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

It's a hard one.

I do hate the way older mothers are slated and the reasons are often fairly spurious:

-not having the energy to play with their children (should people with limited mobility not have babies then?)

-not likely to see their children into adulthood (life expectancy is getting longer and should people with unhealthy lifestyles who may die or need care at a younger age not have children?)

-children might get teased (should people who don't fit the cultural "norm" in other ways not have children?

I'd like to see each case based on merit with possibly some sort of assessment of the potential child's welfare. Something like adoption I suppose (although these women wouldn't be allowed to adopt due to age presumably).

hm, am not sure

i think the cut off should be 50 - 55. most women would be menopausal by then, so that seems to be 'right'

yes, men can father children physically in their 60s & 70s, but again, just because you can ,does not mean you should// but nature clearly thinks otherwise!

also, if these women are are paying for their treatment and are not taking resources out of the NHS for IVF, is that better?

as a society, we have to be careful about saying who can and can't be a parent, so i am really torn, but i do think 66 is elderly to be having a baby. the physical toll it takes on your body is quite high

have a hormonal teenager when you are in your late 70s sounds horrific.

i don;t know, i don;t think there can be a definitive answer to this question as so many grey areas

I think a woman who has not got pregnant naturally by 35-40 should be encouraged to seek treatment. I don't understand why anyone needs to wait past about 42 to see if a pregnancy happens naturally tbh.

I haven't read the article but why has she not become pregnant before?

IMO the cut off for IVF, etc, should be 45. IE a natural age that chances of pregnancy become smaller.

Some women seem to want to have it all and then fit in an IVF baby before it really is too late. if you know you want children and haven't conceived by 35-40, then get help. Don't wait until you are 50 and older.

I'm uncomfortable with bringing a moral as opposed to medical judgement into who should and who shouldn't be allowed fertility treatment. Or at least, I think people should make their own moral judgements.

I think it is probably wrong to decide to have a child at that age, whether you are a man or a woman. I get the impression there is no father around for this child too, which makes things even more complicated. That is my moral judgement on it. Whether I should be able to impose that on someone else is another matter.

I don't think it's wrong for her to have a baby. My own father died at 41, so this ideal of parents and grandparents being a certain age, sort of went out the window for me.

And frankly, I don't think the debate about a specific woman is helpful. The time to have this debate is when fertility legislation/technology is finalized and public consultation is needed.

Further, how does this contribute to the 'pro choice' debate? So, it's OK for a woman to choose abortion, or not, but not to actively choose life? Isn't that what choice is about, as far as being able to make choices about one's fertility (albeit with help)

Making an example of this woman is not the point, but typically tabloid.

About 50 years old would be the cut-off point for me.

My parents were comparably old in the 1970s when they had my brother & I; my mother died when we were teenagers.

The chances of Elizabeth Adeney dying or becoming dependent while her child is still in their formative years is greatly increased by the sheer fact of her old age.

To lose a parent whilst young is a cruel blow. Her desire for a child is selfish.

After the menopause unless suffered from early menopause.

50 would be good as a blanket age for me.

For adoption I do think it should be later as there are so many children requiring fostering or adoption and any family would be better than none even only 10-12 years in a family.

I also think( sorry) that kids LIKE younger parents

cut off at 40????? 45???? I am really shocked that you would infringe on someone's civil liberties to the extent of banning them from getting pregnant at some arbitrary age. I can only assume that none of you who say these things are much over 25.

By that logic we should be banning women from getting pregnant who we believe are unfit mothers too. Who is going to police that?

I am 45 and would love another baby. My partner is 42. Anyone suggest he is too old to father a child?

So, who's going to line up and force me to get sterilised?

god, over reaction or wot!!

a friend of mine growing up had a father who was 60 when he was born.
His father died at 78, when we were 18. He always made it clear he thought his dad had made a foolish choice....

I've changed my mind after a 'test of liberalism' discussion with dh

she should be allowed as she paid for it herself. She should not be prevented in any way.

Obviously we still think she shouldn't because she has an increased chance of dying during the formative years.

Earlyadopter, you talking to me? Its not an overeaction, its a reasonable reaction to someone telling me I should not be allowed to conceive a child over the age of 40! Bloody cheek of it!

you can concieve it though cant you?

Nobody has said you should not be able to TTC. The debate is whether medical technology should help you beat nature indefinitley.

Indeed I can, so that's me off the hook is it? If I were me as I am in very other way, but needed IVF to conceive now, and i can afford it, that would somehow be wrong? How, morally? ethically? financially? No logic there.

Having children is a selfish act for every single last one of us. So there is no logic in berating these people for being selfish. They are doing what all of us with children have done.

alright dear

I would have the cut off point at 50 TBH.

When I left home my mum was 45, she was in the prime of her life. I left without a backward glance. The child in question will leave home when her mother is 84 - if she is lucky to live that long. There will be a massive amount of guilt involved in leaving your elderly mother.

I would say the same for older fathers.

Earlyadopter, Is that how you engage with an alternative viewpoint?

I am passionate about this. We live in a libertarian society, you need to think about the implications of interfering in peoples lives in such an arbitrary way.

Trying to put me down for caring about something deeply and trying to engage in this debate is pretty small minded.

but sit down! stop ranting!

I am not ranting. I have made reasonable points which you have ignored.

There is a massive difference between a 45 year old, or a 50 year old, and a 66 year old woman. In stark terms of normal life expectancy.

I don't agree that having children is a selfish act. However, using that argument I personally feel that it is infinitely more selfish to have a baby when you are about 16 years older than average menopausal age, with the prospect that just as your child is about to become an adult, free in the world, at 18, you will be 84 (if you are very lucky, given the average age of mortality today). My grandmother is 93. I have seen the stress that her dementia and general incapacity as a result of her exceptional age have had on my mother who is, incidentally, 66.

I think it is selfish-at that age you should accept that it is not to be and the needs of the DC should come first.
Of course she can cope at the moment-lots of grandparents can cope with a baby-it is 10 or 12 years time that is the problem.
I would have under 50yrs, preferably by 47yrs.