Why is everything you read about being pregnant at 40 negative

[stantonjulie]

Im 40, nearly 1/2 way through an ivf icsi pregnancy and am fed up with feeling anxious every day. My 1st pregnancy was so easy, then I had an ectopic, was diagnosed with low fertility, then I had a miscarriage, 2 failed ivf cycles and then 3rd time lucky I'm nearly 20 weeks. I finally told my employer last week but have sworn them to secrecy and asked not to find a successor until my 20 week scan is done. Nobody else knows I'm pregnant - not my family or my friends nor our 5 year old daughter - I'm paranoid something will go wrong and just can't bear the awkwardness that comes with bad news so figured easier no one knows.

But my point is - why am I feeling like this given the 5 scans I've already had (yes 5 - 3 scheduled 2 extra) and the harmony test have all been good. In fact nuchal scan result better than for my daughter! Because EVERYTHING you read about being pregnant at 40, especially via IVF is negative. Every day the newspaper reports on how women shd have children younger, the stats are stacked against me on abnormalities due to my age, even the hospital have put me down as a geriatric mother. I want to be happy but just don't know how to break out of this cycle of negativity. Can anyone share their experience?

I had my last baby at 40, born 4weeks after my 41st bday, I found it terribly stigmatising bit looking back it was my outlook at the time. I am now pregnant again at 45 and currently 17 +4 altogether a different experience this time round, I have not met negativity from hospital team and have been much kinder to myself, I've still struggled a little with telling people but that's because I'm afraid of judgement and I'm happy to share with close people whom I know will be happy, really I know it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. I've not particularly come across anything that's really upset me media or information wise, but I am actually objective on that front as I believe I'm fit and well and young enough to conceive and carry my baby and I'm sure everything will be ok
Congratulations on your pregnancy I hope everything goes well for you and at your age there's no reason why it shouldn't, older mums are on the increase and having done both I know it's better 2nd time round

Thx for your post - has definitely cheered me up. I'm fitter and healthier than I've ever been so I really should let be what will be. My boss had her 2nd late and she has told me that I shouldn't worry given I've got this far but she's also respectful of my wishes to keep quiet for now. I shouldn't care what other people think but easier said than done.

Good luck with your pregnancy.

I know lots of people who had a baby at 40 or above and had no complications at all, so while there may be higher risks I have many positive personal stories to add to some of the negativity. In fact most people I know who have had difficulties have had difficulties for reasons other than age, while others have been lucky despite being older. One of them was 41 and when she told the midwife she felt old the reaction was surprise and that there were many older. Historically, lack of birth control options meant that women often went on having children at 40 and beyond. It is natural and normal, even if less likely than getting pregnant at a younger age.

I also know of several cases where the last pregnancy/birth has been the most straightforward compared to the earlier ones. There are so many things contributing to each individual pregnancy other than age.

I'm 40 and 29 weeks with my first. I haven't experienced any negativity really, in fact my mw is at pains to tell me that 40 isn't particularly old by today's standards. My mum had me at 39 and my sil had my nephew at 42, so I've got some examples!

Pregnancy has been straightforward so far, and pre-pregnancy I was far fitter than I was in my twenties - exercised a lot more, drank less etc.

Just enjoy it, age really is just a number!

I had dc3 11 months ago and I'm 43, I had to have consultant care and extra tests etc because of my age when he was by far the easiest pregnancy, go figure?

I'm pregnant at 40, and as TinyMonkey says, I've mostly been told a lot that I'm NOT that old. At my NCT class everyone was 35+.

My sister is expecting any day now. She's 45, and has had 3 children since she hit 40. All healthy normal pregnancies, natural labours, no extra fuss by hcps etc. Theres many a 40 or 45 year old, or older, who is healthier and better set for pregnancy than some in their 20s and 30s. As a pp said, its pretty much just a number. Lifestyle is waaay more important imho.

Enjoy the pregnancy, try tune out the negativity, and congratulations :-)

The problem with the media is it focusses on statistics, and statistically pregnancy in older women is more risky. What is completely ignored is that every woman is an individual, not a statistic, and hidden within the data are risks due to life style, such as weight, diet, exercise (or lack of), smoking, drinking. If you are older, but active, and healthy your chances of having a healthy pregnancy are good.

I had dd at 40, and am due dc2 when 42. My experience of pregnancy and birth has been positive, and I haven't been treated any differently by medical professionals.

Yes fertility can drop off into your 40s, yes people can be slower, tireder, fatter etc. But equally if your fertility doesn't drop off, you can be just as fertile as a 16yo. (Take me for example... 28w and 41yo, got pregnant first month of trying). And although I feel a bit ramshackle (aches and pains) and I'm under the consultant care because of my age, the baby is spot on with all measurements, my bloods etc. are so far (touch wood) perfect and the MW keeps reassuring me that all the symptoms I'm grumbling about (heartburn, sore hips, sleepless nights) are all entirely normal. And at my consultant appt yesterday (1st one) he said as he welcomed me in "I'm not quite sure why you're here...". Rock on, 40something mums.

My mother had her last two children in her 40s (40 and then 43). I'm one of 6 and I would say that by far my youngest sister and brother are by far the most developed and brightest out of all of us. try to ignore the negative stories.

You know, SJ, I can't help thinking there's some sort of strange agenda behind the constant fear, panic and negativity thrown out at women about pregnancy and motherhood after 35.

I have half a suspicion that a certain newspaper has an unspoken editorial policy about the matter due to the editor's political prejudices, and I do wonder whether there is something a little similar when it comes to male consultants and fertility specialists.

The thing that really brings home how odd this "terror" about older women and pregnancy actually is is when you look back in your own family history and realise just how many women had children well into their 40s.

My grandmother had my aunt at 42 in 1960; my DH's grandmother had my FIL in her 40s in 1951; one great-great-grandmother had her last child at 40 in 1901; another great-great-grandmother had her last child in her mid-40s in 1896.

These women were working class, living in 19th century urban "slum" conditions, pre-ante-natal care, not particularly good diets, possibly quite regular opium takers, and they had their children at home. Incidentally, these women were from very different parts of the world as well, so it is not a Western phenomenon.

When you think about it, it makes total sense. When it was common for women to have a lot of children around ten or so by default, particularly if they were working class women whom, as a rule, didn't get married until they were in their mid-20s (as husbands needed to save in order to afford a home etc), they were still having children into their 40s.

You get married at 25, say; you have a child every two/three/four years, you are going to be having your last few children in your late 30s, early 40s.

In my view, it's totally normal to have children in your 40s. It is normal now and it was normal 100 to 200 years ago as well.

Good point worksallhours. In my direct maternal line we have to go back to 19th century to find someone who had kids before 30! Bunch of late starters, us...

Yes, looking at my family tree women had children a year or so apart in their twenties, and then just went on having them at regular intervals, just slightly wider intervals into the mid forties (or even beyond in the odd case). They probably did have higher risk of complications, but as you say Works the complications were so multitudinous anyway I'm not sure how much difference it would have made! Some of my ancestors had 11 kids, or in the case of the largest family 17, I don't know how they did it. They probably weren't stressing about ballet classes, sleepovers or extra curricular Mandarin. What an incredible luxury much of modern western parenting ambition is.

I think it is right that women are informed about declining fertility and higher risks of complications, it would be even worse to cover up the facts. Most women do know all this though, they are very aware of it and don't need scaremongering to frighten them, and it can get out of control. It needs to be balanced with the good stories, of which there are many.

Another thing I noticed is that those who had no children often married young, so age was presumably not the issue. Sadly back then no investigations or help would have been available, nowadays they may have found a solution.

An interesting fact - the senior GP at the surgery I attend told me the majority of terminations she deals with are women in their 40s, usually married, who have been careless with contraception because the media has led them to believe their chances of falling pregnant are as good as zero. That was surprising and slightly shocking.