Elizabeth Adeney the 66yr old having a baby. The Sun Telegraph want to know what Mumsnetters think

rules of nature? this is another one that annoys me.
if nature, or God, wants something to happen, then it will. so we cannot say that something s against nature, or God (take your pick) if it happens. remember dolly the sheep? i remember the words abomination being used to describe her.... how? if God or nature, or whatever, didnt want t to happen, she wouldnt have existed, but she did. so therefore, how could her existence be wrong?

similarly, if this woman is capable of sustaining a pregnancy to a successful conclusion, then how can we say that she cant have the baby?

Regarding life expectancy, pregnancy makes such huge demands on a woman's cardiovascular system it is a very good screen for any pre-existing cardiovascular disease - which is probably the most common cause of death in this country. So a woman of 66 who can sustain a healthy pregnancy to term, as this woman obviously can, would have a longer than average life expectancy. She's got a good chance of living till she's 90, or at least of seeing her child into its twenties.

How's that the point, nighbynight? The point is that if grandmothers are capable of looking after their grandchildren then this woman should be able to look after her own child (particularly if she's bringing in help from outside).

My mother wasn't around to look after her grandchildren. We have been fine.

But that is the whole point, stitch, that this woman wont be around to look after her grandchildren.......

disillusionemom, contraception in poor countires is not the castiron thing that people in the uk assume it is. there are only two ways of ensuringyou dont have a baby. one is abstinence, the second is termination. if neither option is acceptable, then what?

i'm going to do a cut and paste too

this entire subject is getting me really angry. everyone going on and on about this woman 'should not be allowed' to have a baby at this age and the babies life beingput down as reasons... and natural age limits to conception. angry
have none of you ever stood outside a school gate, and seen haggard looking grandmothers, whose full time job is taking care of the children whilst mom anddad go to work, and then again babysittingon the weekend. or grandmothers who have to care for grandchildrenbecause their own children are unable to, or wont?

older people looking after young babies is nothing new. it has been happening ever since people began. it may not be a desirable state of affairs, but it is a fact of life. the only difference is that before recent years, older people werent able to be pregnant and carry the children. if there is anythig to be worried about, it is this, older mom gestation that we should be concerned about. will she be able to survive the pregnancy etc?

disillusionedmum, I cant believe that you seriously think that poor women in third world countries can choose how many children they have?
Do you think they can just pop down to the surgery for some birth control pills, at the same time collecting their newspaper with the articles about over-population, safe in the knowledge that their private pension will look after them in old age? Get real!

Soory, being a bit lazy , I am just going to copy and past a post I have just written on a thread about the same subject a few minutea ago.

Here:

I see where Nighbynight is coming from but still this is an isolated case and not untill it becomes prevalent will I personally start to ponder seriously on the matter! I am sure that having a baby at 40 once upon a time was bound to raise many a hair on the neck of the majority of the population at the time..
And are Western Europeans /North Americans too usd to getting what they want? hmmm..maybe but many people would argue that many women in poorer countries don't think seriously enough about their children's welfare when they continue to have many children although poor and starving in some cases, right? Doesn't it seem THEY are selfish too?? Give it a think..!

It's more than a bit self-indulgent IMO. Having a child is not just about rearing a baby to adulthood (questionable at this age in any event). Having a child is also about being there to support them emotionally through adulthood and having grandchildren too.

I just think what happens to the baby when it reaches 21 and its mother is 87 and if still with us probably needing care and looking after...... is that fair on a 21 year old. She may be healthy now but that baby is not going to have any support in adulthood is it????

It's not just an emotional argument to say that its better for a parent to be around after their children are 18.
Grandparents contribute a LOT to grandchildren, as well as helping the parents.
Its very unlikely that a child will be married at 18. They are more likely to be studying or training, just as their elderly parents are dying.

My own mother was older, and was completely out of touch with my generation - and she wasnt 66! I was a teenager in the 1980s - my mothers teenage experiences were from the wartime. Trivial example: She was against the Beetles because she thought they were modern rubbish that had pushed real music (Perry Como) out. The Beetles were ancient history to me.
This woman was born in 1943 - she was 18 in 1961. Her child will be 18 in 2027. You can argue that she may be someone who keeps up with the times - thats true to a certain extent. But everyone draws on their own experiences to give advice to their children, and her own experiences are simply too distant.

Someone said further down the thread that they couldn't tell a woman that she was 2 months outside the qualifying date for help to conceive.
Why not, if the help given was properly designed? For example, an age range when help is given unconditionally. A further (older) age range when help is given (for example) depending on an individual's health, and whether they have had the menopause or not, whether they already have children. A further age range when help may be given at the discretion of the doctors. A further age range, when help will not under any circumstances be given. (these are just suggestions, and could no doubt be improved)
People who want to have a baby late in life have not been asleep all their lives. They have had their chance to try to conceive naturally, to adopt, to try artificially. They have probably had a potentially fertile live of 40 years by the time they reach 56 (as an example). That is long enough to have thought about having a child.
It is not unreasonable to tell someone that they fall into a class where help will not automatically be given.

There is something fundamentally revolting about people in Europe/US feeling that they are entitled to anything if they want it enough, becuase they would suffer if they didnt get it, while there are so many people genuinely suffering in the world (AIDs orphans, war victims..)

"""I can see no reason to legislate against it!"""
I can see a reason. The child's life and happiness is the reason. This should not happen. I am sad on the baby's behalf.
What a selfish person.

There is a great difference between being a grandmother and having full time, hands on. everyday care smallchange.

Not if you can pay for a night nanny, a cleaner etc etc etc...

As my gran says (at the age of 92) "it's the young ones that keep me going" - there's a woman who would have had no problems with a feisty teenager in her 80s I can tell you!

MrsM, indeed you might well be right! But its still her right legally (in Romania at least) and, i think, ethically, to be a mum at her age. whatever my feelings about it.

I'd say having a baby at 66 will knock a few years off the average of 79!!

But average age is just that - an average.

An individual's likelyhood of dying can be far more accurately judged than just taking the average. Insurance companies do it all the time.

If this woman is a non-smoker, eats well, exercises, lives in good housing and all the other things that make it more likely that she will live longer then she may well be likely, on balance, to live to see her child reach maturity.

So, case by case.

Returning after bathtime - delighted to see Worldsworst continuing to hit the nail on the head. No need for me to make any further contribution - I shgall appoint her as my spokeswoman.

Thecrackfox, I think she is as mad as a bag of frogs for doing it at 66! But I as stated before, and for those reasons, I can see no reason to legislate against it!

Though do like the idea MNetters can come to a consensus that 61 should be the cut off point!

I think the cut off for women and men should be determined by more than just their ages. There are individual cases where a couple have been together for ages and started trying young , but were only able to have the longed for child late in life. However, having said that, I think deciding to have a child after 45 needs to take into consideration what effects this will have on the child and I mean this applied to both men and women. I have seen men in their 50's and 60's with a young child and that to me is no different at all to hearing about a woman who is pregnant in her 50's or 60's and for the child involved it can be a positive or negative experience.Yes, it sounds harsh to be mathematical about whether or not the parent will still be alive to witness stuff the child does etc..but it is how life works. I personally think we will always have isolated cases where people defy the rules of nature and of man.

Worldsworstmummuy the average age a woman will die at is 79 in this country. If we decide that a mum should live to see her child reach 18 then the cut off point would have to be 61. The woman in question is 66.

can I just say thanks to juules and lilian for appreciating my post? makes a lovely change from having rubbr bands pinged at the back of my head from the girls the desks behind me, iyswim!

wannabe, I think that is often a starting position, which has many virtues, but it doesn't really hold water if we examine it closely.

Could you personally tell a woman who couldn't conceive without the aid of IVF who was two months over some arbitrary age deadline they were too late? and If you couldn't, what difference does a year or so make? Or even ten years?

In biological terms our only duty is to raise children to adulthood, lets say 16/18 in our society. Job done. Other arguments such as wanting to have parents into adulthood have no evolutionary or biological advantage, just an emotional one.

But there already is a "cut off" point in this country - 50 yrs.

The lady in question went to Romania for her treatment. They do not have an age limit there and it is not illegal to leave this country for IVF abroad.

Personally I think she is barmy. My mum and dad are exhausted after looking after my 2 for the weekend and are glad to hand them back.

I agree Wannabe. About 47.

And for all our technology, life expectancy is still about 74 ish. I wouldn't want to have to deal with my mother's death before I was 25. So I'd say 74-25 which is 49...

Ok, say 48!?

Not legislation, just an acknowledgment that you won't live for ever.