British Woman 63 pregnant

[Kreskin]

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/national/2006/05/04/britwoman-pregnant060504.html

Any thoughts on this?

 

[I think not]

8O

 

[missile]

A comment? Sure Wondering if she'll ever try to get her parents to babysit?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: British Woman 63 preg

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]

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]

She would have used donor eggs.

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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]

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]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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. :wink:

 

[tracy]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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]

That would be the same for all women, fertility treatments or not.

 

[tracy]

No. Being older as a pregnant woman carries extra risks and it tends to be older women using those treatments.

 

[Kreskin]

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. :wink:

 

[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.

 

[Martin Le Acadien]

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]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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]

RE: British Woman 63 preg

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]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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.

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]

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.