Woman in 60s 'pregnant through IVF'

[Tutter]

(from yahoo! news)

raises some interesting questions i think - like why do we have kids? for whose benefit? is she being selfish? or is she as justified as you or i?

================================================

A controversial Italian fertility doctor has helped a British woman in her early 60s to become pregnant, it was reported.

Patricia Rashbrook, a child psychiatrist from Lewes, East Sussex, is now seven months' pregnant after being given IVF treatment by Severino Antinori, according to The Sun.

The newspaper reported she was 63 - which would make her the oldest British mother when she gives birth.

Dr Rashbrook's husband, John Farrant, refused to comment on the story but said his wife

ADVERTISEMENT
was younger than 63.
He told The Sun: "My wife is seven months' pregnant. We are of course both very happy and looking forward to the birth. Obviously at our age it is quite daunting.

"I would not call it a miracle baby but an assisted conception. We were aware this was going to come out and we have been preparing ourselves psychologically for the news to break."

Dr Rashbrook, who already has two children from her first marriage, flew to Rome last October for treatment, The Sun reported.

Antinori, who runs a private fertility clinic in Rome, first made headlines in 1994 by helping a post-menopausal 63-year-old woman become pregnant with donor eggs and hormones.

He has said in the past he aimed to be the first to produce a baby cloned from an adult. In 2004 he claimed that he knew of three cloned babies that had been born but refused to produce any evidence, citing legal reasons.

Previously Britain's oldest mother was hill farmer Liz Buttle, from Wales, who was 60 when she gave birth to a son called Joseph in 1997. The oldest woman in the world to give birth is thought to be Adriana Iliescu, from Romania, who had a daughter called Eliza Maria in January 2005 at the age of 66.

because it is very physically demanding carrying a baby for nine months and giving birth?

But it would seem that these older women are okay with the carrying of a baby and giving birth. Nothing dire has happened once they become pregnant. So, I just don't get it that nature brought about menopause out of consideration for us.

juuule we only get to hear about the ones who manage to stay pg and deliver near to full term.

as we age our eggs become less viable and finally we stop producing them = menopause.

A man's sperm is a different matter, hence no 'menopause'.

Those are the laws of nature but nature didn't know science was going to turn conception on its head now did it?

Why does someone suddenly decide they need a child at that age?

juuule, nature expects us to precreate the species.

That means that everytime a woman gets pregnant she is out of the loop for at least 9 months. Constant cycles of pregnancy would eventually result in a woman too knackered/ill to carry more children. Plus, the egg supply is there at birth. They age along with the woman.

The men on the other hand can go off and procreate some more, as frequently and with as many partners as possible, for as long as possible.

Nature doesn't allow for 'relationships'

Well for the ones that don't carry to full term, nature has stepped in and sorted it out anyway. For the ones that do go to full term without problems - well, what's the problem? Lots of women of any age don't manage to stay pg, that's a risk anyone takes when they become pg.
If nature had got its act together women's eggs would not run out/deteriorate and menopause wouldn't happen. If women were too knackered/ill to have more children there would be no need (in natures eyes) for menopause.
I understand what happens physically to cause menopause, I just don't understand what it's for.
And I do think that not all men 'go off and procreate some more'. Some are more committed to their offsprings development than to be doing that. Or are you saying that nature says they should be spreading it around a bit more.:o

This is such a rare happening that I almost can't be bothered to summon up an opinion (almost but not quite...)

I agree that old father can be as inappropriate as old mothers but with old fathers they generally have a much younger partner so the child has a better chance of having at least one healthy parent into adulthood.

My bigger gripe (because it's more personal to me) is that it encourages people to believe that IVF is some kind of magic bullet if you're over 40 and can't conceive (eg well if she can get preganant at 62 then I can at 42). You don't know how many attempts she had to get pregnant or how many other women they tried and failed on first. The reality is that over 40/43/45 (depending on the clinic) IVF is more likely to fail than succeed.

Sorry BudaBabe - not having a go at you. I had three attempts at IVF in late 30's and would probably do the same again but the comments I got from everyone else were maddening. "Well Cherie Blair got pregnant at 45 no problem" (Bloody Cherie Blair I had that bloody comment about a million times) "Oh you're having IVF thats fine then" It didn't feel fine, particulalry not when it failed!

AAARRRGGHH

There now feel much better.

Yes nature intends it to be 'spread around'.

Diversity of the gene pool and all that.

Relationships are a result of settled communities. Before they existed and humans lived a more nomadic lifestyle it made sense for the women to have a limited number of child bearing years but for the men to carry on for much longer.

I heard this story.
My thought were that it's not fair on the older children (in their 20's) as ultimately i think they'll have to care for their sibling should the Parents die

suejonez - I can imagaine it must be very difficult to hear comments like that. I think IVF (while fantastic for me - have one DS already) is not the magic bullet for everyone - as you know. It also depends on the reason for the infertility - in our case the "problem" lies with DH - doc has told me my gynae age is less tha my chronological age! So whilst I am hopeful, I am realistic.

My Mum used to drive me mad by telling me about Ursula Andress having her first at 40-something - and Patricia Hodge. FGS - I didn't WANT To be a older Mum.

I had DS at 37 and for various reasons haven't tried again yet. This is my one last attempt.

But I do really feel that 63 is far too old.

"it made sense for the women to have a limited number of child bearing years but for the men to carry on for much longer."
Okay - call me thick but I still don't get it:o Why would it make more sense?

As for the older children looking after their younger sibling - this happened to my cousin. She had her own 2 children and took in her 13yo younger sister when my auntie died at 46. It all seems to have worked out well for them and they are very close. So it's not always doom and gloom. Perhaps the couple and the older children in this case have already discussed and agreed on something.

oooops sorry aunty was 56 when she died

Have you ever seen a pregnant man?

Has a man ever had to go through months of carrying a growing person around inside them? Or gone through hours of labour to give birth to the child? Oh and then of course there are the months on end of breastfeeding (we are talking 'nature' here so no bottles) and then pre-chewing solids so that the child doesn't starve.

No, they impregnate the women and then bog off hunting.

suejonz - agree with you. IVF is not the miracle answer for older mums. When I turned 45, my doctor told me that chances of IVF succeeding were so slim that I was wasting my time and money. He said I should go straight for an egg donor - which is what this older woman has done.

I wonder if she'll have a planned CS birth, or if she'll go into labour naturally....

Buda, Good luck with your IVF. I agree it can be fantastic and give some people a chance to conceive which wasn't available to them before. I had PCOS which should theoretically be treatable but didn't quite work out that way (obviously my ovaries hadn't read the text books)...

I'm now adopting at 41 and would much rather have been doing it at 35 but years of various treatments all of which were expected to work then the nightmare of the adoption process (2 years and counting) have left me where I am.

Maybe pregnant 62 yr old lady had 20 yrs of treatment before it worked and didn't notice how time had flown?

Her husband is in his 60s as well. They have two adult children already.

PARP

In a news report on Radio 4 today they said the woman was 53, not 63. (May have misheard).

Also, slightly unrelated but interesting, did you know that a woman is more likely to get pregnant if she has sex with more than one man in the same night? The sperm actually travel faster towards the egg, as they sense competition. So, in fact, it's to the womans genetic advantage to spread it around a bit as well.

As for the ethical considerations, it's a grey area I'd say, but as far as selfishness and children go I'd say there are far worse acts:

• abortion as contraception
• child neglect/abuse
• child abandonment

It sounds like this child has a good chance of being loved and wanted, and of having a secure family network around it. There are an awful lot of children in the world who could do with a bit of that.

I think I heard that they only married recently (ie - he is not the father of her other children). I might be completely wrong, but I think it was on Radio 5 this morning.

"Also, slightly unrelated but interesting, did you know that a woman is more likely to get pregnant if she has sex with more than one man in the same night?"

Yes this has been around a while, in my more desperate moment when TTC I did consider it [snigger emoticon]. But resisted (of course).

Hey sj: only put the point in cos I get a bit fed up with the old 'men need to put it around and women are genetically programmed to suffer monogamously' bollocks.

But this has nothing to do with this thread, so I shall take my griping elsewhere.

There are also reasons why it is more in mens interest to be in stable relationship than women - that way they can be sure (reasonably) that the baby is genetically their's whereas women are always sure!

I think there's some statistic that women take good looking strong men as lovers to father their children and choose safe stable men to marry and provide for them. (Looking forward to either happening to me).

Agree off topic (perhaps we can slink away together and set up a "lets overcome our genetic programming" thread)

Sounds like a plan SJ, except that my safe, stable and sexy DH might catch me [smug self-satisfied emoticon]

Right! End of hijack - sorry!

I am probably being hormonal since I am 7 weeks pregnant, but with a husband of 57 it really ticks me off for someone to say they "Shudder at old blokes" having babies. My husband looks at least 10 years younger than his age and is a fabulous father. If he had had children at a younger age he would have undoubtedly missed out on a lot of their early childhood due to career pressures that have eased up considerably.

I think a bit more tolerance of others and respect for their decisions regarding their own lives and their family is called for here.