to think this women should be allowed ivf

[AuntiePickleBottom]

www.parentdish.co.uk/2010/12/14/seventy-two-year-old-mum-of-six-year-old-wants-another-baby/ (sorry can't do clicky)

fgs she is 72, if any ivf doctor does this he/she should be ashamed of themselfs

I guess you mean shouldn't? Nuts, I know.

Should your title be shouldn't be allowed ivf?

72 is far too old in my opinion.

can you do a proper link please? it's really very easy!

Yes, I think she should be allowed IVF. Whether we disagree or not, I don't think it's up to us to control other people's decisions about fertility.

Maternal mortality increases drastically with maternal age. Without even going into all the other issues. YABU

shouldn't sorry

"Look at [[www.parentdish.co.uk/2010/12/14/seventy-two-year-old-mum-of-six-year-old-wants-another-baby/
]]"

hope this works

I get quite angry when Daily Mail readers and other insane people say a "woman has left it too late" but yeah I think MAYBE in this case... she's gone and fucking left it too late.

"Yes, I think she should be allowed IVF. Whether we disagree or not, I don't think it's up to us to control other people's decisions about fertility"

But we're not deciding about her fertility are we? Fact is she is not fertile at 72. Biologically she is not capable of having her own child - the only way in which she could have ivf would be through doner eggs.

At 72 she will almost certainly be dead within the next twenty year, and realistically probably before that.

She's had 50 years to have children - it shouldn't be up to medical science to step in when she's left it too late to decide that she wants to be a mother.

she say she wants a son to protect and support her, when in reality she could well be dead before he starts school.

this is nonsense.

the menopause happens for a reason ( i am not talking about prem menopause/ovarian failure ) pregnancy places a big strain on the body including the heart and lungs. giving birth vaginally or undergoing a section is also a toll on the body

i don't think a woman of 70odd is on the whole, fit & strong enough to withstand it

i get the whole ' you could have a baby at 25 and be kncoked down by a bus the next day ' but why bring a child into the world knowing the odds were you would not live to see them grow past toddlerhood?

wannabe, even if she lived for 20 more years, 10 or more of those could be in an old aged home with alzheimers or some other terrible age related condition.. who would be nurturing and raising her children then?

Of course she shouldn't, isn't that obvious to anyone?

wannabe She already is a mother. She had a daughter when she was in her 60s.

Yeah I think the the having son to protect and support her got my back up too.. That is not the reason to have children surely?

Horrible story, this is encouraging older and older mothers and rogue doctors who want to be involved in the 'the oldest mother in the world'

Makes me feel sick tbh.

Plenty of men have children in their 70s though, don't they?

If we're going to start saying some people shouldn't have children then I don't see any reason to start with age in particular. Just because someone is old it doesn't mean they will be a worse parent than some of others.

OK well "childbearing" then wannaBe. Still don't think it's any of our business. There are worse things in life than older mothers and fathers.

Will be a worse parent if they are dead surely?

Her reasoning for having a child is probably the worst of the situation for me tbh, so selfish and indulgent.

To me i don't think there is much right with this is there?

Its all a bit wrong and disturbing.

But when you decide to have children, although it is essentially a selfish act, (something you do because you want a child, not because the world needs yet another child or your egg is desperate to see the world...) you should at least consider what you can offer the child, should you not? Consider the life you are bringing them into the world to lead? How you will raise and support them?

Of course, none of us know when we'll die, but having a child in your seventies, well, not exactly favourable betting odds, is it?

Having a child should not be all about your needs, your wants, your future care requirements. This is a person you are choosing to bring into the world and you owe them more than you dying when they're five, or them visting you in the nursing home so they can show you what they drew in school that day! It's not fair to the child.

Surely it won't work anyway? If she wants to waste her money that's up to her. I can't see a woman of that age safely and successfully carrying a pregnancy to term.

what ShoppingDays says.

Yes, 72 is really really really old and yes it does go against what is naturally possible for a woman but why should I tell someone what they should spend their money on?

She will not be able to have a child without assistance therefore the Doctors involved have an obligation.

At 72 she is very likely to not see her child grow past 10, and that's not mentioning that her health (both mental and physical) will already be deteriorating as well.

I don't see the point of her having the child tbh, she won't live very long and it wont be her biological child anyway as there is no way she would still have functioning eggs. The sperm will be from a donor too. I think it's the height of selfishness to have a donor child, with no partner when you won't live long enough to see the child grow up. By the age of 10 the child with probably have no one.

We are talking about a life here that's why the 'it's her money' argument doesn't really work its not a new coat she's buying.