72-year-old woman attempts to become pregnant

[Ceepa]

This situation brings up a lot of questions: Does this woman want someone to remember her when she's gone? What makes her refuse to give up the dream of being a mother? I think her quest is foolish for the sake of a child, but what is the real motivation of this woman?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1199527/This-woman-72-spent-30-000-courses-IVF--shes-STILL-trying-baby.html?ITO=1490

(July 14) - At the age of 72, she is old enough to know better.
But it seems Jenny Brown cannot be deflected from her determination to give birth.
Miss Brown, who has never had a long-term relationship, has already spent £30,000 in the United States and Italy trying to conceive and is now prepared to travel abroad again to clinics that still offer IVF treatment to women her age. ...

...'I'd always had it in the back of my mind that when the time was right I'd like to have a child,' she said.
'But my studies meant that children kept getting delayed. The right time finally came in my early fifties and since then I've been attempting - and failing - with IVF.' ....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/14/article-1199527-05B1DBE3000005DC-689_468x645.jpg

[kep]

Ugh. Where to start...

[DietCokeLover]

I seriously have no words.

Well, other than I am sad for her that she has put so many other things in her life ahead of this desire. I hope they brought her much pleasure in her younger years, as I'm afraid that is all she will have.

[Indianamom2]

Personally, I just think it won't happen. Our bodies were just not designed to carry and deliver healthy babies at that age.

More importantly though, I don't think it's very fair to the child. At best, her mom would survive until she is an adult, but what 18 year old wants to be caring for a 92 year old mom and all the inevitable health issues that go along with it?

Sometimes we can't have it all.

[jren]

It makes me sad for her that she's wanted children since her 50s and never looked into her only viable option - adoption. Her children would be in their 20's now if she'd gotten past the desire to give birth. Now, maybe she would be able to give birth, but not be around to raise a child?

[DrSally]

Wow, strange. I can't believe she's been trying for so long. I too wonder if she ever looked into adoption.

[Kitten007]

So sad. Sometimes you need to know when to call it quits. IF (notice that's a BIG if...) she has a child she might not make it much longer.....she needs to think about what would happen to a baby...small child.....or teen without his/her mother. Who is going to take care of them? She needs to think before being so selfish.

[Sillygirl]

I think one interesting question here is if the IVF physicians should refuse to treat her. In general I support patient autonomy, but I have to say in this case I would have serious reservations. Perhaps it's not my place to make those judgements. And this is why there are ethical guidelines in the reproductive health field. What do you all think? Would you be angry at a doctor who told this woman "No, I won't help you get pregnant at 72?"

[maestramommy]

Is she planning on living into her 90s?

[BabyMine]

I know she is very well educated but has anyone checked her mental status.

[MNmomtobe]

IMO if she truly wanted to raise a child for the past 20 years she would have adopted by now. Since she persists with IVF, it seems that she merely wants the experience of being pregnant and giving birth but not to truly raise the child because she is too old. This I don't understand. I agree that no doctor should be allowing her to undergo IVF treatments at her age. At most clinics here, I believe the maximum age is 50.

[egoldber]

Just an FYI, most (all?) adoption agencies have age limits for prospective parents. A single woman of 50 is unlikely to qualify for an adoption of an infant or young child. Adoption is a difficult process on it's own and not one that everyone is willing or even able to do.

[Tammydw1]

Society and advanced science only has itself to blame for people behaving irrationally when it comes to fertility anymore. Science has always broke the boundaries of moral ethics. In many ways advanced science has been very helpful curing the incurable. However, when you have people cloning humans, using stem cells of embryos, and excessive fertility placement of embryos, it is human nature to take things to the extreme end of the spectrum. We as a society have been desensitized and have lost the appreciation of GOD's blessing of life. We have never been satisfied with the morality of life that is created between a man and a woman with love. There are some countries that have set laws to the amount of children you can have because people take advantage of thier right to have kids and have more than they can effieciently raise on thier own. They are the same ones who quote the one part of the Bible that says "Be fruitful and multiply". Not realizing that the Bible has been translated several times over the years and when that one statement was made, it was during a time when the human race needed to be stimulated. But in that same Bible they say women are beneath men and marriage is between a woman and a man and spare the rod and spoil the child. In that aspect we have grown as a society to say that does not apply now adays. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God and have strong spiritual beliefs, but there are some things that were meant for a different time of life. There are reasons why God does not make it natural for women at 72 to be able to have children or women to be able to have six to eight children at one time naturally. We even have made it available for men to nurse babies with hormone treatments. There are women who have hormone treatments to nurse other people's babies and there are women who nurse thier own babies straight up into grade school. I don't think women in thier seventy's should be having children when the world's natural resources are being greatly depreciated from having too many people on this earth causing some countries to enforce population control laws. But at what point does a doctor who should know better prescribe a physciatrist for the patient vs seeing the almighty dollar and allowing women to have that much control over something that will adversely affect everyone else. I am a woman and I know for a fact that we think with our hormones at times much like the cliche joke that men think with thier who-ha. You need to prove yourself to be more mentally and finacially stable to have a dog from the pound then you do a child/ren. So at what point are there going to be laws set fourth to protect these women from themselves and any future generations of people that are created from this untraditional form of conception. I think IVF is great for a couple who seriously cannot have kids and have proven themselves in a stable relationship and have the financial means and youth on thier side to be able to take of them. But women who are bankrupt and single or who are unmarried and 72, that is just plain irresponsible, more so on the doctor side who can say "I am not doing it. Its wrong on so many levels". These women got what they wanted, 15 minutes of fame. Look at the Octo-Mom. She wanted money and fame, so she purposely took her bankrupt self to the doctors and got pregnant again with 8 this time. The 6 the first time wasn't enough to get her own show, she was competing with Jon and Kate. Now at 14 kids, no home, no money, no daddy, got herself a publicist and BAM! Got her own show in the UK. And we as a society will judge her, but yet keep giving these women thier 15 minutes of fame, so it will only get worse. I wonder what it will be next. How about we put the icing on the cake and give this lady a million dollars and her own show and see how many kids her and her quack doctor will create before she is 100. LOL This is a sick, sick world.