Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to think this women should be allowed ivf

73 replies

AuntiePickleBottom · 14/12/2010 15:42

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

OP posts:

DuelingFanio · 14/12/2010 16:54

She could live for another 20 years! She might live for only 1 more year. Who really knows. If dying was a reason not to have a child then none of us would bother surely.

At least, if she is successful, her children would have eachother.

diddl · 14/12/2010 16:56

I don´t think any woman who has gone through menopause should be given IVF.

Unless they went through it early.

sarah293 · 14/12/2010 16:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheCrackFox · 14/12/2010 17:01

She is a selfish idiot.

"'It could be a son if God and the doctors want,' she added, 'He would act as a support, who would protect me.'"

she doesn't mention, at all, what she could give a baby - it is all about what a baby could give her.

OTTMummA · 14/12/2010 17:01

She could die because of the pregnancy DF, we all could!
But isn't it about weighing up the possible risks ( which increase with age ) and considering what is best not only for you, but any other children you have?

I know that if there was a considerably higher risk of me dying having another baby, then i wouldn't have one because my son, that is already here and alive deserves for me to be around as long as possible.

Her descision ( if she can find a 'doctor' to help her ) is entirely selfish and most probably potentially will damage her daughters life and the baby she might carry, not just her own.
Thats why somethings should just not be allowed.

Lulumaam · 14/12/2010 17:11

oh well, at least the children will have each other

as i posted earlier, of course, we could have children at any age and then die suddenly, but going into childbirth at 70 + stacks the odds against you

and yes, it is all about what the children will do for her, not what she can offer

like a 15 year old who wants a baby to love and be loved by ...

sarah293 · 14/12/2010 17:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

saffy85 · 14/12/2010 17:14

She shouldn't be having any more IVF for any reason, she's too old and lets face it what can she offer another child? She'd have been better off getting a pet rather than having ivf the first time round.

Also, someone should point out to her even if she has a son and lives to 110 there is no gurantee a son will provide for her and look after her. I know plenty of grown men who are awful to their mothers and do sweet FA for them. It's a bit like those women who witter on about wanting a daughter so they can dress her in pretty clothes and go shopping together- Cher apparently wanted a daughter for reasons like that and now has an adult daughter embarking on a sex change....

expatinscotland · 14/12/2010 17:17

I agree with diddl.

Yes, men can father children till they die.

They don't have to carry or give birth to them, which is a major strain on the body as one ages.

Lulumaam · 14/12/2010 17:18

he won't be able to support and protect her for at least 20 years.

it's just ridiculous and self centred and does not stand up to scrutiny.

it is immoral for any doctor to undertake this kind of treatment, it is for their self aggrandisement too..

no-one really seems to be thinking of the hcildren and hteir lvies and futures

saffy85 · 14/12/2010 17:23

Also who are these "loads of men" who have children in their 70s? I can think of 3: Van Gogh, Rod Stewart and Des O'Connor. That's hardly loads imo....

HecTheHallsWithBoughsOfHolly · 14/12/2010 17:28

david jason had one as a very old bloke, didn't he?

And I read of one bloke in his 60s or 70s who was shacked up with some woman in her 20s/30s and she had a baby.

Yes, now you know my dirty secret I read Chat etc.

Lulumaam · 14/12/2010 17:38

and most of them seem to be wealthier. which does help in terms of buying in help and support ante and post natally.

if your average 70 year old bloke had a baby with someone 30years younger, there will be an outcry

saffy85 · 14/12/2010 17:38

Oh yeah David Jason he was getting on a bit (60's I think) when his DD was born. Even including him, Paul McCartney and that grandad of 70 something who fathered twins about a year ago it still isn't really "loads" of ancient elderly men fathering scores of DC.

diddl · 14/12/2010 17:40

Charlie Chaplin also, I think.

But of course it only works if the woman is young enough!

saffy85 · 14/12/2010 17:40

Very true Lulumaam- Paul McCartney etc aren't short of cash and the grandaddy daddy was widely vilified in the media (although if I'm not mistaken they were on benefits too, which probably didn't help their case).

ShoppingDays · 14/12/2010 18:04

Well no, if you only count the famous ones you've heard of, it isn't. But the same applies to women - how many of the older mothers out there can you name? Also, men are probably less likely to make the news for this reason - it tends to pass without comment if an older man becomes a father.

"it still isn't really "loads" of ancient elderly men fathering scores of DC"

BonniePrinceBilly · 14/12/2010 18:26

And even it is loads (which it isn't) there is a big difference between naturally being able to father a child (2 minutes work, job done) and concieving and carrying a baby after the menopause. Long after.

saffy85 · 14/12/2010 18:35

But all we hear about is the famous ones fathering children (usually naturally AFAIK) and the mothers way past menopause who have conceived a child via IVF in a country that isn't usually the UK. It makes the papers because it obviously doesn't happen that often.

As others said it's hardly hard owrk for the man to father the baby. The hard work is all down to the mother as she has to carry it for 9 months and give birth to it. It's a well known fact the older you are the harder work pregnancy is, and the more risks there are involved.

This woman has a child already who needs her mum to be able to look after her properly. How is her mother going to do that if she selfishly goes about getting pregnant with another child and has a difficult and complicated pregnancy which means she spends the whole pregancy on bed rest or whatever? This woman is only thinking of her own selfish wants and needs and not her daughter or the child she may or may not conceive in the future. She is the worst kind of mother.

spidookly · 14/12/2010 18:36

I don't see why how long you have to live should decide whether or not you have children.

If someone with a serious illness that was likely to shorten their lifespan considerably had a child in their 30s, would you say she might as well not bother as she'd probably die when the child was young?

QuoththeRaven · 14/12/2010 18:46

imo the woman is selfish and hasn't even thought about her children in this at all. the part about her son being there to protect her etc makes me feel a bit sick. who is going to protect him when his mother is ill or dead? we don't have the menopause for fun, its a sign that we are not able to have children any more (except menopause for medical reasons)My mum went through an early menopause and shes early 40's meanwhile i know lots of mums to be and mums of young children around her age.

I really really hope drs turn this woman down, for the sake of her child. She might be strong enough to go through pregnancy and childbirth with no problems, but im 23, no health problems and still have had problems with this pregnancy and my first. Its just all seems a bit farcical tbh

discobeaver · 14/12/2010 18:46

No but she has only had 30 years, and can still naturally conceive. This woman has had 72, and can't.

It's not going to be her child, she's just an incubator, and not a very good one at that age. Would she be able to adopt a newborn at 72?

"If God and the doctors want" - well God doesn't want does he or you wouldn't have had the menopause. Apart from the fact that he doesn't exist of course.

ShoppingDays · 14/12/2010 19:01

"well God doesn't want does he or you wouldn't have had the menopause"

But you could say the same about quite a few things. Illness? Nah, God doesn't want you to survive so let's not treat it. No house? No-one had brick houses in Biblical times.

BonniePrinceBilly · 14/12/2010 19:06

If there were plenty of other reasons you might not treat an illness. Its only on objection out of many.
And deciding whether or not to have a baby is not just about you. Doctors take an oath to do no harm, giving a 72 yr old woman IVF treatment (which can be very hard) is certainly doing harm. Any doctor who did this should be struck off IMO.

ShoppingDays · 14/12/2010 19:14

I disagree. You might think that this woman won't be an ideal parent, but this could apply to all sorts of people. Why not deny IVF to smokers, drug users, uneducated people, obese people, or those with extreme political views from having children? Why just pick on age?

"giving a 72 yr old woman IVF treatment (which can be very hard) is certainly doing harm"

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread