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

typo
from having children

IMO this woman wants children purely for selfish reasons. She does not seem to think about the children she will be bringing into the world, who in her own words will have to support her
Its all very well saying we can't have a say in how other people spend their money - fair enough -but her choices affect other people, namely her potential unborn child.

She shouldent be allowed IVF, how selfish. Her body has decided that she is too old to have kids, that she has to use donor eggs. Any reputable fertility doctor would refuse her point blank.

I don't disagree disco just think some of the reasons given are dodgy.

e.g. her body "has decided" that she is too old to have children. By that logic if someone's body "decides" to have cancer we should let them die.

Nevermind the strains of being pg on a 72yr old, isn't anyone else wondering how on earth you'd cope with an active toddler when aged 74 or more?! She's older than my parents & I always feel guilty at how tired they look when they've been around my kids for a few days!

'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?'

In the UK, it already is denied for a number of things on that list, including age.

It could easily kill her or shorten her life, how is that not doing harm?
I have no problem denying IVF to smokers or very seriously obese people either, because those factors can also significantly increase the risks of IVF treatment.

Every woman's body has "decided" to be too old to have babies at 72. And IMO if your body has "decided" to have cancer at a very advanced age its certainly worthwhile thinking twice about aggressive treatment.

Just because things could be done, doesn't mean they should be done.

That is different spidookly, the woman is too old to have children the natural way for a reason. I totally agree though for ivf for younger,people who cannot have children, my 3 wonderful neices and nephew would not be here.Her reasons are so selfish, all the more reason to deny her another child.

Shoppingdays, you can't get ivf on the NHS if you're obese, So it is not just 'picking' on age.
There should be a limit, don't ask me what age, because i know i am not wise or unbiased enough to come up with the answer, but i do know in my gut that 72 is well beyond that cut off line.

I think the majority of people know that deep down.

Yes drug and alcohol addicts who are still using, should be denied ivf, the welfare of the child comes first.

The only reasoning she has given is selfish, what he (and her other child) can give her.

I just think it's so wrong imo....the needs of the child should be first not her. She has a 6 year old daughter already, I just don't see what she can offer any more children

What about bigoted people, anorexics, dishonest people, single people, those with hereditary genetic disorders, poor people?

And why just people who need IVF? Funny how no-one suggests that fertile people should be screened. Why not screen all potential parents to make sure they're healthy, wealthy enough, middle class, exactly the right age, with the right views, of a suitable intelligence level and so on?

Personally I disagree with that too.

"you can't get ivf on the NHS if you're obese"

"you can't get ivf on the NHS if you're obese"

Because statistically it's not as successful in obese women.

Ditto women over the age of 40.

It's not about stopping people having children, if you can have them by all means go ahead however if you need assistance it is the obligation of medical professionals to ensure that there isn't ridiculous risk involved.

people do have screening/genetic counselling for certain conditions

i think comparing a 35 year old overweight smoker with a 70 + post menopausal woman is like comparing apples & oranges. the first could give up smoking and lose weight, the second can't take 40 years off her age

she;s only going to get older and frailer and sicker the other has a big chance to turn their life and health around

This woman isn't having IVF on the NHS though (not that the NHS has firm guidelines on age or other factors, it's still a postcode lottery where IVF is concerned).

The NHS does treat many conditions which could be said to be self-inflicted or to have not as great a success rate in some people than others. What about the 40% of A&E admissions that are alcohol related? Asthma caused by someone's personal choice to live in a polluted area? Health problems in someone who doesn't really take enough exercise?

What are you wittering about Shopping? I'm clearly specifically talking about health factors and risks. So yes anorexia would factor in a decision to have IVF, as would those with heriditary genetic disorders.

Unless you can explain to me how being single, dishonest or bigoted can affect your health and/or chances of success at IVF, you'd better go and have an argument in an empty room, because you aren't very engaged in this one.

Private clinics in the UK have similar rules. The age range is a bit higher. But the point is, they have an ethical code because, well, as pointed out, just because something can be done it doesn't mean it should.

The "men father children at that age" argument is irrelevant because they do so naturally. Whereas women cannot, not only can they not conceive at that age but their eggs are no longer viable. That is nature.

And you cannot compare menopause to cancer, because cancer is an occurrence that only happens in some people, whereas every woman will go through the menopause and lose the ability to have children.

And yes, if a woman had a terminal illness which meant she was going to die imminently I would say that having a baby would be ill-advised. Of course if she was able to do so naturally then it shouldn't be for us to stop that, but if assistance is required then it is IMO irresponsible to give it.

Personally I don't believe that any IVF should be available on the nhs (although that is an argument for another thread), but in the event that it is, then yes of course criteria should apply if it means the treatment is less likely to be successful, i.e. f a woman is obese/a smoker/heavy drinker/over the age of 40. The nhs only has a certain amount of money, it is totally wrong to waste that money on treatment that is unlikely to be successful given certain factors.

Of course shoppping you cannot control people who have children naturally, but its the fertility doctors responsibility to make sure that those people wanting IVF are suitable, tht is something that can be controlled. Yes there are certain circumstances I believe, well here in the UK that IVF an be refused as some posters have metioned on here, I guess thats why people go abroad where its less regulated, does not make it right though. At the end of the day, a child may/may not be concieved, and their needs come first.

What a rude and sarcastic post, BonniePrinceBilly. I am clearly talking about suitability for parenthood, which is about so many more things than the "health factors and risks" you mention.