General Chat

It is wrong - with no thought for the child whatsoever either by the parents or the Dr. As far as I am concerned it does not matter whether the mother has ever had children before or not. When I first heard of it - I did think that perhaps the husband was a lot younger - however seeing the news tonight - it does not appear so. Are the siblings expected to act as guardians? Yes there have been natural pregnancies to women in their fifties and God help them but voluntarily at this age. It is selfish and immoral and should not be allowed to happen. Ann

I agree with everyone on here------it is totaly wrong, when you have gone through the menapause that's natures way of saying---that's it! no more! enough is enough. why does'nt she accept here age? it's like when someone trys to dress and act like a teenager-------mutton dressed as lamb! my god, no way would i want to have another one now! and i'm younger than her at 54. what do her other kids think? she must be getting her pension now! or will be when the child is 2!!!! will she go and draw her pension before she takes the child to nursury?? when you get older,it's nice to hand them back to there mother!!

Hi everyone I don't normally jump into discussions, but I have to say, I agree with your comments. I know everyone has the right to make their own choice, but in this case, what about the little baby? I could not believe it when I heard the news earlier! When their mum is 70, they will only be 7! I can't imagine what it must be like having a little one at that age, my youngest is nearly 2, I'll be 40 next year, I'm worn out lol. My mum is an active 65 and she is worn out after my little one's been round for an hour. I think it is irresponsible, especially when the egg is donated. Maybe there is a very good personal reason we don't know about? I can't begin to think what though.... The baby doesn't get a say in this, and I'm sure they would prefer to have a living, active mum and dad around whilst they are growing up. This seems to me to be a selfish decision. Margaret

Think it's a disgrace shouldn't be allowed that child could have no mother at such a young age. What is wrong with people.Her body clock is still ticking over and she surely won't have the energy or patience. Denise.

Its is ridiculous, ill thought out and selfish!!!!!!! I was 40 when I had my first child. I can tell you from first hand experience that you do not have the energy that younger parents have. I (confession time) am 58 and my son is 18. I have done my utmost to keep up with the younger parents but nowadays am feeling my age, hot flushes/tired. I do not think that anyone over very early 40s should have children. You just do not know how you are going to feel physically and mentally and it is such a worry that you may not live long enough to see your child settled/ independant. I think the children miss out on lots of things too. My son's friend's parents are in their 40s now and have far more energy. Anyone having a child at 63 must be mad. Chris

I think, that women of a normal childbearing age should have all the help they need to bring a child into the world, and THAT, as I understand it would be some where around 40 years of age MAXIMUM. I am sorry, but if nature,with or without help, hasnt worked for you by then, then I feel that ''the prospective parent'' should accept that it wasn't meant to be.......... Bob

I think it is absolutely mad too. Nature knows what's best. Having brought 3 children up without any help from the family (who don't live nearby) I certainly needed plenty of energy, but as they were born during my late twenties / early thirties, I managed to survive in spite of all those broken nights when they were off colour. At 63 it won't be the same story and she should know that if she's already got 2! It's neither fair on the new baby, nor on the two children she's already got. After all it's not their business to bring up their little brother/sister. She sounds rather irresponsible to me. I agree, it's not enough to organise the financial side of things. Children need their parents along side them as they are growing up to share all the ups and downs. OK, I agree, even young parents can die, but the majority 'make it' until their children are independent. Sorry, I just can't understand women over 50 even thinking about having a baby. Some of them probably don't even know that, apart from the imense pleasure children give their parents, it really can be hard work - not to mention the HUGE generation gap when they get to their teens. I'be much prefer to help caring for my grandchildren thank you very much!

It is reported that the child psychiatrist who has elected to have an IVF baby at the age of 63 and her new husband have not gone into this lightly and know that the welfare of the child is paramount. Has she ever been an expert witness in Court?

I am 67. I have a hubby on crutches after an op on both feet,I have a badly bruised thumb after a car accident and a problem with sciatica and pain from it. I can't imagine having a four year old around my feet too.!!!! I think the idea of a baby at 63 is ridiculous.

I find the entire episode quite distateful.

But the poor babe isn't even *their* child, he's a donated egg. I do hope people keep this thread nudged because there's a lot more to be said.

Son of 13 just heard the news on tv and immediately said quote 'urghh minging' unquote!! Ali x Thats all that needs to be said really

Totally selfish act by the parents to be. Just because we have made tremendous strides in medicine doesn't mean we should go against the laws of nature. There are perfectly good reasons why a woman cannot bear children naturally after a certain age. Jean x.

Absolutely against it, for the baby's sake. :-((

How awful that fertility treatment was given to someone of this age who already has children - how can it be justified? how will the child feel been collected from school when other parents are so much younger?, will they be able to keep pace with the activities that the child will want to do?, will they be able to see the childs point of view as he/she reaches the teenage years? Don't agree with it, but only for the above reasons and not beacuse the child may be an orphan at a young age as that could happen to any child born to parents of any age. Joanne

Have to agree.I would just about see her point if she had no children and was younger. but she has had children already and personally I think it's a waste of medical resourses and money which could give a couple who can't have children a chance. My parents were 41 when I was born and although my mum died at a young 65 I can't imagine them being 63 when I was born. I am 45 now and to be honest the thought of anyone having a baby even at my age scares me. I think if I was her age I would be enjoying my older children/grandchildren. I think the doctors who are going along with this need to think again.

I think it's wrong and incredibly selfish, regardless of whether she has children or not. Not all of us are meant to parents, hard as some people find it and I think it's very sad that cash can overcome ethics in these circumstances.

nudging for somone who wants to read this, BB xx

There's something unethical about this from the doctor's point of view too, given that he is the enabling force in several controversial pregnancies and has the goal of producing the first human clone, another 'iffy' project. It seems to me as if fame in his career is more important to him that the well-being of his patients and it appalls me that he is able to carry on working. I agree with the comments regarding the parent's motivations but I think it's important to remember that there's a whole group of people that allow this to happen, it isn't just one person's decision.

Don't agree at all. It is not fair on the poor child. Lindy ;-))