Elizabeth Adeney the 66yr old having a baby. The Sun Telegraph want to know what Mumsnetters think

[carriemumsnet]

Hi all

The Sun Tel are doing an article on older mothers based on this story

They're interested to know what folks think the 'cut off' should be in terms of age, or whether there should be no cut off, if you can fund the treatment yourself. And what about men - there's no cut off for them, so should women have the same rights?

They're keen to have feedback in the next hour or so, so let us know what you think

Thanks

MNHQ

I think the cut off age should be 45, maybe 50 at the most.
I have to say the woman in the aarticle looks much younger than 66.

certainly under 50.
what is the average age of menoopause.
I think for a loto of these woment they simply cannot accept the ( undertsnadbly heartbreaking) concept that they cannot have it all.

ridiculous.

hehe she wont in a few months
wonder how many staff will do the unpleasant bits?

While I do think it's very tragic if a woman can't have the children she craves, I do think having IVF at 66 is too old, they should just go with the very latest age you could possibly start the menopause.

At the end of the day when her baby is a teenager she'll be 80 - it won't be easy for either of them. Pretty selfish imho, but I hope both her and her baby are healthy and happy together for as long as possible.

oh acc to google the av age is 52

I think this is a difficult situation to call on. The child will realistically have a limited time with it's mother but from the article it looks like she will be able to provide for it, take care of it and it will be well loved.

A teenage mum will probably be around for their child for longer, but may not be able to provide as much financially and so on.

I suppose it's a question of quality over quantity, if this woman can offer a few (or maybe a lot more, who knows) years of fantastic care and support to a child they've have longed for should she really be turned away.

I think I'm still on the fence.

But what about men -how do you feel when some famous chap in his 60's or 70's is in hello with his pics of new baby and new young new wife?

honestly? I think 40 should be the cutoff. Lady in this story is breathtakingly selfish but now the damage is done I wish her well and do hope she palns to retire from her business so she can care for the little one.

I think IVF at 66 is too old, teh cut off should be about 45. I'm sorry but I'm thinking of the child facing the real possibility of going through her teenage years without a mother because she died of old age. Really selfish.

men? I don't think there should be an age cutoff for anyone who can concieve naturally. I said 40 cutoff for fertility treatment - if a woman can concieve naturally after that age then so be it.....ditto for a man.

I read it and thought Dear God, poor baby, won't have his mum around for very long unless he's very lucky.

I felt guilty enough being 40 when DS was born, especially as I'd just lost my own mum (aged 63) and didn't feel remotely ready for that eventuality (my parents were both in their 50s/60s when they lost their parents) - I mean, I've got to make it to 80 so that DS will be at least as old as I was when I became Mum-less.

So I think it is pretty selfish of her. And no doubt will get flamed for that.

She looks good for 66.

I think this is just wrong! I have an 18 year old whose Grandmother is younger than that.

The child will not the usual extended family relationships with grandparents,cousins etc.

HOW embarrasing for a child when you bring your mates home from school/college and they see how old your mum is? Although, maybe she won't be a Mum waiting in the playground - will send the Nanny!

How obliged will the child be to an ageing elderly parent at far too young an age? When they should be enjoying Uni life or their first job.

I totally agree with the "a child is a gift not a right" comment, and in the light of the recent TV series on "forgotten children", why not adopt??

I think the whole issue is different for men, they are able to go on producing a lot longer without the need for intervention.

But I think the same things apply that even though they may be ok for a few years, by the time the child is a teenager they will be elderly and less able to be involved in their lives

I agree with Thumbwitch, I think it is selfish.

I think she's just too old but I would say the same about a man becoming a father at that age.

I think the cutoff age should be the menopause, whenever that happens.

Does she have a partner?
I don't think you can necessarily compare this with older men who have babies with younger women unless she has a younger partner who is likely to stick around.

Hmm, I think the cut off should probably be as nature intended. So, mid 40s'. For both men and women really. Gives you enough time, usually, to raise them to adulthood.

My mum had be in her forties at a time when that was very rare. As a child I was very aware that my parents were older even though they weee veey youthful ans acrive. Just theie ages on papee was enough to make me really aware i was more likely to lose them. Other kids went to their grandparents 50th, i went to my mum's and thought to myself that like a granny she might die before i grew up. It became quite an obsession.

By the timw i was 25 i had lost both my parents and all mt grandparents. This was partly bad luck but also a consequence of the advanced age at which my parenrs choae to have me. Like many children of older parents,& ceetainly those receiving fertility treatment, i am an only child. As a result i now have no living family other than my husband and kids.

Obviously I do not regret my parents' decision to have me but had they been even older I would have worried more, stood put more and been left all alone at an even younger age. Therefore I do think having a parent in your 60s is selfish. Your are having a child in the knowledge thfy are very likely to suffer the worst loss at a formative age. If it happens my accident that is one thing but the medical profession should not encourage it after approx 50 years of age.

Sorry, to add the rest of the info asked for:
I think the cutoff for IVF should be pre-menopause if it's normal menopause (i.e. not the really early ones that some poor girls/women have) - but having said that my mum didn't go through menopause until she was 56 and that would have been too late. My point being that if your body has told you there is no hope of a baby now, then you shouldn't artificially create a situation whereby you can have one.

So - I would put a cutoff between 45 and 50.

Men - well, if they can do it naturally why not - but it's still hard on the poor DC to lose either parent when they're still young.

I get the feeling I'm not being totally rational about this but I was cross about the 66 year old.

I think 45 should be the cut off. She is 10 years younger than my Grandmother who I can't imagine would be in any fit state to look after a child full time despite her being in both good physical and mental health.

thumbwitch - ditto. Almost identical circumstances to me.

I think there are far more persuasive arguments than age, for not having children.

Opps. Very much doubt that the Telegraph will be able to read a word of that. Sorry!