Older Mothers a burden on the NHS?

(78 Posts)
Lico Sun 13-Mar-16 17:29:04

Hello,
I was surprised at this doctor's statements on older women being a huge burden on the NHS.
What do you think?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/top-doctor-issues-warning-over-older-mothers-who-are-a-huge-burden-on-the-nhs-a3201106.html

mycatsloveeachother Sun 13-Mar-16 17:30:38

Any chance of a clicky? smile

Lico Sun 13-Mar-16 20:39:29

How do you do this?
Sorry. Not well versed with tech..

goodenoughal Sun 13-Mar-16 20:46:22

www.standard.co.uk/news/health/top-doctor-issues-warning-over-older-mothers-who-are-a-huge-burden-on-the-nhs-a3201106.html

CalicoBlue Sun 13-Mar-16 20:50:17

I doubt that 3 women over 55 having babies is going to make a big difference to the NHS.

Lico Sun 13-Mar-16 20:50:34

Thanks😳

Dancingbea Sun 13-Mar-16 20:51:02

I read this story on Friday. It is based on 3 women over 50 having babies in one big London hospital some doc was moaning about. The article then collapsed them into London having the highest rate of births to women OVER 35 or something. There were about 50 births to women over 50 last year ACROSS THE WHOLe COUNTRY. Sorry the whole woman- hating narrative makes me sick. Too old, too fat to have children etc etc.

fuzzywuzzy Sun 13-Mar-16 20:51:29

She's talking about women in their 50's having babies via Ivf.

I can see her point that they need more care and be very high risk.

Dunno about a burden to the NHS, would imagine there are not a huge number of women wanting to have babies when in their fifties.

Lico Sun 13-Mar-16 20:53:55

Yes, I agree. It is incredible that it covered the whole front page of the Evening Standard!

Peaceandloveeveryone Sun 13-Mar-16 20:58:51

There were 94 births from April 2014- April 2015, 114 the year before. I don't know if the Dr is concerned that it is going to get more popular to go abroad for treatment and then get complications looked after by the NHS. My impression wasn't that she was talking about women in 30s and 40s, more that the newspaper added that on to bulk out the article. Don't know.

Peaceandloveeveryone Sun 13-Mar-16 20:59:28

Sorry, those birth figures were for women over 50.

VikingVolva Sun 13-Mar-16 21:03:04

I think she was referring fairly specifically to women who fall outside the rules for IVF in the UK (private, let alone NHS age limits), go and do it anyway abroad, and then return with high risk pregnancies.

It is very lazy writing to turn that into generalised older mothers.

MariscallRoad Sun 13-Mar-16 21:35:46

The Dr. is talking absolutely bullshit. Child bearing is a matter of choice of the parents. You do have right to give birth to a child. Some women still can conceive late 40s and early to mid 50s naturally and my surgery had a few of them. My surgery has been encouraging it. An IVF is a different thing. Not all old women have high risk pregnancies, many young moms have too.

MariscallRoad Sun 13-Mar-16 22:09:03

Imagine a man/woman in their 20s discovering in 20 years time this article saying 'you and your mom ve been a burden to the state'. That is the most cruel thing you can hit any living creature with. The Dr. had no right to say this.

scarlets Sun 13-Mar-16 22:27:37

I wonder what the financial stats actually are. I imagine that a 50y mum-to-be might cost the NHS more than a patient half her age, but might claim less in various child benefits later. Dunno.

Not that I care about the money that much! The number of women involved is small.

fakenamefornow Sun 13-Mar-16 22:38:18

I imagine that older mothers might cost the country overall LESS than a younger mother. Maybe her pregnancy might cost more to manage but I would put money on her being better off financially than many younger mums therefore needing less in state benefits to raise the child. Just the fact that she has enough money to pay for fertility treatment abroad suggests she's not poor.

fakenamefornow Sun 13-Mar-16 22:42:08

Also if so few women are having babies in their 50s, and this doctor works in a London hospital, I think if you knew a women who has had a baby that age and lived in London you might well work out who exactly she is taking about. Very unprofessional of her.

MariscallRoad Sun 13-Mar-16 23:54:21

'50y mum-to-be might cost the NHS more than a patient half her age' one cannot make such generalisations because there is no evidence this is the case. One cannot asume that because of old age a woman will cost more to NHS - besides the health care is free to all.

The number of women involved is small. It is a matter of woman's choice and no one has any right to tell women they can have kids only between this and that age.

MariscallRoad Sun 13-Mar-16 23:59:17

knew a women who has had a baby that age and lived in London . A pregnancy is an entirely privater matter.

Mistigri Tue 15-Mar-16 05:52:19

One cannot asume that because of old age a woman will cost more to NHS

Why can't you assume this, given that it's true? Of course 20 somethings can have high risk pregnancies too, but as a group, women in their 40s and 50s are significantly more likely to have pregnancy complications.

That doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't have babies of course, although I think IVF in older women is pretty unethical.

SauvignonPlonker Tue 15-Mar-16 09:59:34

And you also can't make assumptions that young mothers will be low risk.

Personally, I had my 1st at just-turned 36, in a low risk pregnancy, which unexpectedly resulted in early PE & a near-100 day NICU stay for DS, plus some ongoing health issues for him. We cost the NHS a fortune.

My 43-year old just had her 2nd; a textbook pregnancy & delivery.

I also work in a high-risk obstetric service; there are women of all ages attending.

sugar21 Tue 15-Mar-16 10:04:59

I had my first at 18 and did not claim any benefits, had 6 hours labourand went home the day after giving birth.
My Mum looked after dd1 so I could work.
Only thing I claimed was child benefit.

Twinsareplenty Tue 15-Mar-16 10:38:02

You could argue older mothers have spent decades paying taxes and contributing to the economy before becoming the terrible NHS leeches the article suggests. The IVF patients went abroad and paid for their fertility treatments out of their own pockets anyway - although personally I think 55 is pushing it a bit for a baby.
Load of rubbish.

Mistigri Tue 15-Mar-16 11:28:09

The higher rate of significant complications in mothers over 35 (and particularly over 40) is so well established that it really is behind argument :-/

humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/11/2433.full

Whether one should use emotive language like "burden" is of course another question.

Mistigri Tue 15-Mar-16 11:28:39

Behind should read beyond, sorry

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now