63 year old woman 7 months pregnant

Source.

Originally Posted by The BBC

Child psychiatrist Patricia Rashbrook, of East Sussex, flew to Rome last October for IVF by Severino Antinori, according to the Sun newspaper.

She is now reported to be seven months' pregnant with her third child.

In a joint statement with her husband, John Farrant, she said the decision had not been taken lightly.

This woman is set to become Britain's oldest mother in a couple of months. She comes from Lewes, the town I live in and my mum taught her other kids, aged 23 and 26 now.

She says the decision was not taken lightly but I personally think having a baby that old is pretty cruel to the kid. She'll be 81 on his 18th birthday (Assuming she lives that long).

At present there is no law (In Britain at any rate) governing a maximum age for receiving IVF treatment. Do you think that having kids this old is wrong and do you think there should be an age cap on receiving fertilty treatment?

o.O' Uh... nature via unnatural. Gee some people still cease to astonish me. On one hand, I am all for birth control, but this is ridiclious (ever seen that damn show where one woman is having like her 16th kid or something?) and allowing women to still have a child after a supposed menopausal age is just wrong as well. :\

But then again... even without IVF treatment, miracles somehow do happen.

I do think there is are serious ethical questions to consider here. Firstly, what's the science on having children post-menopause? Could there be a higher risk for sertain disorders? Secondly, there's the simplequestion ofr whether the mother is abl;e to keep up with the times and keep up with her kid.

It takes so much energy to be a good parent. I can't imagine someone that age having enough stamina to be able to physically keep up with a child. I don't know...maybe she's in really good shape for her age, but still.

Also, how well would a person that much older than their kid be able to relate to him or her? I know that grandparents raise children all the time, but I've always thought that kind of situation isn't ideal.

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

It takes so much energy to be a good parent. I can't imagine someone that age having enough stamina to be able to physically keep up with a child. I don't know...maybe she's in really good shape for her age, but still.

Also, how well would a person that much older than their kid be able to relate to him or her? I know that grandparents raise children all the time, but I've always thought that kind of situation isn't ideal.

I have a friend whose parents abandoned him when he was born, so his great-grandparents started taking care of him. I think they are in their 80's or 90's now and he's about 20, so it is possible to raise a kid and have it be semi-normal, but there is a definite age barrier and he once lost his job and his car priviledges for 5 months because he wouldn't cut his hair.

If this is going to be their first child, then I can see why they would want to do it (in order to pass along the blood line, feel ready to become parents, etc.), but I agree with you that it isn't ideal. There's so many things to consider such as birth defects, what would happen to the kid if both parents died, how detrimental is a hyper-active toddler going to be to their health, and other factors about how the child would relate socially with the other kids.

If she can handle it then congratulations, but it just seems very risky and there are kids around the world they could have adopted (to avoid the health risks), unless Italy has some strange adoption laws.

It is interesting to note that this is a child psychologist as well. Maybe part of the reason was to observe the very fact of this sort of situation, although I somewhat doubt that was high on her priority list of considerations.
Additionally, I think because of her profession, she is more unique than just any old hag who attempts to get a kid.

What is surprising is that she is able to carry a child at all. I figured at that age certain hormonal issues would discourage childbearing.

I'm of the opinion that as long as there is no known health risk to the child, then it should be perfectly legal.

However, thats entirely different from whether I agree with it from an ethical standpoint. In this case, I do not. She is simply too old and won't be able to do what many younger parents do. It's just not the greatest thing in the world, and they should instead be waiting for grandchildren from their other kids.

I don't think there should be any change to whatever age cap may already exist for IVF, if one does exist. How many people her age want something like that done, anyway? Granted, I do think women at that age have some possible risks associated with pregnancy and all that entails, and that anyone in this age group wanting to do this should strongly consider these factors, but it sounds to me like she (as well as the doctor who did the procedure) has taken all that into account, and is still deemed able for such a task. So why not?

Of what pictures or video I saw, she looks pretty healthy for 63. Possibly more healthy than people several years younger than her.

Originally Posted by loyalist

Firstly, what's the science on having children post-menopause?

I was under the impression that post-menopause, you don't have the ability to even GET pregnant anymore. Thus the whole "biological clock."

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com: MENOPAUSE

The period marked by the natural and permanent cessation of menstruation, occurring usually between the ages of 45 and 55.

Age 63 and she still hasn't hit menopause?

Maybe someone could explain the biology to me here. Am I missing something??

She had hit menopause. With massive amounts of hormone therapy you can kickstart/fool a post menopausal woman's body into getting pregnant. This is what happened.

I haven't heard of any natural occurances of post menopausal women getting pregnant.

Having seen a few more news stories about this, it seems we do have an age cap for IVF treatment in England of 50. The woman went to an Italian scientist for the treatment and was treated in an "unnamed former soviet state".

Originally Posted by Shin

...an "unnamed former soviet state".

ROFL.

There seem to be serious ethical issues with most procedures you need to leave the US or England to have done. It's not anyone's jurisdiction at that point, however, making the whole discussion sorta pointless.

It is disgusting, though.

It is posable to have kids after the suposed years that a woman is suposed to have menopause. For example my grandma didn't start going though it until she got sick which was in her mid to late 60s. It's posable because of an high hormone level. If a woman has alot of estregine (sp?) she won't hit menopause for a while. But the high hormone levels do not come without their problems like diffrent types of cancer and other medical problems.

Personaly I don't see what's so wrong about this...it was her choice to have a child at her age...and it should be just that, her choice. If she can think that she can rase a kid well into her 80s then more power to her. Not to mention that she's a child psycologist so she should know how to take care of the kid....

It absolutely should be her choice. Problem is, she probably made a poor choice with that freedom. She can *think* that she'll be just as capable a mother as a 30 year old all she wants, doesn't make it true though. A lot of people have kids for selfish reasons, they just want one, regardless of how poorly they'll be able to see to it's needs. Sure they have that option, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't at least shake their heads about such a poor decision. Having freedom to make a choice doesn't mean that the choice is 'right' just because you felt like doing a thing.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

It absolutely should be her choice. Problem is, she probably made a poor choice with that freedom. She can *think* that she'll be just as capable a mother as a 30 year old all she wants, doesn't make it true though. A lot of people have kids for selfish reasons, they just want one, regardless of how poorly they'll be able to see to it's needs. Sure they have that option, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't at least shake their heads about such a poor decision. Having freedom to make a choice doesn't mean that the choice is 'right' just because you felt like doing a thing.

I have a friend who wanted to have a baby when she was 15 or 16 so she could marry the father and be with him for the rest of her life. Luckily, he was hundreds of miles away so she couldn't reach him. Now, she's almost 20 and last month became a mother. I do agree about some choices being unwise, but the child psychology thing does come into play. However, how does it work when it becomes a teen and she's in her 70's?

I am cheering her on, but this could get either very ugly or very interesting. Maybe both.

All I want to know is how this woman's 63-year-old body is going to stand up to the actual birthing process. Unless they just cut her open and do a c-section, actually . . .

But man. One has to wonder why she even wanted another child at this age in the first place -- she already has two! And what if she dies in her seventies or eighties? Can you imagine losing your mother -- of natural causes -- at such a young age?

What worries me most is the health conditions of the newborn. It seems a little cruel to take that much of a risk. If she wanted another child, why didn't she just adopt and give some poor orphan a good home? It just boggles my mind.

Her breast milk is so expired.

Originally Posted by Luminaire

If she wanted another child, why didn't she just adopt and give some poor orphan a good home? It just boggles my mind.

Adoption agencies/laws may prevent her from adopting due to her advanced age due. Just guessing though.

I think the (existing) age cap of 50 is reasonable. It sounds like this issue has already been discussed an resolved in reasonable countries.