Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives1 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
The argument that women over 35 should no longer be conceiving has been longstanding and for good reason. After the age of 35 the risks of developing certain medical conditions such as preeclampsia, diabetes, and placenta previa increase, although not much higher than they were when you were 34.
It is after the age of 40 that risks to the mother AND baby significantly increase. Not only is it harder to get pregnant at that age, but the risk of miscarriage, stillbirths, and chromosomal abnormalities also increase.
So, with all of this information available, why would a 66-year-old woman from Spain decide to lie about her age to undergo In-Vitro Fertilization? Was she being selfish or did she have just as much right as say--a 30 year old woman wanting to undergo this procedure?
About a week ago Maria del Carmen Bousada passed away at the age of 69, leaving behind two boys who had yet to turn 3. Shortly after giving birth to twins, she was diagnosed with a tumor but the cause of her death has been undisclosed.
Maria Bousada sold her home, underwent hormone therapy to reverse 20 years of menopause, and deceived doctors telling them she was 55, the maximum age limit for IVF--all for the chance of being a mother. A dream that was extremely short-lived.
Many people say she was being purely selfish, others say that any 30 year old woman can die tomorrow of either natural causes or by accident--leaving young children behind as well. But when you know that you are of advanced maternal age and that your chances of passing away are much, much higher than those of a younger mother, is fair to compare the two?
Was it selfish of her to sell her home if she had no way of providing for her children? What is the maximum age that women should be allowed to bear children through these procedures? Should doctors start asking for birth certificates if their patients look over the age of 40? What kind of future do her children face now that their mother has passed away?
What are your thoughts on the world's oldest mother, now dead?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31921390/ns/health-womens_health/?GT1=43001
http://www.parenting.com/article/Fertility/Planning/Pregnancy-Over-35
Add a Comment62 Comments
What I miss in this discussion is how we feel about older fathers. There are many, many more fathers in their fifties or sixties with young children. Their 'second nest', so to speak, for example. Children need parents, and parents need to think of a backup just in case. My husband and I are 38 and expecting our second child. We've been together for 18 years, so could have started sooner. But there were reasons... there always are.
August 19, 2009 - 1:36amThis Comment
Women tend to be younger than their mates (NOT always, but even by a few months counts!), and women tend to be the caregivers of children, traditionally.
November 29, 2009 - 7:27pmNow, if I seen a 70 year old couple walking down the street, with a child, I would assume that they were the grandparents. However, if I knew that they were the parents, I don't think it is right, just because of the nature of it, they should have hit their fertile peak a long while ago. The whole reason we were designed to go through menopause is because our bodies are wearing out by that time, our genetic material has been bombarded by years of environmental and physical damage, and has mutated a little. Now, I have nothing against having a baby slightly after that(like 5 years), don't get me wrong, but 10-20 years after?
To me it is like this... If I was going to go buy a fruit tree to plant in my yard, I would not choose the oldest one they had, I would choose a well established one, but one that had many fruit bearing years ahead, even if the older one had slightly better fruit, just because I wouldn't be able to enjoy it for as long.
ALSO, men's "genetic contribution" is made daily, so less of the genetic mutations have taken place there, even if the man has been effected by those so called mutations, their "material" hasn't been exposed to years of wear and tear and abuse. But I think after a certain point that men shouldn't have children either.
After a certain age, I don't think it is responsible, even if there are financial means.
This Comment
Not to mention... it is equally selfish for a 21 year old with no resources and lacking in maturity to have a child even if she is in peak condition. This is where I came from- unplanned, my parents unmarried children themselves who could barely hold down a job. Is that really a better situation than a mature, established woman (sure she sold her house, but she had been, in her lifetime, able to BUY a house) choosing to have one?
August 18, 2009 - 8:08amThis Comment
I think 55 is ridicululously old anyway to be able to get intro. At 65 my mom is grandmother to a 19 yo, 16, 11,and 7 yo. I think it is definitely selfish for a woman to have children at that age. In fact if you waited until your 40s,unless it's natural wo drugs, I think you should deal with the fact that your prime fertility are in your 20's. It's nature.
August 18, 2009 - 5:10amThis Comment
I think its funny these days girls are falling pregnant at 16 OR they are getting IVF after 40, there is no middle (responcible) ground, because the girls that want babies want them yesterday and the ones that are undecided realise they are going to die alone when their mid life crisis comes around so they (generally) have the money to go into IVF and have a baby... I think its horrid that society is pushing women (and some times girls) like this! I've had 3 good friends fall pregnant in their teens and all bar 1 are single mums (the only one who isn't married my brother). I myself am 21 and have decided that if I have not settled down by 24 to have children then I'm not going to have them, so yeah I have 3 years to fin a man and decide to have his children or not at all.. No pressure ay? XD
August 17, 2009 - 3:54amThis Comment
It is spelt "responsible". Perhaps we should educate ourselves before we breed. Ay.
September 2, 2009 - 1:04pmThis Comment
It's spelt 'eh'. :P
September 21, 2009 - 3:56amThis Comment
Isn't it "spelled"?
September 24, 2009 - 12:01pmThis Comment
I think having a child after the age of 45 is selfish. JMO. I don't consider 45-60 even technically that old, just too old for keeping up with newborns and toddlers. Then, of course, there's the whole life expectancy thing.
August 16, 2009 - 12:11pmThis Comment
It was inexcusable. It was pretty much guaranteed she would be dead within 15 years. How could she bring children into the world knowing she leave them with a crippling loss before they even finished high school?
Whether you think it was right or wrong, in the end those boys will grow up without their mother... and suffer for it.
August 16, 2009 - 12:57amThis Comment