British Woman 63 pregnant

[tracy]

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]

Re: 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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]

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]

Re: 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.

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]

Re: RE: British Woman 63 pregnant

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.

 

[Nuggler]

8O Sheesh :!: :!:

Thought you meant 63 British women were pregnant.

Tosh tosh old poop

Nevah!! Simply unBritish eh wot!

:idea:

 

[Kreskin]

How coincidental given our discussion. I just caught wind of a very (IMO) unethical Canadian clinic situation involving a surrogacy arrangment. I'm not sure what the law will say but I'm sure lawyers will have a close look. If it hits the media they'll have a field day with it.

 

[tracy]

It's a shame because I think surrogacy can be a great thing for some families. Every time there is one negative story, it paints the whole thing in a bad light.

 

[fuzzylogix]

Mind you, that lady looks pretty good for 63! I hope I look that good at 53!