World's oldest mother is dying, whilst a 66 year old gives birth to IVF triplets

[Lulumaam]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286412/Worlds-oldest-mother-Rajo-Devi-Lohan-reveals-dyin g.html

I really think it is totally unethical and immoral to allow women of this age IVF. The woman is 70, had IVF to have a child, she is now dying and unable to care for that child, she is living in poverty, poverty excacerbated by borrowing money for IVF due to the stigam of being married but childless

what happens to the child now?

Really very sad on many levels

Of course I agree that it's wrong to seek to conceive at that age and it's even more wrong for a dr to accept money from a couple like this and not be explicit about the dangers.
However, should not forget some of the key cultural differences here. As far as I understand India has no laws limiting IVF based on age. The couple had suffered the stigma of being childless all their life, which in their community is a major issue as a woman's value is mainly linked to the number of children they produce. They are poor and uneducated, so when the choice came to have a child or continue to endure the stigma, they chose the former. Also, in their community it's much more common for the whole village to look after its children, not just the birth parents.

why wouldn't thgey have done it even 10 years earlier??

Carolondon - I suspect they didn't do it 20 years ago for exactly the same reasons.

IVF only began about 30 years ago. I suspect that it's only recently that the availabilty of this treatment has become something she was aware of. It's probably also only recently that banks etc have lent money in such circumstances.

It doesn't make it a wise call for the doctors, but I suspect that that is the practical answer.

you could argue (and I'm sorry, this is going to sound cruel) she'd lived with the stigma all her life, now it's sorted out but she's dying anyway. How is that better?

agree with lulu and wannabe. Nature gave us women the menopause for a reason,

of course it is the same clinic that treated both these women and

"The doctor never warned me it was dangerous to have a baby at my age"

is very sad, we could assume that she "should" have known, but then many people in the world don't have access to the information and advice that we do, so it is quite conceivable that she really didn't know the huge risk she was undertaking.

Jeez. I have just read the article.

She has the stigma of the barren, but he hasn't had children with any of his three wives. It's like how women used to be blamed for the failure to produce a male heir...

It's so unbelievably horrible that societies exist where a woman's existence is still so completely worthless unless she has children, that she was willing to kill herself to remove that stigma.

This IMO is the flip side of people saying that in this society, women are not valued for having children. In my personal opinion, that's rubbish, but even if it were true, I'd still rather it were that way round than for people to feel like this woman.

What a frigging indictment of her family and community.

but was she "willing" to kill herself? or did she not know the real risks.......because a fertility clinic where more interested in getting her money and making headlines than giving her proper care and advice?

(although agree that the position of women in these societies is shocking.......although in many respects we in the West aren't a lot better......)

I think these kind of cases are very rare and every case should be judged on its own merits. In the same way the you need thorough vetting for adoption, I think there should be a similar process for IVF if th emother is over 50. Mitigating factors would be - her health, support structure, age of partner etc.

Although I find it unlikely that it is in the best interests of most childrne to be born to a pair of very elderly parens with little financial stability I can see that it might not be the case if the 66 yr old was very healthy, had a 50 year old partner, and numerous close family members who would be prepared to act as guardians and are financially stable.

Many people would (and have ) judged me for becoming a mother n teh circumstances I did so I tend to be reluctant to make blanket judgements.

Comparing it to people to are rubbish parents but who required no intervention of any sort to get pregnant is not a fair comparison. With intervention (and I include adoption in "intervention) comes a responsibility to put the needs of the child first.

playing devil's advocate here though, while I do agree the clinic were in the wrong, could they really accurately inform the woman of the risks of giving birth?

It's so uncommon for women of this age to give birth that the real risk cannot really be known.

No, I don't suppose they could, Wannabe. But they could look at the morbidity and mortality rates for 70-year-old women to recover from major abdominal surgery, and extrapolate that to a similar risk for Caesarean. Though I suspect the rates would be even less favourable than for abdo surgery for other reasons, as the body would have been through the stresses and strains of pregnancy first.

I completely agree with Wannabe. This whole scenario is crazy. Women are just not built to have babies at such an age, and the whole argument about men being able to do it, well yes they can, but a) as somebody further up said, they don't have to then carry and deliver the baby and b) it is a fact that the quality of a man's sperm declines as he ages also. Although I must say I don't particularly agree with men in their 60's upwards ttc, but at least it's something they can do.

I too think it's sad that the doctor's who have obviously pushed for this to happen, did not (and I believe they did not) tell the women in detail of the risks possible. They just seem overjoyed that the women have the records, and it has happened in their clinic. They deserve to have their licences withdrawn.

this is a very sad story, but I am really angry about the dr at the centre of it all, who it appears is out to make himself world famous and prove just how great he is at IVF

in fact he has failed those women and children immenseley

I am also totally against very elderly women in richer countries having IVF, just cos they can afford it and afford the lifestyle, babies are NOT just accessories - it is utterly selfish having a baby when you are likely NOT to be fit and active for the whole of its childhood

where do we stop!

I do also wonder though, how accurate the mother is being in saying she was never warned of the risks.

So many things in life we blank out the risks. If she was told (which is probably accurate), that there were likely to be risks of having a baby at such an advanced age and, because most women don't, we couldn't truly know the percentage risk, isn't it just possible that a poor woman, of low education, stigmatised for her whole married life, would have tuned that out?

Yes, the doctors might have failed her. But I think society failed her more.

These women are totally barmy and utterly selfish.

Ribena - I could very easily believe that she wasn't told of the risks. She's not living in the UK where the information would be easy to find.

And her doctor claims in that article that her life expectancy was only 5-7yrs anyhow, I don't believe that someone who is willing to give IVF to a woman that without giving birth has a lfe expectancy of just a few more years was actually going to explain the real risks to her.

You need to see the cultural context here as well though. I saw a tv programme about her and the fertility centre that treats these women in INdia.

Yes a lack of education comes into it but the doctors displayed a serious lack of ethics.

However what did come across in the programme was the way that the child was cherished, particularly after so many years without children. There was a large extended family to care for the child so it's not like she was alone without support.

It's not as straightforward as saying these women are mad. Childlessness is viewed very differently in certain cultures and they are clearly not mad but expected to produce children by any means necessary in some cases.

I don't agree with women of this age having IVF but I think the DM should have given a bit more background so people would understand she wasn't purely a selfish stupid woman. (Why would they though - they think most women are like that!)

Yes it is morally wrong people mistakenly put their urges before the feelings for the child left behind without a mother to bring them up.

A perverted kind of selfishness IMO.

current.com/1mng64c

This gives a bit more background.

I feel guilty enough about having had DS at 40, seeing that I lost my mum just before I was 40 and it felt too soon. I have to get to 80 (my Mum was 63 when she died) for DS to be the same age I was before he loses me.

The thought that I might have a child and then die before he/she even gets to 20 hurts me for that child, even though it doesn't exist. So I wouldn't do it - and I can't see how anyone who has their putative child's best interests at heart could do it either. IMO.

I agree that menopause is there for a reason...

But, what a beautiful little girl she has! I am that she will not live to see her grow...

thanks fifitot

i do agree that there is a huge cultural issue here

i don't for a minute think the woman here was stupid or selfish, she was driven to something by cultural mores and by her desire to have a child.. i don't doubt for amoment she did not understand or even have the risks explained fully.. the clinic seems driven to give women a baby at any age, without heeding the risks, IMO

I saw a documentary a year ago about the lady pictured in your link who is 70. I thought as most of you do that it was crazy until I heard her story. She had spent most of her life caring for her DM who lived into very old age and had no life for herself. But the saddest thing was the way she was treated as a "baren" woman. She was spat on in the street and treated as unclean. Completely ostracised from society. Could not even be buried with her family. I think she wouldv'e done it even if she knew it would kill her. It was so sad.

and the bit in the article that said they would try again, and this time they'd want a boy because boys are so important, the daughter will leave the fmaily and their (the dh's obviously ) name would be lost...

It's difficult though isn't it. Ethically the clinic should say no. But on the other hand they know that by saying know they are condemning the woman to be an outcast for the rest of her life. In fact if she could admit the clinic had turned her down this would just be confirmation of the belief that she was barron. I wonder if the sister receives the same kind of treatment?

Tbh I think the whole fertility industry is just driven by money rather than by some kind of altruistic desire to help women become mothers, even in this country I know of clinics that seem to have some fairly dubious practices, it's only the fact that they're regulated that stops them from being able to exploit people any more than they already do.

'you could argue (and I'm sorry, this is going to sound cruel) she'd lived with the stigma all her life, now it's sorted out but she's dying anyway. How is that better?

She's Hinmdu I guess? Depends a lot on the individual, branch they follow etc but I;ve certainly heard of some Hindus who would beleive that sort of stigama would cause problems with rebirth / karma. Failure as a wife / to follow ones dharma (life path) etc.

Combined with a severe lack of availability of IVF and knowledge in areas of India, I woudl nto be amazed if you find your answers there.

In whcih case the Sr's should bloody well know better, be able to say a firm no and preferably explained to the H that 3 wives and no baby probably means.....

I do agree with fifitot though that it's another culture; famillies can be xtended there and a baby raised by another woman with as much love as the mother. I just pray that's the case.