ahead of what's best for a child. I'd tell her I believe it isn't fair to put stress on a 12 year old, his/her worrying that his mother is going to die soon. Too many kids lose their moms to disease or accidents, abd they suffer at a young age, and it can't be helped. Why put a 10 year old through that deliberately, knowing mom can die tomorrow. We really have to put the children ahead of our own needs.