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

Sorry, not sr, Dr's

oh I agree. But presumably they come from the same culture?

Sadly this is what happens when you bring first world science into the third world where the culture hasn't caught up with it.

depressing. the medics have to take their share of the blame. surely the reason the 66 year old woman had triplets is implantation of multiple embryos, which is risky and is I think not allowed in many countries - i.e. risk was deliberately add to a very high risk pregnancy to boost the chance of pregnancy.

Wannabe not bnecessarily: the gap between village traditional faith and city porfessional Hinduism (or lack of it, Sikhism, Islam....) can be quite wide.

In fact somre scholars now insist on researching village traditional Hinduism and Brahmanic (ecuated, ancient) Hinduism as differnt subjects.

Was it Santosi MA? The fictional goddess depicted in a film in the 60's, who was adopted by village tradition and has gained huge following? Big gap between that and traditional, Brahmanic led fsith.

Sorry- wandering off topic

thank you sancti, that hadn't even crossed my mind.
in that case, it's incredibly sad

Crikey, I wonder if there is anyway of donating some money to the poor child she looks adorable.

i think it's its wrong, but i also think des o connor and rod stewart are wrong to have children so old too.

Tricky.

I don't really see how you can say it's not ok for a 66 year old woman to have a child, but it is ok for a 66 year old man, or a younger woman with a terminal illness, or people in the army or other life threatening jobs. All those people have a higher chance of dying before the baby is an adult.

Either you have to say that it is wrong for for anyone to have children unless they expect to be able to care for it until it's an adult (whether that's because of their health position, their job, their financial position, whatever).

Or you have to say that anyone who wants should be able to have a child.

Some people say, make nature the dividing line - i.e. if someone can't have children naturally then they shouldn't have them. But then all IVF would go out of the window. And I don't see people advocating that.

Just because we can do something does not mean we should.
This is why women have the menopause.
This is wrong on every level, those poor children deserve so much more then being some sort of trophy for selfish women.

I don't like putting arbitrary age limits on IVF, either. My friend is 36yo and dying of cancer; she has a 3yo son. If a genetic cause could be found for young mortal cancers like hers, should afflicted people be allowed to breed? It's all very subjective.

Too many people to blame in OP's link: the clinic who gave the woman what she wanted and enabled her to die feeling fulfilled, The woman who was incapable of understanding the risks, The culture which treated her like dogdirt for being married to an infertile man, Her husband who probably treated her like dirt, too.

And plain human nature... for being vulnerable to all those things.

"Doctor boasting about his successes" with these elderly primagravadas. Hmmm....

Anyone thought to question (either here or elsewhere) whether this is all a load of bumpf?

Okay fine obviously it's important to have a theoretical discussion about how far to push the boundaries of science and parenthood. Not irrelevant.

But this article did leave me wondering what was really going on here. Maybe it's just me...

As more and more older women ( ie 50s,60s and 70s) have babies by IVF there is bound to be some that are disabled.So far I haven`t seen any babies with severe disabilities born by surrogate or to IVF mums.What happens in these cases? I adore my severely disabled son but he needs an enormous amount of energy and good health because he is 24/7.Actually my health has been affected by him.I keep seeing triplet babies born very early to IVF mums who are much older and I wonder how they would feel if all three end up brain damaged.How would they cope? So far all these triplet babies are healthy.

What's interesting about this is they were very old, and very poor, and yet still they got themselves into debt to prove a point to their community. I'm sure they loves the baby very much, but this is all about overcoming stigma and saving face. The fault has to lie with the unforgiving/unrealistic cultural expectations.

What's interesting about this is they were very old, and very poor, and yet still they got themselves into debt to prove a point to their community. I'm sure they loves the baby very much, but this is all about overcoming stigma and saving face. The fault has to lie with the unforgiving/unrealistic cultural expectations.

someone on here said about parents dying before the child is grown, thats wrong to say that
i am 42 with 7 children and my youngest is 2 next month and i have cancer and my future is very uncertain
now i love my children so so much
im just saying this to say sometimes we dont have the choice to live or die but we still love our children, and all we can hope for is to live to see them grow up.

The way I see it if an old fart like Des o connor can get a women half his age up the duff and no one bats an eyelid why the hell shouldn't it be ok the other way round.

why is a 60+ women wrong to be a mother, but it's ok for an 80 year old male to be a father?.

It's the womens choice to take the risks of child birth and if she dies and someone else has to look after it so what, plenty of people under 50 die every year from illness and accidents leaving the kids for someone else to bring up.

66 is nothing anyway my grandma is 101.

I agree carriedababi Pavarotti, much as I loved his music, died when he was what, 70? and left a little girl about 4 behind. That child was from a second marriage I believe, he already had a daughter about 30 or so. How was that kind? I thought it was bad enough my father was just shy of his 51st birthday when I was born...

Sorry to hear that, disney, here's hoping your future is a LOT brighter than it might appear.

I'm with Ryoko, there's a massive double standard here. Not that it's OK to have babies when you are 66, that doc is clearly very dubious indeed. As long as he keeps raking the cash in he doesn't give a toss, does he?

really wishing you all the best disney.

the reality is the maternal mortality ratio in India is 30 times higher than it is here, and moreover lots of children grow up there with their extended family, for financial and other reasons. It makes much more sense in India than it would here.

I think by "oldest mother" you mean the oldest mother ever to give birth. A 119 year old with 90 year old children would be the world's oldest mother. The relevant point is: Will the children still need their mother or will they be well cared for if their mother dies or cannot look after them? This child will be well looked after by her enormous extended family I imagine.

I had a baby at 41. Now, whilst I ought reasonably be able to live to at least 90, in line with the rest of my family, I might fall ill and die next year or be run over by a bus this afternoon when I go to town. So, I could be around until my child is 50+, or I might die when she is still under 1. Where is the moral issue in that?

It is just a numbers game when all's said and done- what is the likelihood of my dying before my child reaches x age? This lady weighed up the consequences of having a child this late, and however poor and uneducated she may be, has made a judgment on who will look after her baby if she were unable to do so.

I think no-one has the right to judge at all in this issue.

duchesse I agree with you to some extent but the chances of you being dead in 20 years are hopefully small. The chances of a 66 year old being dead in 20 years are much higher. Also quality of life and the impact the labour has on the body - this woman is dying as a direct consequence of giving birth - the sort of birth that women in their 30s and 40s would bounce back from.

For me the point is that had she been able to naturally have a child, she was by now well past that point.

That's the crux of it. No-one would deny an infertile and childless couple the chance to have a child UP TO A POINT, but there comes a point when it is no longer a good idea to facilitate it.