How can this happen? Mother gives birth in her 70s with IVF?

[user87382294757]

Mother gives birth in her 70s with IVF? To twins..How can this happen, unless using a donor egg/s?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49575735

I would assume it was donor eggs with this

I actually think it’s very selfish to have babies this late in your life

Those children are going to lose their parents whilst they are young

Yes must have used donor eggs. It’s completely selfish. The child will look after them longer than they’ll look after the child. I doubt they’ll even be around by the time child reaches double figures. Absolutely wrong.

Sorry, just watched this video here www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-india-29828872/100-women-becoming-a-mother-at-70-in-india

They mention using donor eggs from younger women, and it seems there is no age limit just general health, but they may be bringing one in...

Either donor eggs or she's had her eggs frozen at some point. Not hard to work out how. It's more the why.

Yes of course they were donor eggs. Unless this woman had arranged to freeze eggs or embryos 30 years ago when she was last fertile.
I can’t help thinking it’s a bit irresponsible to have children at that age though, knowing she’ll be in her 90’s or dead by the time they sit A levels. And what schoolchild would want to be responsible for a demented elderly parent?

Looks like the father had a stroke the day after the twins was born which makes it worse

The mother is now elderly, alone with twins and will have to help take care of her husband once he is out of hospital.

Completely unethical to do this

Unethical medical experiments.

Shockingly selfish. What will happen to the children when they die? The father already seems well on his way.

I’d assume donor eggs too.

Hopefully they’ve made back up plans for who’s going to care for their twins if they’re unable to do it themselves before the twins are adults. I read in that article that the 82 yr old dad is currently in hospital after having a stroke.

Truly shocking this allowed. There is a reason that our bodies come to a natural end for conceiving and carrying babies.

I agree with PP
This is completely unethical.

How was her womb able to support a pregnancy? Or did she not have the menopause?

It is quite shocking yet her body (at an advanced age let’s be honest), carried twins throughout!!

It is worth watching the video about how she was treated and shunned for not having children, and the mention of how off camera she doesn;t feel that happy about it. Sad as well.

IVF treatment, especially in much older women, does seem to increase the risk of breast cancer. The life expectancy for women in India is only 69.

Also late pregnancies themselves can raise the risk for up to ten years, I read. Due to the hormones

It’s not right!

I’m sorry but it’s not, should never of been allowed. 70 is absolutely too old to be a mother...

Why would an ivf clinic even allow it? Just shows it’s all about money I suppose.

Hopefully they have younger family willing to look after the dc if/when they die or get sick because it’s probably not far off

It is really sad for her and the child. What will happen when she dies??

how selfish of the parents and unethical of the doctors

So to avoid being looked down upon herself she brought two more girls into the world to grow up in a place where they too will be stigmatised if they are unable to fulfil their 'womanly role.' Do the parents even care about what will happen to those girls when they die? They don't even have any money to leave to them now ffs. Selfish cunts.

I think there needs to be an age limit for ivf, and 70 would be over it! Even if privately paying for it, if as pp has said the life expectancy is 69 in India, it shouldn’t be allowed, becuase who’ll care for the twins when their parents die?

However, I disagree with the view that adoption should be the first choice before having ivf for a lot of reasons, and partially because my own DTs were born as a result.

I think there really needs to be a good look at IVF and how it is used and the first choice should be to see if you can adopt.

Why wasn't your first choice to see if you could adopt? Why was it ok for you to conceive naturally, knowing that there were kids out there without homes?

I think there should be an upper age limit - I agree that this is an uncomfortable case - but there's no need to start attacking IVF in general

The world is over populated as it is and there are so many children who need good homes. I am very lucky to have been able to conceive without any major problems and understand the need to have your own child, but. and apologies to those who may be upset by my comment, I think there really needs to be a good look at IVF and how it is used and the first choice should be to see if you can adopt.

Adoption is not a consolation prize for people unable le to conceive naturally and should not be treated as such. Many children adopted from the care system have mental, social, or emotional problems even those adopted from a young age. Some of them have physical or developmental disabilities. Depending on circumstances some of them will have experienced physical or mental trauma. Nearly all will exhibit some degree of challenging behaviour which needs to be carefully handled. Very few children in the care system are healthy newborns, in the UK most children awaiting adoption are school age. Adoptions can fall through at any stage of the process. Adopting a child is a totally different parenting experience to having your own child and it should not be offered as someone's only option to have a child.