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).

Firstly, I had to clarify that I don't think this woman should be considering another baby, just in case I was coming across in support of her I think it's madness.

There are two different arguments here really. The physical side of the pregnancy itself isn't an issue in this case as she has proved that there is a clinic there willing to jump that hurdle for her. That just leaves us with the rest of their lives.

'The physical side of the pregnancy itself isn't an issue in this case as she has proved that there is a clinic there willing to jump that hurdle for her.'

Sadly, even that's debatable when you consider the ethics of some of these clinics.

I work as a SW with adults mainly older people. I speak to people every day, who 7, 8 9 or 10 years ago were fit as fiddles and couldn't ever imagine having health issues or needing any help whatsoever. There can be a huge difference between 60 and 70. I think it is not a nice situation for a, say, 7 to 10 year old kid, to see their mother as an old lady needing personal carers to just help her wash, dress and move about the house. And the impact on the child in terms of living their lives as a young carer of course.

I personally would choose adoption over IVF at any age, because for me the genetic link is so much less important than the caring, loving part of a parent-child relationship. Of course I do understand that many people place a lot of value on the genetic link. But I'm wondering if this couple is perhaps chosing IVF because adoption is legally barred to them?

That said, I too am uncomfortable with a legal cut-off point for when women may have babies.

What would you say, is the situation of a woman who is knowingly HIV positive comparable? She runs a statistically higher risk of dying while her child is still young. She might very well need care herself and thus confront her child with tough situations. Most likely she won't be able to have a vaginal birth. Pregnancy will be a risk to her health. She probably will not be well and fit for dealing with a toddler or later a teenager. In addition, she runs a one in four risk of passing the virus on to her child. And yet, whilst we may or may not consider her selfish and irresponsible, we do not legally deny her the possibility.
HIV-positive women who decide to have a child will have considered it very, very carefully. As will older women.

Another thought/question: Male fertility declines with age as well. The difference is just that there is no "absolute" cut-off point, such as the menopause. So there are always exceptional men who father children in their old age, but that doesn't work for the majority.
But when men don't produce enough sperm to father a child, their partners can be treated, they can get an ICSI (where ONE good sperm is selected and injected directly into the egg cell) or even MESE/TESE where immature spermatozoids are extracted from the testicles, ripened in a test tube, and then used to fertilise an egg. So basically infertile men can still, with the help of medicine, father children. Does anyone know if there is a cut-off age for this as well? Should there be?

I think we have the menopause because our bodies are no longer fit enough carry a child, provide proper nutrients etc. There is a cut-off point for women and not for men because mother nature understands the sheer effort involved in what women's bodies do.

We have a menopause because our bodies run out of eggs.

The argument that it's selfish because the situation will likely be less than ideal for the child seems to be very common.

I do wonder though. If we take that thought to its conclusion, hardly anyone should be allowed to have children. And all disabled children should have to be aborted.

We also seem to think that it would be a terrible, terrible hardship for a child if he or she would not be taxi-ed around as a teenager and might perhaps have to take on more responsibility than other children.
I think this demonstrates that we live in a state of utter luxury and take way too much for granted.

well, earlier this month I was pleased to hear that my appeal for funding for IVF had been granted.

Today I got a phone call telling me that I must have the treatment before 40 or they won't fund it.

My treatment planning is on March 2nd. My birthday is on April 4th. I am fucked.

All because of a stupid rule about age.

I've only just come back to this debate after yesterday's post.

Expatinscotland has done an excellent job in making a lot of the points that I would have done, but I don't want anyone to think I am not responding to questions put specifically back to me...

"I think there are things which have evolved for no apparent good reason. Have all genetic illnesses evolved for a good reason?"

Well, depending on how strongly you support the Darwinist view of evolution - then arguably, yes, all illnesses have evolved for a reason. Whether everyone is going to agree it's a ''good'' reason is another argument...

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

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

I am not so desperate to get utterly flamed that I am going to say an outright yes to that question! However, again, depending on your stand on evolution, then yes, unfortuantely, you could argue that infertility does happen for a reason. I do not have any specific knowledge about this, so am happy to be educated - but I would propose one reason may be to place a limit on reproduction levels?

BTW, I am NOT suggesting that this is a response to infertile women (or that IVF per se "shouldn't be allowed") - I am simply trying to make a philosophically logical point.

"I do not have any specific knowledge about this"

or experience?

Really - we could say ANYTHING happens for a reason. 'Your kid just died, pull yourself together it happened for a reason.'... 'You just miscarried, well everything has a reason' ... 'You have breast cancer ... everything has a reason suck'

Stating everything has a reason doesn't really help people who are actually dealing with the emotions as well as the unfairness of all these things.

It would be horrible if a debate about a 60 year old woman in the menopause not getting IVF were used as a stick to beat women who find that they are infertile or to bang on to those women about how they should just adopt.

It's insensitive.

DF sorry to hear that. Is there any chance your treatment planning session could be brough forward? If you inform them that it actually matters so much?

I have met one woman who got an appointment in May 2009. She called up in January 2009 saying she would go elsewhere if it couldn't be brought forward. She then was given an appointment on the very next day (a cancellation had freed up an appointment). Obviously she was very lucky, and this was a private clinic; I don't know if the same could happen in the NHS but perhaps worth a try?

Good luck to you!

Dueling - I would really hope my posts were not interpreted as any kind of stick to beat anyone up about infertility, and I certainly wouldn't just blithely suggest adoption as an alternative.

You can indeed say anything happens for a reason - I realise that this does not address any of the emotional aspects of a situation, which is what I was trying to say with my last comment (unsuccessfully, obviously)...I was just trying to follow a 'rational' train of thought/argument.

By the time I posted, your post was already up there - I am truly sorry that your personal situation is turning out this way, and I do not mean to be insensitive to you or anyone else.

sorry - I am being over sensitive. I am just fed up but I am at fault for using this thread to sound off in when it's not really about fertility or my fertility

Meita - I have managed to get it brought forward so I have 2 months after the planning appointment to get treatment. I just hope that they don't make me wait too long between the two!

dueling - i hope your treatment goes well .Best of luck to you , will be keeping fingers crossed for you.

Obviously women should not be prevented from conceiving beyond a certain age, as someone put it, but nor should they be medically assisted to do something that their body is incapable of doing. I think the limit should be 47, which fits with the point about adoption - the mother would be under 65 when the child reached 18, all being well.

What does anyone think about 47?

I think they should be prevented. It wouldn't happy naturally over 60, obviously. They must be crazy, it's time to start relaxing in life isn't it?

I feel a bit unsure about the pov that it isn't fair on the child if they loose a parent early, due to age.

I am thinking that as hard as it would be to loose the mother at 10 or whatever, at 20 most people would say they are glad to be alive. They are glad they were born, and not spared this suffering at the expense of existence.

It also means that many young women could be put in shade too. Many have lifestyles/illness/genetics that mean they stand a good chance of shortened life.

So making a rule of thimb or line in the sand worries me. Yet I see the other side too.

Tricky science!

Mrsruffalo - 'it's time to start relaxing in life' speak for yourself! My dh was 64 and 66 when our DCs were born (healthily without any IVF). Double standards here for men and women another stick to beat women with. My dh might die before my children reach adulthood but so did my dad in his early 40s so no guarantees, at the moment he is very fit and healthy, can run 3 miles, play squash and cricket, swim 20 lengths, takes no medication etc..he could outlive me. To say it is selfish to be a mother at this age is the same as saying it is to be a father which I think is so wrong.

evilHR, but what is the logical link between something happening for a reason, and the morality of doing something about it/changing it/leaving it as it is?

if
a) everything happens for a reason
and
b) anything that happens for a reason must not be interfered with,
then
c) nothing must be interfered with

(ergo for example: do not treat any illnesses, abolish all medicine)

In contrast I would argue that determining if something happens for a reason says nothing about the morality of interfering/changing it.

Yes, as there are more possibilities, we need to make more choices. Saying that "without the technology we wouldn't have the choice" is in my opinion NOT an argument for saying "we need to choose against it".

DF I'm glad you were able to bring it forward, but 2 months seems a very short time to me... given that the treatment will have to follow your menstrual cycle and you might have to wait a while just because of that... Still, I hope it works out!

On the 'other' forum the threads entitled 'how old is too old to be a mum?' are hilarious.

The consensus is generally that over 35 is discusting (sic).

How I laugh.

Treedelivery a good point well made

"On the 'other' forum the threads entitled 'how old is too old to be a mum?' are hilarious.

The consensus is generally that over 35 is discusting (sic)."

you're kidding me! I think I might go over there for a rant.

This is a tricky one, isn't it. On the one hand it's not fair that women's fertility starts declining in their 30's and men can still produce children for decades afterwards (assuming they can find someone to sleep with their wrinkly old selves anyway ). I'm sure it's because biologically speaking, once the seed is planted, it doesn't really matter as much if the man dies. In the early days of humans, the mother needed to be around to nurse the baby. It's sort of like our psychological evolution is outstripping our physical evolution. More and more women are putting off having families because they have great careers or just plain aren't ready (and I say more power to 'em, so you just keep your flames to yourselves) and then in their forties when they are ready to have children, it's not going to happen as easily. Our bodies still seem to want us to have children between the ages of 14 and 32 or so. (Or as my dear old dad said when I got preg at 24, "yeah, you're a pretty good age for slingin' pups." Class act, he is! )
So while I understand, it still makes me a bit . My own mother is 49, and cannot imagine having a 10 year old, let alone a newborn. I do agree that if it wouldn't be legal for you to adopt, perhaps the doctor should be a bit hesitant. (I also think that the doctor should perhaps not put in as many eggs as possible, as it is also not legal to adopt eight children when you already have seven. Cough Octomom cough.)

@ discusting

'On the 'other' forum the threads entitled 'how old is too old to be a mum?' are hilarious.

The consensus is generally that over 35 is discusting (sic).

How I laugh. '

Good grief!! I must go and read it!

I can't find it...