Older Mothers a burden on the NHS?

[Lico]

Hello,
I was surprised at this doctor's statements on older women being a huge burden on the NHS.
What do you think?

www.standard.co.uk/news/health/top-doctor-issues-warning-over-older-mothers-who-are-a-huge-burden-on-the-nhs-a3201106.html

One cannot asume that because of old age a woman will cost more to NHS. To start with most moms are under 40s. But if anyone in the posters is a doctor and economist as well worked in the UK and has carried out research they need to post their source of stats article that proves older women cost more than younger ones and in what way. Otherwise it is just unsubstantiated and opinions.

I am happy with the link provided by misti actually.

The NHS routinely offers (or denies) medical treatment or tests on the basis of age, because there are often good ethical and medical reasons for doing so. This is not discrimination.

It's quite acceptable to balance one person's rights (say, to receive IVF as a 50 something) against the risks and costs to both society and the individual (and in the case of IVF, their offspring).

Using the word "burden" is not wise as its an emotive word - although it may be appropriate for a 50 something who has IVF abroad then returns to the UK and expects the NHS to pick up the bill for a high risk pregnancy and potential complications. The costs may not be large on a national scale, but they are probably burdensome for individual hospitals and obstetrics teams.

UK is a society with liberal ideas and has a health care not found anywhere else based on anti-discrimination. It is a health system that is inclussive of all classes, avoids exploitation of the weakest by private interests and is based on tax contributions. In other countries (I worked and lived in USA) there are systems with discrimination of age and prior conditions and there you dont have free care and you pay for everything very very expensive. The insurance in non-free health care covers only a % of costs but the rest is always a very huge sum and people sell their properies. One needs to consider it is either NHS like we have now in UK or if you really trully want to exclude some classes such as older women and those with disabilities and conditions then you adopt the private health insurance like USA which is unsustainable for many incomes. However, if you now like to believe you are healthy and not at risk this is just a simple opinion and you never know how you will be in the future. I ve and many of us seen all the time people believing to be healthy and suddenly all this changes for ever. Many people developed problems at any stage of their life.

If a woman wants a babe it is her human right and no ones else's business to interfere with her. Life is a right.

It's medical fact that older pregnant mothers have higher risk pregnancies and more complications, I think.

Whether that balances out against greater financial resources they have generally (and so a lesser need for tax credits etc) and whether the 50+ cohort of pregnant women is large enough (or growing fas enough) to be statistically significant, might be different matters.

If a woman wants a babe it is her human right and no ones else's business to interfere with her. Life is a right.

No, that's overstating it.

It is lovely that prospective parents have the chance to fulfil their dreams of a family, but we can't go down the road of asserting that pregnancy and babies are the human rights of the parents. It doesn't work like that, especially not in the 50+ age group. A pregnancy to a 50+ woman is more akin to a miracle.

I'm not sure pregnancy amongst over 50s is a demographic that has anywhere near enough in common to draw any conclusions about their likely incomes or whether or not they claim benefits!! It is not the same as 35-45 year olds having babies. Leaving it that long can't be a logical decision for career reasons for example.

One thing that is clear is that they will reach retirement age before the child becomes an adult, so a very high likelihood of needing to claim benefits. Presumably one of many reasons why IVF is not provided on the NHS.

I'm just trying to think of possible offsets Tfoot, but, as I say, the numbers are so small it hardly seems worth getting upset about the cost to the NHS.

It is small but the Dr from the interview commented that it is becoming more popular and she thinks it will increase in the next few years.

the numbers are so small it hardly seems worth getting upset about the cost to the NHS

The numbers probably are a drop in the ocean in the context of the NHS budget as a whole, but it's likely that the very highest risk pgs are concentrated in certain areas and certain hospitals, and might be quite significant for those hospitals.

In which case, it's probably quite a simple task to pinpoint the fertility units and consultants who are making the decisions to treat/inseminate 50+ women regularly.

Maybe the more pertinent issue is whether private medicine should be able to so easily create high-risk pregnancies and then pass the entire cost and responsibility of the resultant pregnancy to the NHS without a second thought.

Of course older mothers cost the NHS more. I had my first at 41 and was very aware that already I was running much higher risks - in the end had a CS, which could have happened at any age, but is much more common in older mothers, and costs the NHS more. There is a general trend to older childbearing which I think does raise public health and economic concerns. However, I hate these doctors who pop up every few months to blame women for leaving childbearing late, without any consideration of WHY this trend is happening or how we could make it easier for women to give birth earlier. IME there aren't many older mothers who deliberately chose that option. And the young women I work with - in their late 20s, ideal age physiologically to give birth - are all living in grotty flatshares because there's no way they can afford a family-friendly home near their London jobs.

However, this story is about a few women in their 50s who had IVF, which I think raises different questions from a natural conception in your early 40s. Whatever your views on IVF for post-menopausal women (personally I'm not in favour) it must be awful to be one of those women and see yourself discussed as an intolerable burden by your caregiver.

I thought it was specifically about much older women, 50 upwards going abroad to get ivf when they wouldn't be allowed it here, then coming back with very complicated pregnancies that the NHS have to cover the cost of.

Older mothers have equal right as any other mother to NHS. Unless you are a doctor and bring evidence from an article here , such opinions as "older mothers cost more than - who anyway?" are not serious claims and are based on intuition and probably dislike of someone personally.

It is a myth that pregnancies of women over 50 are a miracle. Bring evidence from an article and tell us if you are a doctor first.

to blame women for leaving childbearing late, without any consideration of WHY this trend is happening or how we could make it easier for women to give birth earlier. IME there aren't many older mothers who deliberately chose that option. And the young women I work with - in their late 20s, ideal age physiologically to give birth - are all living in grotty flatshares because there's no way they can afford a family-friendly home near their London jobs.

This, with bells on. I am 40 and having IVF. Not through choice - I got cancer, met DH late and then had to go through PIGD to avoid passing on my genetic cancer risk. I have only been financially secure in the last 3 years (which is roughly how long the IVF has taken).

You can just as easily make lazy arguments about young mothers (more likely to need benefits), immigrant mothers (have too many kids), SAHM (not paying into the pot) etc. It seems that older mothers are ripe for sticking the boot in in a way that other mothers are not.

YoungGirlGrowingOld well done. I wish you success . You have as many rights as any woman to have a babe. There are only a tiny minority that have the view that older mothers or mothers with conditions should not have NHS treatment. This is ageist and anti-disability attitude which does not suit to educated women and has prejudice. Educated mothers accept NHS is free and is the best health care choice we have.

Thank you Maris

Although its extremely rare, women have been known to get pregnant by accident in their late forties or even 50s. Its unfair to describe such women as burden especially if their pregnancies are unplanned.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2092968/My-gorgeous-little-accident-Debbie-amazed-doctors--mention-grandchildren--getting-pregnant-naturally-53-Pill-Here-shares-joy--exhaustion.html

Limits on IVF exist for medical reasons. I think its fair to force mothers who have got pregnant by an egg donor and over the age of 46 to pay for their maternity care and any costs associated with prematurity. A DNA test is an easy way to show if the child is biologically the mother's.

If women want a baby then they need to do at the right age. 55 is not time to have IVF treatment.

"And the young women I work with - in their late 20s, ideal age physiologically to give birth - are all living in grotty flatshares because there's no way they can afford a family-friendly home near their London jobs."

If having a family is important then those young women need to look at moving out of London. There is a life and employment in the rest of the UK. People have to make decisions in life.

Absolutely.

They chose, it, they pay for it. Right?

Oh, hang on ...

It's not right to deny a pregnant woman care based on age (I would totally oppose that) but it's certainly reasonable to talk about the costs to the NHS of women bearing children in their 40s and 50s. On this thread it seems that even making perfectly reasonable comments about complication rates (backed up by links to medical research) is considered discrimination.

Getting pregnant by IVF in your 50s is completely unnatural. It's not the same as a person in their 30s with fertility problems. A person in their 50s who has got pregnant by IVF has circumvented the rules in the uk which would have stopped this from happening by going abroad.

Maybe a woman in such a situation should be means tested and if she has any assets like a house or savings then they should be sold. There are strong ethical reasons to actively discourage women in their 50s choosing to have babies. I would go as far as to say its not fair on the child because of the risk of disabilities.

Life is not fair as men in their 90s have been known to sire children. I don't see it as the NHS's job to put right biological unfairness. There are bigger priorities for the NHS.

Problem with denying older ivf mothers free healthcare is you are also denying the child free healthcare and the child is completely innocent. Besides, I wouldn't deny the mother free healthcare anyway. Whenever the question of changing people who are obese or smoke or whatever, for healthcare comes up I always try to think of it this way: if a suicide bomber killed a dozen people but only managed to blow his own arm off in the process, the NHS would treat him for free. If he is entitled to free healthcare then surely a pregnant woman and her baby, regardless of the circumstances, should receive free healthcare.

fakenamefornow

I agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the NHS can stick its head in the sand about costs. And I read it as this doctor commenting on a rise in requirements for expensive treatment and the costs it brings.

The women being described as a burden were not older mothers falling pregnant by accident or design, but those who travelled outside UK to secure IVF treatment outside NHS rules and private clinic practice here (both their age and number of embryos implanted).