British Woman 63 pregnant


Kreskin
#1
Quote:

A 63-year-old British woman is seven months pregnant after undergoing fertility treatments abroad.


Patricia Rashbrook, a child psychiatrist who will become one of Britain's oldest mothers when she gives birth at 63, and her husband John Farrant leave their home in Lewes, southern England, on Thursday. (Gareth Fuller/AP) Associated Press
Patricia Rashbrook, a child psychiatrist, posed for reporters Thursday outside her home in East Sussex in southeast England, with her 61-year-old husband, John Farrant.

Full article - http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...ant060504.html

Any thoughts on this?
 
I think not
#2
 
missile
#3
A comment? Sure Wondering if she'll ever try to get her parents to babysit?
 
Daz_Hockey
#4
slefish, just bloody selfish if you ask me, are they gonna be able to play football or sports with their kids when their older, are they heck as like, will they probably die when their in their 20's sure, lovely people, just lovely
 
tracy
#5
I find it odd and I personally don't think it's a great idea. In my experience a lot of those kids are born with problems.
 
Kreskin
#6
She would have used donor eggs.
 
tracy
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

She would have used donor eggs.

I'm aware of that. Unfortunately a lot of those babies are born with problems. You would be surprised at how many patients with fertility treatment wind up with their babies in our unit.
 
Kreskin
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

She would have used donor eggs.

I'm aware of that. Unfortunately a lot of those babies are born with problems. You would be surprised at how many patients with fertility treatment wind up with their babies in our unit.

Hmm, I would be surprised. With what problems?
 
glossprincess
#9
I'm with Daz on this one. Although many older people have more energy than even I do at age 19! It depends on the individual situation. But on the whole, I think having a child so late in your life is selfish, as you might be able to handle the first few years, but parenting is a lifelong job. It only ends when either the parent or the child dies. Dont want to offend anybody, but when you get to about 65/70, the parenting relationship tends to shift and the child begins to look after the parent in a sense. How can that happen when this child wont even be 10 by then?!
 
Kreskin
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by glossprincess

I'm with Daz on this one. Although many older people have more energy than even I do at age 19! It depends on the individual situation. But on the whole, I think having a child so late in your life is selfish, as you might be able to handle the first few years, but parenting is a lifelong job. It only ends when either the parent or the child dies. Dont want to offend anybody, but when you get to about 65/70, the parenting relationship tends to shift and the child begins to look after the parent in a sense. How can that happen when this child wont even be 10 by then?!

Gloss, I see early tennis lessons in this child's future.
 
tracy
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

She would have used donor eggs.

I'm aware of that. Unfortunately a lot of those babies are born with problems. You would be surprised at how many patients with fertility treatment wind up with their babies in our unit.

Hmm, I would be surprised. With what problems?

Most often relating to prematurity (I'm not sure a woman's body can tolerate being pregnant as well at 40+ years of age), but I've also seen a lot of birth defects (heart conditions mainly). Those women also miscarry often. I would never make it illegal or anything, but my own personal opinion is that it usually isn't the best idea healthwise.
 
Kreskin
#12
That would be the same for all women, fertility treatments or not.
 
tracy
#13
No. Being older as a pregnant woman carries extra risks and it tends to be older women using those treatments.
 
Kreskin
#14
If you have a 43 year old getting pregnant on her own and a 43 year old getting pregnant with the eggs of a 30 year old the fertility treatment responder would likely be less at risk. In some ways it's an apples and oranges comparison. I hope you don't have too many 63 year olds coming in.
 
tracy
#15
It's not apples and oranges. Being pregnant at 43 regardless of where the eggs come from puts you at risk of more complications than a 20 year old. It isn't about the egg in those cases. It's about the uterus/cervix not being able to keep a baby in for 40 weeks. Giving birth early is risky for mom and baby. Our premies (the majority of our patient population) face lots of health issues relating to their lungs, hearts, brains, digestive systems, etc. Plus, because those women have more trouble with eggs implanting, they tend to put more in (like 4 or 5 or 6) which results in more cases of multiples and multiples face more health risks than singletons because they are more at risk for prematurity and low birthweight as well.

I've never had a mom in her 60s, but I've had lots in their 40s and a few in their 50s. Some babies turned out well, some came out with disabilities and some died. Fertility treatment can be great, but it also results in a lot of heartbreak.

I've cautioned a few of my friends not to count on being able to give birth in their 40s. I think we're really kidding ourselves as a society by thinking that we can postpone the decision of whether to have children until that age and then guarantee a healthy baby.
 
Martin Le Acadien
#16
My sister had a baby at 48 when she married the Colonel (retired military) who had two grown sons (he is in his 60's) and the girl is a spoiled brat! (Just kidding) But it did make for an interesting Parent-Teacher meeting when Molly was mistaken for being the GrandParent! Her style was to inform that she was the Birth Parent of Janie and the Colonel was the Birth Father. Molly's telling of this story had my wife ROTFLMHO! She said the Teacher noted Janie had "gifted" parents, Janie complains about being the baby of the family (All her brothers are in their 30's while she is only 12!)

Me and my wife never needed fertility drugs, twins just came natuarally!

To each their own, I would not want to judge who could have kids, not my place! I raised my own, Molly and the Colonel have done a wonderful job on Janie and I am sure a 63 year old mother would not tolerate any CR*P!
 
Kreskin
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

It's not apples and oranges. Being pregnant at 43 regardless of where the eggs come from puts you at risk of more complications than a 20 year old. It isn't about the egg in those cases. It's about the uterus/cervix not being able to keep a baby in for 40 weeks. Giving birth early is risky for mom and baby. Our premies (the majority of our patient population) face lots of health issues relating to their lungs, hearts, brains, digestive systems, etc. Plus, because those women have more trouble with eggs implanting, they tend to put more in (like 4 or 5 or 6) which results in more cases of multiples and multiples face more health risks than singletons because they are more at risk for prematurity and low birthweight as well.

I've never had a mom in her 60s, but I've had lots in their 40s and a few in their 50s. Some babies turned out well, some came out with disabilities and some died. Fertility treatment can be great, but it also results in a lot of heartbreak.

I've cautioned a few of my friends not to count on being able to give birth in their 40s. I think we're really kidding ourselves as a society by thinking that we can postpone the decision of whether to have children until that age and then guarantee a healthy baby.

Genetic birth defects are virtually no different with natural or fertility treated pregnancies. In Canada it is extremely rare for anyone to implant more than three. Most clinics won't do more than two under any circumstances. Five and six just don't happen. The UK is even more strict. I don't think one is allowed more than two by law. In the US it's a free for all. You can profit by selling gametes and surrogacy services, and some clinics will just do whatever you're willing to pay for.
 
Canucklehead
#18
If a woman is unable to become impregnated without external therapy and treatments, it would seem that mother nature has a reason for that and she should accept that her lot in life is to not have children.
 
tracy
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

Quote: Originally Posted by tracyIt's not apples and oranges. Being pregnant at 43 regardless of where the eggs come from puts you at risk of more complications than a 20 year old. It isn't about the egg in those cases. It's about the uterus/cervix not being able to keep a baby in for 40 weeks. Giving birth early is risky for mom and baby. Our premies (the majority of our patient population) face lots of health issues relating to their lungs, hearts, brains, digestive systems, etc. Plus, because those women have more trouble with eggs implanting, they tend to put more in (like 4 or 5 or 6) which results in more cases of multiples and multiples face more health risks than singletons because they are more at risk for prematurity and low birthweight as well.
I've never had a mom in her 60s, but I've had lots in their 40s and a few in their 50s. Some babies turned out well, some came out with disabilities and some died. Fertility treatment can be great, but it also results in a lot of heartbreak.
I've cautioned a few of my friends not to count on being able to give birth in their 40s. I think we're really kidding ourselves as a society by thinking that we can postpone the decision of whether to have children until that age and then guarantee a healthy baby.Genetic birth defects are virtually no different with natural or...

Quote has been trimmed
Read my post again. It isn't about the egg most of the time, it's about the cervix/uterus. That isn't a genetic problem. Premies usually don't have any genetic problems. But, you implant either too many babies into one uterus or one baby into a uterus that can't hold it in and the result is a premie. Premies have risks for a LOT of lifelong problems. Older mothers are more at risk for premature deliveries because they are more at risk for complications (like PIH which is only cured by delivering the babies), especially with multiples.

If you think clinics almost never implant more than 2, you've never worked in this area. Canada is stricter than the US in my experience, but they aren't as strict as you're saying. The older a woman is and the more failed attempts she's had, the more a doctor will consider implanting. 3, 4 and 5 do get implanted in Canada. I've looked after 2 families who had chosen to selectively reduce to twins in Toronto. You can do the math on that. I've cared for several triplets that were the result of IVF. I can remember we once had 3 sets of triplets on the unit at one time. None of them were spontaneous triplets. I worked with a nurse who gave birth to quads in Toronto as well. Unfortunately, even if you only implant 2, that doesn't guarantee you'll only get 2 babies. I looked after a family here that only implanted 2 because the mom was young and healthy. Well, one egg split so they wound up with triplets (one set of identical twin girls and a boy). They were premies, but fortunately had a pretty good course.
 
Kreskin
#20
Tracy, I have never worked in one but I have a great deal of personal experience with clinics. I wouldn't have an absolutely healthy child without spending 12 years through various stages of research and treatment. Infertility patients aren't out drinking and smoking and finding out by accident the children they carry have been subject to unintentional abuse/intoxicants through important development stages. No fetal alchol syndrome to be found. Prenatal support is at a premium, from the actions of the maternal mothers to the professionals involved. Statistically there are more multiples, however without infertility treatments for many the chances are zero of a healthy baby born. The kids aren't born into crack homes with drunken deadbeat dads then shipped off to foster homes. No immature parents who fail to spend time with their kids. Infertility patients are about the best parents one could ever hope for.

There are many risks associated with prenatal and childhood development. Looking at one stat alone hardly tells the whole story.
 
tracy
#21
Not once have I claimed these people couldn't be good parents or neglected their children Kreskin, not once. My own parents couldn't have children naturally, so that isn't the issue in my mind at all. My parents are great parents. I would disagree that parents who struggle with infertility are necessarily the best though. I don't think that has anything to do with being a good parent or not. We had one family here that conceived thanks to fertility treatments and I wouldn't trust them to look after a pet, let alone a baby. Others I've seen have been amazing.

All I'm saying is that IVF isn't great all the time. Forget about parenthood for a second (and we could debate whether a 63 year old is really at a great stage in life to become a parent). A 63 year old isn't the best candidate for PREGNANCY. That isn't a moral judgement, it's just a biological reality. It really doesn't matter to the child why he/she's disabled for life (if it's because mom wanted a baby at the age of 50 or if it's because she was drinking). If you'd looked after a few sets of triplets/quads who had brain bleeds requiring shunts, heart defects requiring surgical ligation, ruined bowels requiring colostomies/ileostomies and terrible lungs requiring tracheostomies, I think you would understand what I'm trying to say. IVF can be great. It can be disastrous too. We had one premie in our unit for 6 months before she finally died. She was the family's third attempt at a healthy baby with IVF and they still don't have any living children.

The clinics you used may have placed certain limits, but there is no hard and fast rules and if a couple wants something, chances are they can find a place to provide it. Clinics have some limits, but obviously not all clinics. Most clinics wouldn't treat a 63 year old for infertility, but this woman obviously found one.
 
tracy
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Canucklehead

If a woman is unable to become impregnated without external therapy and treatments, it would seem that mother nature has a reason for that and she should accept that her lot in life is to not have children.

Then I have a bone to pick with fate, cause a lot of people who have kids sure don't know how to be parents. If they are the ones who were meant to be parents, then that's screwed up.
 
Kreskin
#23
There is also the biological reality that when all the song and dances are finished, IVF kids are just as healthy as the rest. Studies in the 1st five years of life are all over the place but even the researchers admit to the limitations of the studies. Most IVF parents will bring their kids to emergency for just about anything while natural parents aren't usually as prone to seek medical attention. I even saw one that said IVF kids were usually smaller and lower weight at birth but by age six were on average taller and had lower cholesterol levels than the non IVF kids. Again, limits to that study as well.

Tracy, while no hard limits are yet placed in Canada on embryo transfer the 2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act was a fairly significant step dealing with human reproductive ethics. For example, counselling is a mandatory component of a treatment plan. Granted most of the Act deals with ethics via outlawing the selling/buying of gametes and other materials (plus surrogacy, cloning, and research) the clinics know big brother is out there. Any fertility service managers I have talked to are quite serious about limiting embryo transfer. There is even a proposal going around that if the Canada Health Act would require Provinces to assist with funding they would limit transfer to one embryo. There's a lot going on right now in Canada.
 
fuzzylogix
#24
As medical advances are made, there will be increased demands for them. We will start seeing more demands for IVF in older women who had placed their careers first and now want children- look at how many stars are leaving having a family until their late 30's and into the 40's. This is becoming a norm in society. With our high rate of family breakdown, many second marriages are wanting families at late maternal ages. Or how about the families that have a sick child and want to find a transplant match. Or now the families that have lost a child, who now in their 50's CAN with medical intervention have another child. Or what about the woman who never married, and kept hoping and now at age 52 decides to have a kid on her own?

These are all issues that the medical ethics committees are going to have to face. There is no right answer, but as we progress in medicine, we create increasingly difficult ethical dilemmas.
 
Kreskin
#25
Fuzzy, it's amazing how many second marriages are trying to untie the tubes for new families.

The 2004 AHR Act set the stage for managing what we do with existing a future technologies. Such as, if an embryo is not cryopreserved in cannot be kept outside the female more the 14 days. This to counter the looming artificial womb. The dilemmas are everywhere.
 
fuzzylogix
#26
Yup. I am a real advocate against vasectomies and tubal ligations for young people. There are acceptable ways of preventing pregnancy without this permanency. And reversals often don't work. Many people dont plan for the possibility that they may have a second marriage either through divorce or death of their spouse, and want to have a second family. When I see friends of mine in their 20's getting vasectomies, it makes me cringe!!!!
 
tracy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

There is also the biological reality that when all the song and dances are finished, IVF kids are just as healthy as the rest. Studies in the 1st five years of life are all over the place but even the researchers admit to the limitations of the studies.

I'd be really skeptical about who they are including in their studies. Comparing children at age 5 eliminates a lot of the babies I've cared for unfortunately, and I'm sure they aren't comparing multiples to singletons. Those studies probably don't include a lot of 63 year olds either do they? A lot of people who want IVF are not high risk like that. For them, I don't have a problem with IVF. For really high risk people, it just isn't a good idea. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue otherwise.
 
Kreskin
#28
I agree Tracy. 63 is over the top. 63 is an exceptional case by any measurement. Unless someone is experiencing unexplained infertility, not just the missed diagnosis version, there are medium to high risks in every case. Each person seeking treatments needs adequate councelling to understand the risks involved before undertaking a plan. We had very serious genetic risks and were referred to external genetic counsellors, worked with them for nearly 1 year before making any decisions. If someone is not prepared to help manage the risks and accept the consequences of their decisions they should not be encouraged to go forward.

When I said apples and oranges it is difficult to compare any statistics. I'm assuming when you say elimination of many babies you have cared for means they did not make it to age 5. Those studies would also not count children who were never conceived by those who never tried. If you fail to try your failure rate is always 100%. Benchmarks for what decisions are right or wrong aren't easy to establish.
 
Canucklehead
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by tracy

Quote: Originally Posted by Canucklehead

If a woman is unable to become impregnated without external therapy and treatments, it would seem that mother nature has a reason for that and she should accept that her lot in life is to not have children.

Then I have a bone to pick with fate, cause a lot of people who have kids sure don't know how to be parents. If they are the ones who were meant to be parents, then that's screwed up.

I agree with you there and it all comes down to the old addage "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should". This pertains to both having and not having kids though. Science may be a wonderful thing but regardless of a couples' fitness for parenthood, nature has always taken care of itself and I am positive the human species is nowhere near advanced enough to presume it knows better than millenia of evolution.
 
tracy
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

I agree Tracy. 63 is over the top. 63 is an exceptional case by any measurement. Unless someone is experiencing unexplained infertility, not just the missed diagnosis version, there are medium to high risks in every case. Each person seeking treatments needs adequate councelling to understand the risks involved before undertaking a plan. We had very serious genetic risks and were referred to external genetic counsellors, worked with them for nearly 1 year before making any decisions. If someone is not prepared to help manage the risks and accept the consequences of their decisions they should not be encouraged to go forward.

When I said apples and oranges it is difficult to compare any statistics. I'm assuming when you say elimination of many babies you have cared for means they did not make it to age 5. Those studies would also not count children who were never conceived by those who never tried. If you fail to try your failure rate is always 100%. Benchmarks for what decisions are right or wrong aren't easy to establish.

Believe me, my opinions about risk don't change with the method. I also don't think it's a good idea for a brittle diabetic or a woman with a serious heart condition or parents who know they have a high likelyhood of passing on terminal conditions to get pregnant even naturally. I don't think anything that includes horrible risks for a baby is a great idea most of the time. I don't presume to have any hard and fast rules on who should procreate and how they should do it and I certainly don't want to impose my opinion on someone else, I'm just saying what I think based on what I see. Some babies born to high risk parents will be lucky and turn out healthy. I've looked after tons of heroin babies and they turn out fine and studies at the age of 5 (the same limited studies) have shown they are as well off as other children in their same socioeconomic group. I'd rather a pregnant woman use heroin than alcohol in fact. I just can't help but remember the ones that don't do well. It breaks my heart to see them suffer. I've seen parents so desperate for a biological child that they will do anything and put that child through anything just for the chance it might happen. They are often shielded from the harsh reality of what that means their baby will go through.

And, maybe this is a philosophical argument, but I don't think choosing not to try everything to produce a biological child is necessarily a failure. Lots of people create families without procreating.
 

Similar Threads

5
British woman loses battle for embryos
by Kreskin | Apr 11th, 2007
no new posts