63 year old to be mother

Not sure if we have discussed this already . . .

ROME/LONDON (Reuters) - A 63-year-old British hospital consultant is set to become one of the world's oldest mothers after undergoing fertility treatment, the Italian doctor who treated her said Thursday.

Patricia Rashbrook, a child psychologist from Lewes, East Sussex, was given in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment last October, Severino Antinori told Reuters.

Antinori, who said he was "excited and proud" about the treatment, gained notoriety in the early 1990s when he helped a 62-year-old Italian woman give birth following fertility treatment with a donated egg.

Italy has since introduced some of Europe's most restrictive laws on assisted reproduction and Antinori said he had carried out the procedure on Rashbrook in an unnamed former Soviet republic.

"The case of the English woman gave me great joy," he said, adding that the treatment was successful at the first attempt, using a single embryo.

He said Rashbrook, whom he last saw in November, was "perfect" for the treatment, because although she was 62 at the time, she had a biological age of about 45.

"She came here with her husband, the couple love each other, she is very slim, blonde and in perfect condition, she fits all the criteria for maternity."

"She should live for at least 20 to 25 years -- we are not giving birth to an orphan," he said.

Rashbrook's 61-year-old husband, John Farrant, told the Sun newspaper that his wife was seven months pregnant.

"We are of course both very happy and looking forward to the birth," he said.

"Obviously at our age it is quite a daunting prospect."

Farrant is Rashbrook's second husband and she has a 26-year-old daughter and a 22-year0old son, the paper said.

In a joint statement the couple said: "We wish to emphasize that this has not been an endeavor undertaken lightly or without courage."

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

Many fertility clinics in Britain will not provide treatment for women past the normal age for childbirth.

In 1997, Welsh woman Liz Buttle became Britain's oldest mother at the age of 60. Media reports said she had obtained fertility treatment after lying about her age to doctors.

Last year, a 66-year-old Romanian, Adriana Iliescu, became the world's oldest mother when she gave birth to a baby girl after IVF treatment.

What are your thoughts?
.

i don't agree with it. i am sorry i'm 46 and i can't chase after a toddler on a daily basis now.

Well, my mother is 63 today and chases after MY kids on a daily basis. :eek: NOT that she would do it again at this age or anything, but there are a lot of grandparents out there raising their grandkids and that has been so for many, many generations. It might even be argued that having a small child around during the 60s and 70s might even give them a will to continue living and fighting to stay alive. *shrug*

I also think people are aging very differently these days then they were just 2 generations ago. I know for a fact my mother could chase around a toddler and care for an infant without many issues whatsoever, plus she's about 10 times more patient and tolerant than I am at MY age.

I still wouldn't do it myself, but I wouldn't be upset with someone else for doing it...
~phos

While I don't agree with it, I saw this woman on the news this morning and she seems in fantastic shape, so while it's not a great thing to happen, it could have happened under worse circumstances.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/images/hs/hs1382440_1.jpg

I don't see a problem with it. Most 63 year olds will probably not opt to do this, so I don't see how it's really a big deal if a few older women here and there decide to have kids. It's not like we're going to have a major epidemic of orphaned children. If that were the case, then i'd say "it's a problem."

I don't think it should be stopped, but I don't agree with it. I wouldn't have a child knowing that statistically it would have no parents or grandparents at quite an early age.

My sister will be 48 in July and my brother-in-law will be 48 this month, and they are basically raising their 2-year-old granddaughter. I'm not sure if I would want to do it at the age of 53, not only because I might not have that 24 hour a day energy, but because I know I wouldn't be alive to see the child into adulthood. However, if I had a younger husband who would probably live to see the child become an adult, and who would live to see our grandchildren, then.....MAYBE.....I'd consider it. I think I might like to be like Joan Lunden, Christie Brinkley, and Adrienne Barbeau though....wealthy enough to be able to afford help.

I agree with Marianna. It shouldn't be stopped but it's absurd to encourage it.

I think the requirement for a parent is someone who is able to give a nurturing home and prepare someone for adulthood. If you're ready to do this, go for it.

My mom is 63 and my dad is 68 and they still run around like crazy--- they're in better shape than I am! Not that they want more kids, but I think they could give kids a happy, healthy home. And physically being able to run around is not a requirement for being a good parent either...

And as long as you have a good backup plan in case something should happen to you, you're good to go. I don't think a 25 year old parent can better prepare someone for adulthood compared to a 62 year old parent.

The thing I have a problem with is this:

"She should live for at least 20 to 25 years -- we are not giving birth to an orphan," he said.

So, the kid will be 20 - 25 when her parents die. Sure, she won't be an orphan, but that's pretty young to lose both your parents. Also, this kid will likely be very young when the roles reverse and she will have to care for her aging parents.
.

I don't doubt for a second that people in their 60s can make great parents while they're still healthy. Seeing that children are expected to take care of their parents when they are unable to care for themselves, don't you think that it's unfair to put your children in a position to take care of you when they should be enjoying their youth and establishing their lives? Even if you plan for someone else to take care of you, it would still be likely that the child feels guilty for not looking after their parents, who might be immobile or suffer from Alzheimers or similar.

It's true that that can happen early even if your parents are 25 years older than an offspring, but having a child that late on, you do it knowing that it is very likely it will happen.

Whoop, you beat me to my point, moon! :p

There are no guarentees in life. I think I would rather have great parents who die when I am in my 20s, than crappy parents who live until I am much older.

I know a lot of people who are in their 20s who have already lost one or both of their parents to illness or accidents... who were young parents. You never know.
My parents both had life threatening cancers when I was in high school. I know my aunt and uncle would have taken over until I was 18 had something happened to my parents... but if something HAD happened, I still wouldn't wish I had been raised by anyone different than them.

There are no guarentees in life. I think I would rather have great parents who die when I am in my 20s, than crappy parents who live until I am much older.

Yeah, but that's not the child's choice to make, is it? ;) I don't think anybody would disagree with you. We're all aware, as you say, that there are no guarantees in life - but there is such a thing as likelyhood too, which shouldn't be dismissed.

But children never pick their parents. There are plenty of people IN THIS FORUM who are in their 20's, and their parents are alive and well... and still, they have no relationship and no contact with them. I have friends who do not contact their parents and their parents have no idea where they are living.

I just don't think that age correlates to the type of relationship people have with their parents, and I don't think losing GREAT parents to death while in your 20's (which is a time when you are no longer dependent on your parents) is the biggest tragedy if given a good childhood by them.

The truth is, your parents WILL most likely die before you. Whether you are in your teens, 40's, or 60's, it WILL happen, and it happens at different times for everyone.

There are no guarentees in life. I think I would rather have great parents who die when I am in my 20s, than crappy parents who live until I am much older.

I know a lot of people who are in their 20s who have already lost one or both of their parents to illness or accidents... who were young parents. You never know.
My parents both had life threatening cancers when I was in high school. I know my aunt and uncle would have taken over until I was 18 had something happened to my parents... but if something HAD happened, I still wouldn't wish I had been raised by anyone different than them.

We're all aware, as you say, that there are no guarantees in life - but there is such a thing as likelyhood too, which shouldn't be dismissed.

To add to Mariana's point, IMO, it's the intention that makes it an issue. When we have children, we know there are unavoidable risks involved. But when you have a child at 63 you are doing it knowing that this WILL happen, not that it might.

I'm a little s...l...o...w

I just think if someone can prepare a child to be an adult, that is the point of a parent. Being around and supportive past adulthood is a bonus. But plenty of parents do crummy jobs raising kids, and if in your 60's and 70's, you can do a good job of this, then you have every right to do so.

The thing I have a problem with is this:



So, the kid will be 20 - 25 when her parents die. Sure, she won't be an orphan, but that's pretty young to lose both your parents. Also, this kid will likely be very young when the roles reverse and she will have to care for her aging parents.
.


i was 35 when my mom died at 58. I was and she was too young


sorry it's wrong for her to be so damn selfish.

Ummm... not necessarily.

One of my life long friends (who I've talked about here before, they don't have kids) was the product of his parents having a child some 20 years AFTER their other kids had grown. I believe the father was 60 and the mother in her LATE 40s or early 50s when he was born. All his siblings were 20+ years older than he was.

He only just lost his father two years ago. He's 38. His mother is still alive. They were wonderful parents to him and many of the people WE know lost their younger parents long before he did.

And then we read about the 104 year old lady marrying the 30 something guy? Come on people... everyone is different. Who are WE to judge whether its right or wrong? We're in AGE gap relationships! LOL. :D I seriously doubt these people didn't think it through or make the right choice for themselves AND their baby.

My mothers great aunt (my GREAT GREAT Aunt) is still alive and kicking in California. I believe she is in her late 90s and still independent!!

~phos

(Can I just say, this is a really good discussion we've got going on!)

(Can I just say, this is a really good discussion we've got going on!)

sure you can

That's good to know!

YAY for good discussions!!!

Being around and supportive past adulthood is a bonus. But plenty of parents do crummy jobs raising kids, and if in your 60's and 70's, you can do a good job of this, then you have every right to do so.

It’s a bonus. Okay, I guess that’s fair. It’s not a given that we will have our parents after adulthood. But then we should consider the flip side of that – it is also not a given that we will have to take care of our parents before we reach adulthood. This is part of what is happening here. These people are having a child KNOWING that the chances have increased drastically (if not guaranteeing it) that she will have to care for her elderly parents before she reaches adulthood. I think it is a bit selfish . . . to have kids at their age KNOWING that they won't be here for more than 20 - 25 years and (IMO, worse) KNOWING that for the last 5 - 10 of those years they may not be very healthy. Risks are different - almost everything is risky, there is no avoiding that. But this is not a risk, this is almost guaranteed.

BTW, I don't think they will be bad parents because of their age (that would be ageist) - they might be awesome parents, while they're here . . .

And then we read about the 104 year old lady marrying the 30 something guy?

Good point, they could both live to be 105 for all I know, but the chances are slim.

Life expectancy 100 years ago averaged in the 40's... was everyone selfish to have kids back then?

they prolly had them a lot younger then :p

But seriously, that's a good question. Let me think about it . . .
.

Life expectancy 100 years ago averaged in the 40's... was everyone selfish to have kids back then?

No, because that's just the way it was. It was also necessary for people to have children to take care of them when they became frail. But back then, that was the norm. Today, it's not, plain and simple. Today, we marry older, get children older and die older. We probably mature later, mentally. Sure, a 20-year-old is CAPABLE of taking care of a disabled parent, but that 20-yr-old will compare him- or herself to other 20-yr-olds. 20-yr-olds today are students or embarking on a career, while 100 years ago, they had families of their own and that was basically their lives. Back then, even if people had their parents with them for a shorter time, they had them with them for roughly the same time, that's why it wasn't selfish, it was normal.

okay, thought about it, and it doesn't make a lot of sense cuz it just occured to me that I don't think the life expectancy was in the 40's. Well, it was, in a way. But I think (I could be wrong, I'll have to look it up), it was that low because of the number of childhood deaths. From what I recall, if a person made it past the age of 20 (?), the life expectancy was in the 60's (?). The problem is that with all of the diseases, a lot of people never made it past 20.
So that brought the average age down. So, if I'm right, then the people who made it to child bearing age had kids in their early 20's at the latest - giving them about another 40 years. And I'm sure that people were not having kids at 40 back then.

did that make any sense?

I think my brain has had it from exams . . . :o

So, you think that a 20 year old who had great parents who died are going to have a worse life than those whose parents live past that time?

sorry it's wrong for her to be so damn selfish.

sorry, but this is the issue! She is being selfish, she and her husband BOTH are. If one parent were older (as is the case with most of us) that would be one thing, but this is obsurd. Yes a lot of grandparents are raising thier grandkids for whatever reason (I was raised by my grandmother). BUT they didn't CHOOSE to have kids in their 60s. Their children decided to have children and grandparents steped in to do what they thought was right in whatever the circumstances were.
Back to my original point. Most of us have significant others who are older or younger than we are (that's why we're here!). When Shane and I get around to having children (if all goes according to plan) I will be around 32 and he will be 55. Yeah, he's got a good 30 years left and I have about twice that!!
(all the women in my family have last well into thier 90s). So my kids will be in their 50's when I plan on passing, that's a decent age to lose your parents (well no age is decent, but you know what I mean).
A 21 year old is not an adult, and many people well into their 40s, 50s, 60s still look to their parents for advice and encouragement. It's not fair to rob a young adult of those experiances.

The other issue is what happens when this kid is 10??
His/her mother will be 76, and 80 by the time the child is 15. That's just not fair. I had to take care of my 90 year old greatgrandmother on the weekends. And I did it because, that was my obligation to my family, but i would have much rather been going to the movies and parties when I was 16 and NOT changing old lady dipers!!

BTW, many reasons for having children are selfish.

You know, now that I think about it, it's a little too old for both parents. I can see...maybe adopting? But actively trying to have kids in your sixties? It's a bit unfair. After being inspired by Chiky here, I think they should make sure that their kid isn't stuck with the obligation of taking care of them in their old age.

I dunno. :confused:

His/her mother will be 76, and 80 by the time the child is 15. That's just not fair.


Why is that not fair?

Not all people in their 70's are dependent on others...
Maybe many are, but my parents friends are all in their 70's and they still play tennis with my parents and live healthy, lively, independent lives.

And my boyfriend's parents are 83 and 85 and they also live independent, active lives...

I know a lot don't. But it IS case specific. If the question is "should a 63 year old have a child", a specific person COULD do a great job at this age and raise someone into adulthood and provide for them, when there may be others that cannot. But we should not just say that the teenagers will be changing their parents diapers...

My parents are on a plan that they have paid for so that my brother and I do not have to take care of them in their old age... they can get whatever home care is necessary (for quite a pricey premium that they have been paying yearly).

How do we know this woman doesn't have that?

So, you think that a 20 year old who had great parents who died are going to have a worse life than those whose parents live past that time?

Not necessarily, but I do think they are missing out.

Isn't it better to have those great parents for longer?

So, you think that a 20 year old who had great parents who died are going to have a worse life than those whose parents live past that time?

I don't know about anyone else, but this is what I said about it:

BTW, I don't think they will be bad parents because of their age (that would be ageist) - they might be awesome parents, while they're here . . .

I personally am not implying that the kid will have a BAD life. Who's to know what kind of life she will have? I'm saying that I think it is selfish on the parents part. But I agree with you skibunny - I think in general having kids is selfish, so maybe there isn't a difference. :o

Great points Mariana and chiky!

And I agree with hellodolly - why not adopt?

But, as I mentioned earlier, both my parents had life threatening illnesses with terrible prognosises when I was in my teens... if they had died, I would NOT have wished I had been born to anyone different.

And many of my friends in their 20's have already lost a parent or do not speak to their's... I wouldn't say that outcome is any better either. I would rather lose parents in my 20's whom I loved, than later whom I barely spoke to.

My parents are on a plan that they have paid for so that my brother and I do not have to take care of them in their old age... they can get whatever home care is necessary (for quite a pricey premium that they have been paying yearly).

How do we know this woman doesn't have that?

She probably has, but I wouldn't feel good about myself just having my parents taken care of by others so that I don't have to. In fact, I'd feel really bad.

SB, just out of curiosity - would you be happy for your parents if they sat you down and told you they were expecting? Would you be happy for your little sister or brother to be?

to me the issue is that she didn't get pregnant by accident... she did this on purpose long past the age when woman naturally get pregnant.

who are we to question nature in that respect?

maybe there's a reason for it.

women are born with all the eggs they are ever gonna have.
men on the other hand make new sperm all the time till the day they die.

IF you have the money and the connections you can do whatever you want.

that does not make it right.

i don't care what kind of shape she's in or he's in
there is a rhyme and reason to why nature plans things.



my mom died at 58. I probably will too.
but my dad is 72 and in better shape than any of us here.

I would rather lose parents in my 20's whom I loved, than later whom I barely spoke to.

Why are we assuming that older parents are nicer parents?

Why are we assuming that older parents are nicer parents?


projection.

Why are we assuming that older parents are nicer parents?
I think this thread makes a LOT of assumptions.

I think this thread makes a LOT of assumptions.

such as?

SB, just out of curiosity - would you be happy for your parents if they sat you down and told you they were expecting? Would you be happy for your little sister or brother to be?


I would be happy... because I know it would be born to great people who could provide a decent future... and they also have quite a support system to help IF something should happen to them, all of whom would also love the kid.

A 63 year old could be a fantastic parent, in fact many are currently fantastic parents to their grandchildren. It does seem selfish though for them to make a concious decision to bring another child into the world knowing that their odds of leaving the child when it is very young are greatly increased. Also, eggs get old. When they get old there is a drastic increase in the odds of many disabilities. It seems really selfish to have any child you know you will probly leave when they are young, but it seems especially selfish to have that same child knowing you have a greater risk of leaving a disabled child at a young age.

There are many other ways to involve children in your life without risking so much. When hubby was married to his 3rd wife, he looked into the foster care system. He took all the classes and is certified to be a foster parent. Most of the couples in his class were in their 50s, 60s, or either 70s. They wanted to be able to parent again, and this way they were helping children that were already born instead of bringing another child into the world.

such as?
Such as the fact that people in their 60s or 70s or 80s are weaker people, need their diapers changed, etc... such as that these parents WILL die when the kids is in their 20s. Such as that this kid WILL miss out on things. Everything anyone here has said is an assumption and not an absolute...

Everything anyone here has said is an assumption and not an absolute...


not true dear.


again I reiterate my father at 72 can beat any of you at a stress test.

he walks 3 miles a day
he lifts weights 3 times a week
golf 4-6 times a week (including regularly hitting drives of over 150 yards)
he travels
he reads
he enjoys his life quite well.


his wife died at 58 so he got himself a girl friend. they are still together.

nothing in life is absolute but not EVERYTHING every one has said is negative about the population of baby boomers and slightly beyond.

Such as the fact that people in their 60s or 70s or 80s are weaker people, need their diapers changed, etc... such as that these parents WILL die when the kids is in their 20s. Such as that this kid WILL miss out on things. Everything anyone here has said is an assumption and not an absolute...
Of course its an assumption, almost any discussion about the future is an assumption.

not true dear.


again I reiterate my father at 72 can beat any of you at a stress test.

he walks 3 miles a day
he lifts weights 3 times a week
golf 4-6 times a week (including regularly hitting drives of over 150 yards)
he travels
he reads
he enjoys his life quite well.


his wife died at 58 so he got himself a girl friend. they are still together.

nothing in life is absolute but not EVERYTHING every one has said is negative about the population of baby boomers and slightly beyond.


You didn't really disagree with my point.

I could also be accused of making an assumption that the people may be active and healthy and fit and independent... But in every scenerio listed here, assumptions are made about what may or may not happen that we have no idea in THIS particular case...

Of course its an assumption, almost any discussion about the future is an assumption.
exactly.

You didn't really disagree with my point.

I could also be accused of making an assumption that the people may be active and healthy and fit and independent... But in every scenerio listed here, assumptions are made about what may or may not happen that we have no idea in THIS particular case...


and if he and his girl friend wanted to have a baby i'd have them committed.

To make plans and decisions about the future, you have to make assumptions both ways. What will happen both positive and negative, I think thats what most people are trying to do here.

I love discussions like this that really make me think about my opinion on a topic. You all rock!!! :D

I think two really good points were made here:

1) Maybe this is something that should be considered on an individual basis. Perhaps because this woman is in great shape and she will actually be around longer than a 30 year old who is totally unhealthy but decided to have children anyway.

2) Nessa's point about nature. Maybe we stop being able to have children at a certain age for a reason.

Of course these two points totally contradict eachother, but it's cool cuz it's neat to see the different approaches to this topic! :D

my mom died at 58. I probably will too.

You better NOT lady, cuz that only gives us 14 more years of friendship and that DAMN WELL isn't enough, ya hear? :p

~phos

You better NOT lady, cuz that only gives us 14 more years of friendship and that DAMN WELL isn't enough, ya hear? :p

~phos

12 phossy 12 i'm 46

mom died at 58
as did her mom
and her sister
her dad was 62...

:eek: Damnit. NOT acceptable!!! MUST strive to live longer... ;)
~phos

:eek: Damnit. NOT acceptable!!! MUST strive to live longer... ;)
~phos


I will STRIVE darling I will but you can only fool mother nature so long...

I don't care how old a parent is ,as long as they are a good parent.

Far too many people have kids that can not financially take care of them on their own.

Far too many people have kids that are totally bad parents that neglect their kids.

as long as the child has a good home and is loved by parents that should be all that matters.

life's a "crap shoot",none of us know how long we are any one else is going to be here.

I think that she may want a child now, but what about in 10 or 20 years. She is going to be dealing with the teenage years when she is in her mid to late 70's. Definetly not something I would want to do at that age! Like it was mentioned in previous posts, the child is going to lose her mother at a very early age. I don't agree with it.

I don't care how old a parent is ,as long as they are a good parent.


how do you define good parent?

do they provide financially?
do they play games?
do they get involved in parent child activities?
do they patiently discipline?
at what age does a child require no more parenting?

how do I define a "good parent" ??? good ,as opposed to "bad" .

we all,(I will assume on this one) have seen ,or know,or have heard about bad parents at one time or another.

Personnel preferences,as in schooling,how long they choose to support the child after a certain age,spanking aka discipline,and age they choose to have a child ,is not my buisness,......ABUSE would be,that's when it's time to make something YOUR business.