Is pregnancy over 40 less dangerous than pregnancy under 15/10-14

[DanDandadada]

I read this comment here:
The risk of maternal mortality is greatest with 40+ age range. But adolescent pregnancy has the greatest risk for long-term health complications for both mother and child. The rates of preeclampsia are high and the risk of developing full blown eclampsia is five times greater in this age range. They are also more likely to deliver before 37 weeks, more likely to have low birthweight , more likely to require a c-section delivery, more likely to have their babies admitted into neonatal intensive care. They also have greater risk of post partum depression and more likely to be unable to nurse.

and further read in the U.S the rate of maternal mortality for women over 40 is 6.8 times more than women aged 20-24

globally read girls under 15 are 5x more likely to die

So is maternal mortality risk really greatest in 40+ and do these stats mean under 15 is less dangerous than over 40?

Not necessarily. It's more complicated than the stats indicate i think.

The driving forces behind the figures will differ. For young teens for example, beyond the fact they have immature bodies, they're also less likely to engage with antenatal services and get comprehensive care that will detect early risks.

i mean biologically/physically is under 15 safer than over 40?

I would think under 15 is worse in every way than over 40

No stats to support this, just instinct and commom sense

I say this as someone who was pregnant at 15 and 39

Early childbearing and teenage pregnancy rates by country - UNICEF DATA
most countries with young adolescents giving birth are doing so with limited medical access. Interesting that tuberculosis is still a more serious health issue.
the optimal age is 20-24.
you would need to look at the statistics strictly with modern medical care and exclude births outside of medical facilities.

You're also going to hit societal issue. Young mothers are likely to be from lower socio-economic groups, and possibly less likely to be white which raises there risk factor for pre-eclampsia. They may have poorer health anyway, and are less likely to be literate enough to make good choices. Over 40s are more likely to well educated, fed etc and have probably been a much larger group in rich countries for a long time. I therefore don't think it's going to be possible to answer your wisdom in a statistically robust way.

but under 15 is more dangerous yes

delivery under 15 are statistically very few, 48 in all of Canada in 2023. Doubt any mothers died,
There was an 8.6% mortality rate for mothers 40+.

Good gracious! No one should be discussing anything that might suggest that pregnancy under 15 is ever a good idea!!!! What a comparison to make!

I would have thought in the developed world there are far more women having babies aged over 40 than under 15.

What point are you trying to make here?

that's its more harmful and dangerous ofc

Why do you doubt? its very harmful and dangerous no?

Teenagers under medical care would fare better physically than 40+ BUT sadly their infants do not.

Have I read this right, 8.6% of pregnancies in 40+ year-olds end in the death of the mother?! So in a group of 12 pregnant 40 year olds, one can reasonably expect to die during pregnancy? This has to be wrong, unless I’ve completely misunderstood.

Do you have a particular reason for asking this @DanDandadada?

But why? Neither is ideal.

@Fletchasketch i got that from the stats Canada website itself and it did specify mortality vs morbidity.
Infant mortality is also higher although infant mortality in teens very high. Teens due to low birth weight premature delivery and 40+ due mainly to genetic factors. A delivery including via abortion/miscarriage after 26 weeks would be included in those numbers.

Okay, so mortality of the baby rather than the mother? That makes a bit more sense.

i mean 40 is fine they are an adult
but under 15 should be more dangerous/harmful

infant mortality is higher than what? can you elaborate

www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk/data-brief/maternal-mortality-2021-2023

what do you mean by teens? 15-19 or under 15?
Under 15 with medical care do not fare physically than 40+ never read that or seen that

Statistically both are more risky. Obviously no child should be giving birth though.

In the op you “this age group”- it isn’t clear which age group

under 15 is more dangerous/risky than over 40 yes?

tons of statistics on infant and maternal mortality and morbidity.

teenagers bodies can withstand more trauma than a 40 year old (and statistically they specify the highest mortality is in mothers 45+).
look at teens at the olympics ski jumping and all sorts, you don't see any 40 yr olds doing this stuff? or downhill biking, looking at the jumps alone would give me a heart attack.
40 year old's bodies are in their decline not increasing towards their peak.

sadly though most young teens delivering babies are in Sub Saharan Africa, I doubt medical care there is equal to western countries.

I am however lost as to what you're getting at in this discussion?