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.

This is a hugely contentious and emotive subject with many ethical and moral layers. I honestly don't know how I feel about it other than to say that I would probably learn toward tolerance and individual choice (and before anyone says it, I know that the child doesn't have a voice in this and there will be big challenges for him/her to face).

The mum-to-be is in a (seemingly) stable marriage, and clearly thought about having a child long and hard before taking action. She and her husband then went to huge effort/expense to achieve a pregnancy. There was nothing impulsive about it. My guess is that, having been a mum before, she knows what she's got ahead of her. I found it fascinating the way she handled the photo op and questions - no justifying, no explanation, no hesitation.

Is it any more "terrible" for her to do this carefully considered thing than for the many young girls who get pregnant casually and are not in a stable relationship, have little/no financial security, little/no ability to provide a stable/loving home and have given little/no thought to how they will manage? Who do you think will provide a better home?

but there are illnesses which are likely to attack younger people rather than those who have negotiated their decrepit way to sixty without any health problems

yikes - have been out all day - didn't expect quite so many contributions! haven't read all, but soptted a few comments about nature allowing women to conceive into their 50s or 60s. but that doesn't mean it's the best thing for our society. many girls can conceive at 11 or 12 but most of us doubt that it would be best for them (or a baby) for that to happen.

if a child psychiatrist wants to get pregnant through IVF at 63, what does this says about psychiatry? It is of course highly irregular at her age, even more so than for a man, like Rod.

Is she wanting to experiment on the child? Afterall she alread has had children, so why does this "biological need" have to be fulfilled?

Alot of grandparents in Polynesain cultures traditionaly take a child to raise. Perhaps that is a glimpse of the ethnographical?

I can only see questions with this it seems!

zippy, but nowhere near as many. YOu can't downplay the risk that she is taking.

She has evaluated the risk and decided to take it, but you can't pretend that most 80 year olds are as fit and active as most 40 year olds or 50 year olds or 60 year olds! It simply isn't true!

My MIL is a sprightly 63 year old....she is climbing Machu Pichu (sp??) as I type. She is in excellent health, except for a bit of arthritis and iritis. But by 80 I bet she will be a darned sight more sedate.

I think we mess with nature at our peril actually. Women aren't meant to give birth at 63. Just because it's biologically possible doesn't make it sensible.

of course getting older doesn't stop you doing things - however this woman's own body has stopped her doing one thing in particular - having a baby.

Good points Papillon.

Hasn't it been scientifically proven that a high proportion of psychiatrists are fruitloops?

I know three (socialy ) and they are surprisingly sane. Wonder what they think of me

they wouldn't be able to adopt either would they? because of their age, and that's because the welfare of the child is paramount.

Her body hasn't stopped her having a baby, it's stopped her conceiving. She's found a way round the problem.
While most 80 year olds won't be as fit and active as 40/50year olds neither will most 63 year olds be looking to get pg.

semantics juuule

no eggs, no baby - her body cannot produce babies in the normal way

People with no legs can't walk but they can still take part in races.

She is thinking only of herself & Dh, oh yes I believe in freedom of choice but there are some things that are fundimentally fcked up and having a baby in your 60's is one of them.. why? they both have grown up children! don't they like them? perhaps they need an heir to inherit all their cash!! or she wants to get in the guniness book of records!! this is not desperation its narcissism* imo...

God I'm such a bitch...

There are many things which are possible. And fully legal. But are still very bad ideas.

JT that is an argumenet against IVF itself..I'm not saying she will be a particularly active parent but she may be a good enough one

zippi - absolutely NOT!!!

why not?

I've no probs. with this - her own decision, and I'm surprised at the media interest. Wouldn't suit me personally but then I'm not planning to try it unless circumstances change dramatically!

My only issue with the story is irritation that older women getting pregnant is big sensation where as so many well known men becoming fathers in their 70's and 80's is not news at all. At least these two are the same age. I find it much creepier when you hear about actors/singers/media types in their 60s and 70s getting much younger women pregnant.

AT least her and her DH will be stay at home parents LOL... if that makes any differencee

I think we are always judging... I mean I have seen women who have babies by elective to fit around their work, have a maternity nurse and then 2 nannies as it is 24/7!.... they are high powered execs who work well over 80h/week... is that any better ???? Not saying just asking...
What about the woman who gets pregnant to "trap" her husband who has said he is leaving her.... (I know someone close to me who did this very recently)... how are these woman any better ?

ha! ha! someone on Question Time has just pointed out that the woman will be collecting her Pension and her Child Benefit at the same time

Im very sorry but i think that once a woman has had the menopause it should not be available to them, (IVF i mean). I understand sometimes it happens to very young women, and think thats different, but after a certain age i dont think it should happen.
I think you need to look forward a few years to when the child is a teenager, and young adult, they should be begining their lives, not caring for an elderly parent.

Just reading thread and not finished, but Expat wrt your earlier post that things happen for a reason otherwise nature would cause them to evolve out - not true. An adaptation has to be not deleterious for it to continue. In other words it has to not cause the organism to die before procreating. (This is interesting re breastmilk too - it is always assumed that the many unexplained substances to be found in breastmilk will be advantageous to the newborn. Many are, but the crucial thing is that they just have to be not detrimental to them...but that's a debate I don't have enough knowledge to get into.......)
One theory about the menopause is that it evolved precisely to stop women procreating after a certain age, and that their comparative longevity is adaptive because it allows older women to help their daughters in rearing their grandchildren.

I'm pretty likely to finish reading this thread and see that tamum or someone else brainy has written something similar and worded it better...

For something to really spread though, it has to give an organism a biological advantage. So while 'neutral' mutations can persist, advantagous ones spread, because the offspring are more likely to survive.

Sometimes even seeming disadvantages can persist if they still have a benefit. So Sickle cell anemia , while has the potential to kill, still persists, since haveing one sickle gene leaves a person resistant to malaria......a significan biological advantage in some parts of the world.

I stand corrected then, Pruni, but it doesn't change my views. IMO, 63 is too old to be procreating - male or female.