Contraception aged 53?

[pandorawithtreaclecolouredhair]

Is there really any need to bother?
Surely a pregnancy at 53 would be Ten O'Clock News material?
Still having periods fairly regularly, just getting further apart for the last few months.
Just wondering what other mumsnetters do.

Regular periods means you are ovulating so you could easily get pregnant !

Regular periods mean it is still a possibility.

The rule of thumb is 2 years without periods if under 50, one year is over 50 (no idea how you count it if you straddle that landmark birthday!)

It's set like that because conception can still occur. Whether that leads to a baby born at term is a different matter, but if you do it want to be dealing with a pregnancy and possibly another child, stick with contraception.

I think the oldest recorded natural pregnancy (without IVF etc) is 56. You have been warned :)

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560739/UK-woman-59-worlds-oldest-natural-mother.html

59!

However, I think the biggest problem would be miscarriage and the complications that go with it.

Thanks everyone for your advice.
Telling me what I already know, I suppose, but you are all more sensible than me!

It is frustrating. One of the advantages of reaching menopause is supposed to be the freedom from pregnancy making your sex life better. LOL

Periods = pregnancy risk.

Peri menopause is shit.

Does anyone know what the actual risk of falling pregnant (leading to birth or otherwise) is after 50?

As far as I can see, the numbers are too low to be included in many statistics. Most of them stop at '35 and over'.

All you can go on is newspaper stories, which seem to make it about on par with winning the lottery. (......but someone does )

I got pregnant within two weeks of trying aged 41. in 50s now. Perimenopausal. Ain't taking chances .

Having periods still doesn't actually mean you are ovulating. I checked this out with my gynaecologist. At your age it is very very unlikely that you are ovulating. The chances of you conceiving naturally are virtually nil, in the event of conceiving the chances of you carrying a pregnancy to term are also virtually nil, but of course to be on the safe side you should continue with contraception until you have not had a period for a year.

I stopped using contraception at age 45 but didn't menopause until 51.

I charted my 'cycle' for 18 months. No sign of ovulation. Until the last month . I was 50 3/4 then (no relation to Adrian Mole )

The possibility of getting pregnant over 50 is unknown because it depends on so many factors such as the fertility of the man too. Conception is the sum of two parts! Often with infertile couples it's the man's sperm that is just not top notch and men's sperm declines in quality with age.

You were lucky carabos- many women get PG aged 45 and over! (Cherie Blair for one.)

I don't see it as that big a deal to carry on with BC for another few years when we've been doing it for 30-odd. I'd hate to have miscarried in my early 50s- too traumatic.

The best I can come up with is below 0.5% chance at 50 or over. From a random website. No idea if this includes women who are not having periods - it is probably close to a guess anyway.

I know a couple of people who had a baby at 46, but none later. One was trying and one had given up trying.

Actually polly very very few women become pregnant naturally after the age of 45. Cherie's ob/gyn consultant said hers was the only natural one she had seen in her whole career. I took an educated, minimal risk.

In 50s but my dh is in his early 40s. Don't want to be the exception to the rule. Especially as I got pregnant so quickly in my 40s.

I guess it depends on each woman's circs Carabos and how much they'd not want another pregnancy. DH had a former partner whose mum had her last child at 49. It's not as uncommon as you think.
I don't see how the stats are valid because the fact is most women above 45 are not wanting a baby. So the births that are recorded are only from women who were 'trying' in most cases. In the days when there was no birth control, having a baby up to the age of 50 was not unusual.
I didn't have any meno symptoms till I was 52 so no way at 45 would I have ditched BC.

My great grandmother had her 'last family'. At 48, 49, 51 & 52! It can happen. She had her first child at 18,

In 2012 there were only 154 babies born to women over 50 in the UK. 154. That's a very very small number.

Presumably because most women over 50 were using BC until a year post menopause though? Those births would be - we assume' accidents. rather than women wittingly trying to conceive.

My family is researching our family tree. I've got in in front of me.
Looking back 200 years, families with anywhere from 9-12 children were common; the mothers were all in their late 40s when they had their last child.

"In 2012 there were only 154 babies born to women over 50 in the UK. 154. That's a very very small number."

Yes, conception is less common, and the miscarriage and TFMR rates much higher.

The live birth rate doesn't reflect the conception rate. OP needs to think about what it would mean to her if she did conceive. Because if you are still menstruating you could still be ovulating (the more regular the cycle the more likely) and so conception cannot be ruled out.

It's the standard risk analysis of likelihood of the event occurring taken in the context of what it would mean if it did. So small likelihood but high impact can warrant greater countermeasures than relative common but manageable impact.

I have a mirena coil which will come out at 55, depending on whether I have any periods after that may decide whether I have another or stop. I had regular periods before the coil so no way would I chance it.

The comment from Cherie Blair's gynae is laughable really (not you posting it ) because it either shows her lack of experience as a gynae, or the fact (more likely) that the women she sees are not as negligent at CB who 'forgot her contraceptive device at Balmoral.' In that respect she was highly fertile to conceive as a one-off.

The other thing to understand is that women's FSH levels are often sky high in peri, showing that the ovaries go into overdrive as they have a 'last gasp' so ovulation and multiple follicles can and does occur even between anovular cycles.

Agree and well put scaevola BUT my point from my own experience was that I considered all those factors and came down on the side of conception being so unlikely that I accepted the risk. That is a decision for every individual but it doesn't change the facts. There is an awful lot bandied about on MN about late motherhood, the ease of conception etc that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The number of live births will be affected by ivf using donor eggs. This is becoming more commonplace and donor eggs are usually used over 46.

There were 29 abortions to women over 50 in 2015 and 24 to women aged 49. The number approximately halves each year from mid 40 s. I read somewhere that the abortion rate was appx 60% of conceptions in this age group but suspect that is an estimate.

Still, one person aged 59 and using hrt has had a child so it is possible. So should one continue to use condoms until 60 if one is using hrt and has no date of menopause?

Not sure what you are asking...
HRT doesn't affect fertility.
I think I read about the woman you mention- in Daily Mail? if it's the same feature, it was quite ambiguous/ incorrect as it implied that HRT promoted fertility which of course it doesn't.

If it did, women in their 80s on HRT would be fertile!

On the other hand, if that's not what you meant, HRT- if it's the bleed type- can make it hard to know when periods have stopped naturally. But the odds of having a live birth and a healthy child over 55 must be minute. Most women would miscarry at that age.