Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

IVF for the fertile yet 'geriatric'

61 replies

WinkyWinkola · 05/05/2012 09:59

I have a friend with 3 kids all over 10. She's now 43 years old. She and her dh want more children but they are so worried about any genetic issues due to their age - he's 43 too.

We were discussing this the other day and she said she was thinking about doing IVF to make sure any future dcs didn't have any genetic issues. She and her dh would pay to have this not being short of a bob or two.

I was Shock but then I started to reconsider. Is it morally suspect to do such a thing? I mean, as people they are fit, healthy, pretty wealthy, happily married etc. She said that she would keep it a secret though so that people wouldn't be offended and it was nobody's business but hers and her dh's anyway.

I kept my trap shut and didn't really vocalise a judgement to my friend but sometimes I feel like I don't know what is right or not anymore!

OP posts:
maddening · 05/05/2012 12:47

but you do get that choice if you have amiocentesis or cvs which is free and then can choose to end the pregnancy by 24 weeks - it is obviously not a great choice to have to make but anyone can screen out defects after pregnancy has begun - the screening out of defects though is a massive and very tricky topic of debate - so I can understand why they would opt for ivf being that they can afford to pay for it themselves but am on the fence about the rights and wrongs of it

scarletforya · 05/05/2012 13:06

Hmm, but loads of medical issues with a fetus wouldn't show up at that early stage would they? Before they are transplanted into the womb? I thought the embryos were only 8 cells or something?

The geriatric/elderly primigravida thing wouldn't bother me at all. I am 42 and pregnant and although I haven't seen it on my notes I wouldn't find it offensive. It's just medical fact!

I don't think your friend is doing anything morally suspect though OP. It's no-ones business but her own. She's paying so it's not harming anyone else!

margerykemp · 05/05/2012 13:06

Maybe they wouldn't be prepared to have a termination for abnormalities at 18+ weeks though. In that scenario I can see why they'd choose IVF and pre- implantation screening.

extremepie · 05/05/2012 13:09

Dowagers, if she or her husband were carriers of anything wouldn't they have potentially already passed it on to the 3 children they already have? Why the sudden desire to have IVF to ensure a child without any issues?

I don't have an issue with their age, I do have an issue with them potentially using IVF and all the money and resources that entails when they don't have to.

Like I said, couples who have fertility or health (polycystic ovaries, etc) issues have to use IVF or accept a life without their children who are biologically theirs. This couples don't need it, they already have 3 children and are still young enough to have more without medical intervention.

hairytale · 05/05/2012 13:09

I think people should butt the he'll out of other people's personal choices.

I am just 44 and sitting here feeding my 14 week old baby daughter. Absolutely perfect and naturally conceived. After 3 miscarriages the year before, not one professional has ever questioned or judged me, and several have talked about the "next one". :)

hairytale · 05/05/2012 13:10

Oh and ivf won't actually eliminate genetic or age-related conditions.

Glittertwins · 05/05/2012 13:15

Does your friend know what IVF drugs can do to the body. It's not something I'd want to go through again and I got off very lightly. It's also quite invasive, there's certainly no dignity in the treatment either!
There are a few places who will not want to take her on due to her age but since they've already had 3 there possibly isn't much wrong with either of them (in the nicest possible way). I hate to say it but success rate does decrease as age increases although the longer they go naturally, again the possibility could go down too.
The number of clinic apps can also be a problem for some people with their employers too - would this be a problem for them?

hairytale · 05/05/2012 13:16

"Personally I don't think a fertility clinic would accept them, even if they were paying. "

Thankfully that's not how it works. As long as they met the health criteria and could pay they would be accepted.

Glittertwins · 05/05/2012 13:23

Some clinics will refuse on age as the league table for success rates is extremely valuable to them. But many others, two in London spring to mind immediately would and they have good successes too.

hairytale · 05/05/2012 13:34

The operative word being some. thankfully there are clinics which dont discriminate on age alone.

Women have had children into their early-mid forties since time immemorial - I hate the way society seems to demonised it.

DowagersHump · 05/05/2012 13:38

extremepie - the world is full of people who can afford stuff that other people can't. IVF is no different from choosing anything else. Why is it morally more reprehensible to choose to have IVF because you can afford it than any other choice that you make based on affordability?

CF doesn't generally show up until you have one child who's had a DX. Or a cousin or other relative. It's just an example but we don't know and neither does the OP if there is some reason that it makes perfect sense to screen for.

Glittertwins · 05/05/2012 14:00

Quite, hairytale.
You can get pretty much whatever you want on this sort of treatment if you have the funds to pay for it but it's a big gamble with the odds stacked heavily against you, regardless of your age and health. I only needed one cycle but the amount spent on that was enough to buy a small new car for example.

YouCallMeWonderWoman · 05/05/2012 14:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hazeyjane · 05/05/2012 14:15

I don't think the screening for ivf would rule out genetic conditions anyway. There are also a lot of genetic conditions which don't show up on even the most up to date tests.

theodorakis · 05/05/2012 14:35

I am just about to have ivf because it isn't happening quickly and I am 38. Luckily it is free here but I am not quite sure why anyone would object to whether it's a test tube or a shag

madmouse · 05/05/2012 14:40

Since when is IVF able to rule out Downs Syndrome, Edwards syndrome or any other serious abnormality? Hmm. Either there's more to the story or they are not very clued up.

pixiestix · 05/05/2012 14:47

I don't understand why people are getting het up about the use of the word "geriatric". Its a common medical term Confused

extremepie · 05/05/2012 14:54

You're right Dowagers in that we don't know if there is any reason why they might want to screen but that isn't how it comes across to me!

It doesn't seem like there is some specific genetic problem they are looking to avoid by having IVF to maufacture a healthy child, it appears as though they know there is a greater risk of having a child who has a medical condition at their age and are specifically taking steps to make sure they get a child who doesn't.

I, personally, feel that you shouldn't be able to pick and choose what child you have.

-IVF is no different from choosing anything else-

I feel it is completely different to anything else because you are not talking about picking the best package of the shelf in a shop you are talking about a child, a child you bring into the world and love despite their flaws.

Anyways, as several people have pointed out, all the genetic testing and IVF in the world won't necessarily guarentee you a child without any issues!

ReindeerBollocks · 05/05/2012 14:55

Having IVF for genetic reasons doesn't make sense to me.

Surely if there were any genetic reasons this would have been an issue three children ago - not now? I have no problem with PGD, I looked into it for DC2 due to polycystic and cystic fibrosis. Dodgy genes a plenty in this household.

However if there is to be an 'age related' issue in terms of the embryo would this be immediately apparent? Or would it only occur during the development of the foetus? Genuinely curious. I don't understand why now disability is an issue when it wasnt before and for that reason I think it's wrong.

ReindeerBollocks · 05/05/2012 14:57

Dowagers - I agree with you, but there is also the issue that if there were any genetic risks for example CF, then there is a chance of it being publicly funded.

The fact that they are paying privately and don't know specifics suggest that they are erring on the side of caution due to their age - which may not be able to be determined by PGD methods anyway.

amothersplaceisinthewrong · 05/05/2012 15:01

Don't think it is morally wrong to have IVF, don't blame her for wanting to reduce the risk of abnormality, but think she will be rather old and tired when any babies are teenagers, not to mention working until she is a 103 to pay for their univeristy education!

MarieFromStMoritz · 05/05/2012 15:45

Since when is IVF able to rule out Downs Syndrome, Edwards syndrome or any other serious abnormality?

Since the advent of PGD. In fact, with 24GSN, it is now possible to check every single chromosome before implantation of the embryo.

hazeyjane · 05/05/2012 16:05

There would still be the possiblility of a genetic condition.

Is pdg offered to all couples having ivf, or is it offered wrt specific conditions?

Glittertwins · 05/05/2012 16:25

IVF does not involve any screening as routine. It is merely adding sperm to eggs to aid fertilisation
PGD and any other form of testing/screening is separate and not routine at all. It would normally be offered/recommended if parents were likely to be gene carriers of cystic fibrosis for example. It is also not particularly cheap as it requires a very skilled embryologist.

BBQJuly · 05/05/2012 17:12

I can't see any problem with this at all. PGD is not routinely offered but if the facility were there, why shouldn't it be?

Let's face it, where there is a genetic abnormality found by testing during pregnancy, many women would opt for termination. Why not avoid this by testing for such problems before implanting the embryos?