for thinking that a woman who is about to turn 60 shouldn't be asking for IVF?

[Coldhands]

Ok I may get really flamed for this, but I have just read a story that a woman who is 60 this year had asked a Harley St doctor for IVF.

Should she get this? I have no problem with IVF, we came very very close to having it ourselves but I think that women go through the menopause for a reason. Older bodies are just not equipped to do the while pregnancy thing etc. Do you really want to be 70 when your child is 10? I know women have had it abroad even older than this, but one of them recently died of cancer and left her 1/2? year old twins behind after having IVF in her late 60s. I just think it is very irresponsible.

It is a shame if they have never had children for whatever reason (if they wanted them), but it just seems 'a bit wrong' (not quite sure how to out that last bit).

YANBU some people are just selfish really tbh and are not thinking of the child imo. I totally agree with you, there is an age limit for IVF assisted conception for a reason.

Menopause is there for a reason.

Thing about an older man fathering children is that he does not have the stress of pregnancy on his body.

I don't know that ease-of-pregnancy/risk of complications depends on age of womb.

I heard her on Radio 5 this morning and she kept going on about what an amazingly easy pregnancy she had 18 months ago (or whatever, recently). She had thought she'd miscarried but turns out she got to 7 months PG before finding out the pregnancy was viable.

And there is no way I could get to 7 months without being completely incapacitated by morning sickness for many weeks. That isn't age dependent, just bad genes, maybe.

I thought she did an amazing job on radio this morning of being open-minded to people's objections. One of the most respectful discussions/phone-ins I've heard for ages on Radio 5!!

I dunno what I think. My gut feeling is that it's too complicated for pundits or arm-chair philosophers to come up with one supposedly right age-cut off for all women.

"Menopause is there for a reason."

And that reason would be?
The only reason that I've ever heard that made some sense was that children with involved adult females past childbearing would give those children the edge in the survival stakes. I'm not sure how much that would apply in a case like the one being discussed.

"My gut feeling is that it's too complicated for pundits or arm-chair philosophers to come up with one supposedly right age-cut off for all women. "

I feel similar, CantSupinate

Having been very lucky and having loads of children ,i dont really understand the womans heartache of wanting a baby so badly that she`d risk her own life at her age to give birth.
At 60 you should be swanning off on holidays at the drop of at hat , not changing nappies.
At 30 i was utterly exausted with my ds4 (dd4 was still in scubu so had ds4 only at home for 4 weeks)....and im fit and healthy , so god knows what it would be like for a pensioner.
around 50 years would be a better maximum age for births .(not sure about ivf , have no experence ,so it would be inapropriate to comment on that bit)

"there is an age limit for IVF assisted conception for a reason"

yeah - but it's also really horribly low and unfair. Not suggesting IVF should be available post menopause but at the moment women are left with no help when they still have lots of childbearing years ahead of them.

'And that reason would be?'

Well, let me ask millions of years of evolution, juule, why it is that it's not such a good idea for a 60-year-old woman to get pregnant.

Let's see! I can think of some: pregnancy and childbirth are big events for a human body, even when it all goes perfectly.

Same reason why human beings usually don't produce more than 2 children in one pregnancy. As an anatomy professor put it: then you have a litter, and the human female body isn't made to carry litters.

In the survival stakes, it's probably a good idea not to keep doing it when the body is ageing past a certain point.

If she had a young DH I wouldn't have a problem with it but he looks as old as her. Old men becoming dads generally have a much younger partner.

We all have a 40% chance of developing dementia by our 80th birthday. When I left home my mum was 46 and really was in the prime of her life. I didn't have to worry about putting my mum in a care home.

her husband is 11 years younger than her. Makes him 48.

I don't suppose anyone would much want to stop a 48 year old man (or woman?) from having a baby? My mum's mum was 43 when she had my mum.

It seems, though, that the human female body can have successful pregnancies past menopausal age with assisted conception.
I don't think that we really know why female reproduction evolved to have a menopause.

I agree with Pikelit - just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done.

There is little in evolution that hasn't come about for good reason, inlcuding the natural end of a woman's ability to bear children. Maybe modern life makes some of these reasons redundant/less important - eg needing to cede the position of child bearing to younger females in the tribe and move into a wider childcare role for the tribe as a whole - but it still seems to make sense that you stop being able to have children at a time that still allows you to see them through to adulthood.

juuule - are you not arguing against your own point...surely an assisted conception indicates that the human female body can't manage conception (ie stage one of pregnancy) by itself after a certain point??

I think the human race has become rather too insistent that we should just gratify our every ''need''/desire 'because we can'.

And we haven't even got to the argument about over-population and its impact on the earth's resources...

Actually, that is probably another evolutionary design principle - we'll wipe ourselves out eventually .

I was a bit at hearing this woman say on 5Live that it'd be ok if she died as this child would have a dad and older sister to look after it.

Leaving aside the dynamics of sibling affection (!) I think someone needs to explain to her that it's a disaster for a child to lose its mother and she's rather increasing that possibility at 60+. Having known of 3 cases in the last 4 years I can tell her that all the children have got loving, caring dads but the experience has been traumatic for all concerned.

Not to mention the exploitation of young, Eastern European women selling their eggs to make ends meet in an unregulated market.This woman admitted she didn't really know anything about the genetic mother - only what she'd been told.

EvilHR - no, I don't think I'm arguing against my own point. The human female body may not be able to manage conception but after that it does seem to be able to support the pregnancy. Perhaps running out of eggs was a glitch and is only showing up as people live longer. Perhaps menopause evolved as a spin off of some evolutionary change that was essential to life.
I think there are things which have evolved for no apparent good reason. Have all genetic illnesses evolved for a good reason?

"some people are just selfish really tbh and are not thinking of the child"

I think that describes most people who decide to have a baby.

"surely an assisted conception indicates that the human female body can't manage conception (ie stage one of pregnancy) by itself after a certain point??"

well if needing assisted conception, even if you would be able to carry a baby to term if you received that assistance is questionable, then surely no IVF should be allowed?

if "menopause happens for a reason" then so does all infertility.

is that what we should be saying to women who can't conceive?

juule your first post on this thread was word for word what I was going to write. weird.

'Well, let me ask millions of years of evolution, juule, why it is that it's not such a good idea for a 60-year-old woman to get pregnant.'

Until very recently most women wouldn't have lived to the age of menopause , so that argument is nonsense.

Oh and evolution has also decided that millions of people should die of cancer ,so should we not treat them either ?

but pantomime cow, chemotherapy is not the same as IVF. the two arent comparable.

IVF and chemotherapy are both medical treatments, so clearly they are comparable.

But it's the same philosophical argument about interfering with nature.

I wouldn't think about the baby stage, which they can cope with,and is very, very short. My mind goes straight to the age of 73 onwards-do you want to be a taxi driver? Do you want a house of adolescents having sleepovers? Do you want to be lying awake at 1am listening for their key in the door? Do you want to drive 160 miles up the motorway to university when 78yrs? Or do you just delegate? I wouldn't have wanted my mother to have to delegate. I am already getting upset that my very active, bright, mother is slowing down and quite disabled and I am way past my teenage years. I am happy to do far more for my mother, she has done a lot for me, but I wouldn't have wanted to do it when I was 16 and other parents could run a marathon or go on a skiing holiday. (I realise some women of 76 can do both-but it is more uncommon).

I aggree YANBU

'Until very recently most women wouldn't have lived to the age of menopause , so that argument is nonsense.'

Actually, yours is.

The reason average life expectancy for women was low until recently were twofold: a significant percentage of people died before the age of 5. A further significant percentage of females died as young adults giving birth to a first child.

Live beyond that, and epidemiologically, you stood a good chance of living to a relatively old age.

'Oh and evolution has also decided that millions of people should die of cancer ,so should we not treat them either ?'

Evolution decides we don't live forever, so using your mentality, let's just all serve our own ends and desires no matter what the consequence to anyone else.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.