oldest mum at 63..

Glaucus · 4 May 2006 at 13:03

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4971930.stm

A woman is set to become Britain's oldest mother at the age of 63 after treatment by a controversial Italian fertility doctor.

Does any one think this is sick?
I think IVF and other treatments should be banned once you hit 50-55. If you get pregnant naturally fair enough. But it aint going to be a kid, its going to be a carer or an orphian.. Things like this really make me mad.

chances are by the time the kids 15 shes going to be dead or in need of a carer

Vix · 4 May 2006 at 13:10

I work with some 63 year olds and they are very able women. But I do agree with the fact that the kid may not have a mother for as long as most :/ Thats quite sad.

Violent-J · 4 May 2006 at 13:10

That's ridiculous, unnatural and should be banned.

Clearly a very selfish woman who would do anything to have kids but doesn't consider for one second the childs quality of life.

axe · 4 May 2006 at 13:12

its not fair on the children some people are so selfish

Rich_L · 4 May 2006 at 13:13

Would you also exclude women who have lower than average life expectancies due to an underlying condition from having children at say, 40? Or women in dangerous jobs with a higher-than-average risk of death or disability?

I don't see it as an issue the state needs to get involved with, particularly as it was a privately funded IVF operation. As long as adequate counsel is given to the woman prior to the IVF about the risks and dangers, and also about what her plans for the child are, then I don't see a need to get involved.

Darkwave · 4 May 2006 at 13:13

Not only might that child end up an orphan before his or her teens, let's not forget that more "mature" women have a greater chance of producing a child with Down's Syndrome. This really is quite inconsiderate.

Rich_L · 4 May 2006 at 13:14

Exsomnis said:
Not only might that child end up an orphan before his or her teens, let's not forget that more "mature" women have a greater chance of producing a child with Down's Syndrome. This really is quite inconsiderate.

IVF can and will have checked for that so the implanted embryos will not be have that condition.

Vix · 4 May 2006 at 13:15

Exsomnis said:
Not only might that child end up an orphan before his or her teens, let's not forget that more "mature" women have a greater chance of producing a child with Down's Syndrome. This really is quite inconsiderate.

Only as inconsiderate as women who find out they are going to have a diabled child and carry on with the pregnancy surely?

Phantom · 4 May 2006 at 13:19

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

at her age, thats a selfish thing to have done. chances are the child will have to grow up quickly and end up caring for them at a young age. this will most probably end up with the child being introverted and not have an outgoing personality. either that or the older siblings will care for him/her.

why not just adopt an older child if they wanted another little person in the household

GT3 · 4 May 2006 at 13:20

So when starting secondary school the kids mum will be 74, nice.

SidewinderINC · 4 May 2006 at 13:24

GT3 said:
So when starting secondary school the kids mum will be 74, nice.

i remember being picked on because my mum was 47 when i started secondary school! when most other peoples mums were around the 40 mark.

74, thats is just wrong!

Glaucus · 4 May 2006 at 13:25

Rich_L said:
Would you also exclude women who have lower than average life expectancies due to an underlying condition from having children at say, 40? Or women in dangerous jobs with a higher-than-average risk of death or disability?

No because theres still a good chance they'll Live. I just feel sorry for the kid. Hes going to have the **** ripped out of him at school. Then to top it off hes likley to losse his parents.

...

Mr Spew · 4 May 2006 at 13:28

AcidHell2 said:
Then to top it off hes likley to losse his parents. ...

Who isn't?

Glaucus · 4 May 2006 at 13:29

Mr Spew said:
Who isn't?

yeh but most of us will make it to at least are 20's with parents, where we're self sufficent...

Mr Spew · 4 May 2006 at 13:35

Considering the likelihood of parents dying of cancer or in accidents, and the length of life is much higher now, I don't see it as that much of a bother - my grandma is a smoker, still going strong at 80+.

Ashcrapper · 4 May 2006 at 13:38

kid can probably get pocket money about 5 times a week though, just keep asking for it, old tart wont remember

VeNT · 4 May 2006 at 13:41

tbh, its wrong and sick and shouldn't be alowed .
stupid people, how do you think the kids gonna feel when his mum is dead and he's 16 or so?
and don't forget that the chances of the baby having birth defects and learning disabilitys goes UP drematicaly once the mother reaches 45 ish (or is that 35, I forget)

cymatty · 4 May 2006 at 14:08

VeNT said:
tbh, its wrong and sick and shouldn't be alowed .
stupid people, how do you think the kids gonna feel when his mum is dead and he's 16 or so?
and don't forget that the chances of the baby having birth defects and learning disabilitys goes UP drematicaly once the mother reaches 45 ish (or is that 35, I forget)

Agreed, but these morons are allowed to get away with it, no doubt if we said no it would be agaisnt some human rights legislation. :rolleyes:

Rich_L · 4 May 2006 at 14:19

From the article:

"A great deal of thought has been given to planning and providing for the child's present and future well-being, medically, socially and materially.

I'd say that alone puts her above a large number of pregnancies today.

and don't forget that the chances of the baby having birth defects and learning disabilitys goes UP drematicaly once the mother reaches 45 ish (or is that 35, I forget)

The egg was donated, so that is irrelevant.

VeNT · 4 May 2006 at 14:20

Rich_L said:
From the article:
I'd say that alone puts her above a large number of pregnancies today.

so she thought about it, but still went ahead with it, that puts her right back with em