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

Fertility is a bizarre thing. My great grandmother had four babies like this:

#1 at 19
#2 at 31
#3 at 38
#4 at 48

No pill, condoms, IVF or safe terminations back then - you got what you were given whether you wanted it or not, and that's what she got!

Personally, I'd have been a tad pissed off at the last one.

There are parts of india and africa where the family takes on the responsibility of raising the child. The child works as domestic from the age of 6 in exchange for food and board. That's usually the deal. It's not the happy foster care environment you would imagine in most cases. I don't know many who didn't grow up that way. Very few ever even get primary education.

I heard a fertility doctor say on the radio that all women over the age of 60 have died or are dying from the natural effects of pregnancy. So I would say that it's not advisable to have a child that you are guaranteed not to be here look after or nurture unless you've got the trust fund and the executor in place. However, the stigma of barrenness is so great that very few think about that.

What's all this about Science being wrong? IVF has given many childless couples the chance of being parents. I don't think it's valid to slate Science.

Surely SHE made the decision to go ahead and have 'her' baby.
She wasn't forced by The Scientists

She took out a loan and had the procedure, and had a happy outcome.

Fellatio, if you're saying that the cut off is when 'a normal fertile woman would ordinarily not be able to conceive naturally', does that mean 45 (when statistically fertility declines rapidly) or 48 like your grandmother or 55 when women are often perimenopausal?

I agree with minipie. Either you offer fertility assistance or you don't. I think there's a valid argument to be had about where the cut-off should lie for government assistance with fertility treatment on the grounds of efficacy alone, but as a private service it shouldn't be banned.

But everyone getting the treatment needs a full understanding of the consequences, absolutely. The doctor here does come across as unethical; but if this woman understood and went ahead anyway, well, that's her body and her choice.

Bu my GGM was a rare exception to conceive at that age, and even rarer that the baby was born healthy with no chromosomal defects and that she didn't suffer as a result of such a late pregnancy. To be ethical I think we have to arrive at an agreed generous average that gives people a good chance.