63 year old mum-to-be

munkeehaven · 06-05-2006 12:41AM #1

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/april97/mom_4-24.html

LONDON: A 63-year-old British child psychiatrist is to become the country's oldest mother in about two months' time after she underwent fertility treatment under a controversial Italian expert.

The would-be mother, Dr Patricia Rashbrook, defended her decision to undergo the treatment and become a mother at this age. She and her husband, John Farrant, 61, said they had deeply thought about the consequences of becoming parents at pension age. Rashbrook said it required "courage and a great deal of thought." She is said to have spent around 50,000 pounds for the treatment.

The couple said in a statement Thursday,” We are pleased to acknowledge this pregnancy, notwithstanding its unusual and potentially controversial aspects.

"We wish to emphasize that this has not been an endeavor undertaken lightly or without courage, that 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."

What are yer opinions on this?

Morf3h · 06-05-2006 01:07AM

rancid tbh

munkeehaven · 06-05-2006 01:11AM

She is seven months gone so there is no turning back now.It'll be a great toll on her body physically,and i can imagine the amount of drug-treatment she is on to maintain her hormonal balance.

Peteee · 06-05-2006 01:26AM

Selfish.

They'll both be dead before she hits college

munkeehaven · 06-05-2006 01:32AM

lets say..if they maintain a healthy lifestyle they could most likely live to be 85..So the child would be about 22.

I'm not even 21 and i would hate to lose my parents at that age

(of age related death)

Victor · 06-05-2006 02:15AM

Wow, down the Post Office to collect the pension (in the UK women can retire at 60) and the children's alloance. :rolleyes:

Winters · 06-05-2006 02:34AM

I'm ****ing ocked ....... still!

Orange · 06-05-2006 02:57AM

I personally think the women is very selfish! There is no way she can give a child the care and energy they require and as she gave her other children(grown up I believe).

For someone to go against nature and chose to have a child at that age is wrong, in my opinion.

The differences in opinions between parents and children is hard enough if there is a 25/30 year age gap but 63 years is mental!

slipss · 06-05-2006 04:01AM

I'm a bit split on this meself, I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't do as far as their bodies or any part or thier bodies (thier DNA) geos but I also think its really selfish to have a child at 63, because the average life span in Ireland is 75 for a male and 78 for a female, as far as I can remember. That means his/her DAd will probably die when the kid is 14 and his MA will die when the kid is 15, sure the kid will probably have a lot of money, due to the fact that thier parents have decent jobs, but that can't replace having your own biological parents looking out for you at the time you need it most. Basically if anyone I knew well wanted to do the same thing I would do my best to convince them they were doing the wrong thing but if they went ahead with it I would give them and more importantly the kid all the support I could. Most parents born in the time these people were born struggle to identify with there kids born only 30 or even 20 years after them, never mind over half a centuary.

In summary I think they are doing it for totally selfish reasons and will inevitabley regret it if they have anby kind of conscience at all.

Banphrionsa · 06-05-2006 04:11AM

Late start...Maybe they will keep her young? Then again...

koneko · 06-05-2006 09:08AM

That's sick, and totally selfish.

projectmayhem · 06-05-2006 12:42PM

normally i'd agree with the sentiment but i saw her on BBC news yesterday and she looks fairly young and healthy for her age... live and let live in this case i'd say

ferdi · 06-05-2006 01:19PM

i could maybe accept it if she could never have kids but the fact is she has 2 grown up children already!!! selfish and stupid.

fly_agaric · 06-05-2006 05:24PM

koneko wrote:

That's sick, and totally selfish.

No it's not.:mad:

Don't you know, having a child is every woman's right - right? I mean, its just like getting a personshaped pet really.

If you pay up the money you can have whatever you like whenever you want - a pair of shoes, a baby, whatever. Maybe a 3rd world orphanage would have been a cheaper and safer option though, but perhaps the whole giving birth experience makes it worth it.

Davei141 · 06-05-2006 06:03PM

fly_agaric wrote:

No it's not.:mad:

Don't you know, having a child is every woman's right - right? I mean, its just like getting a personshaped pet really.

She has 2 children already. Just because they have enough money for this doesnt mean its right.

Hail 2 Da Chimp · 06-05-2006 06:30PM

ferdi wrote:

i could maybe accept it if she could never have kids but the fact is she has 2 grown up children already!!! selfish and stupid.

My semtiments exactly, if she had been trying unsuccessfully for a baby it would have been another story but this is just a bit much... They'll be dead before the kid finishes college!

ST* · 06-05-2006 07:20PM

fly_agaric wrote:

No it's not.:mad:

Don't you know, having a child is every woman's right - right? .

Shouldn't everyone woman take into consideration what is right for her child?

Red Alert · 06-05-2006 07:25PM

Not so loud... Miriam O'Callaghan might be still having children at that stage. They'll be selling the car and buying a double decker!

doctor evil · 06-05-2006 09:28PM

Are her grown up children willing to take the mantle of parenthood once she dies bofre child is grown.

Hail 2 Da Chimp · 06-05-2006 09:31PM

Baby on swings: "Push me daddy"

// Daddy pushes baby - falls and breaks hip...

Dooom · 06-05-2006 09:36PM

Couldn't she just get a cat?

projectmayhem · 06-05-2006 11:34PM

doctor evil wrote:

Are her grown up children willing to take the mantle of parenthood once she dies bofre child is grown.

she's 63 and looks healthy to me... she'll last the 20 or so years before the child flies the coop

Capt'n Midnight · 07-05-2006 01:04PM

Red Alert wrote:

Not so loud... Miriam O'Callaghan might be still having children at that stage. They'll be selling the car and buying a double decker!

:eek:

Caryatnid · 07-05-2006 01:26PM

fly_agaric wrote:

Don't you know, having a child is every woman's right - right? I mean, its just like getting a personshaped pet really.

Um, yes.

But you can't give birth to pets, unless you're a humanshaped pet already yourself.
And remember, a person is for life, not just for Christmas...

Suaimhneach · 07-05-2006 01:30PM

I'm between minds on this as well. I can see the arguements for both sides.

I wonder what made them decide to have a child... why the sudden urge? Were they just bored? Or did they feel there was something missing in their lives? After having two kids and living what seems to be full lives together, why this, why now?

Hmm.

I'm sure they'll love the child unconditionally, and that's all that matters when it comes to the relationship between a parent and child, regardless of age.

Selik · 07-05-2006 02:24PM

Not sure I agree with it tbh.

Totally selfish and typical of the world today really. The fact that it's pretty much impossible for a woman of that age to conceive naturally says it all really.

I guess the only positive aspect (if there's such an aspect to this) is the fact that we're all living alot longer these days so there's a good chance that the mother could live to 100.

snickerpuss · 07-05-2006 03:36PM

I don't know if she'd have the energy for a kid at that age. And even with fact that she might last 20 years, having your parents most likely dead by the time you're in your late teens/20s is no less traumatic. Since it is quite likely.

fly_agaric · 07-05-2006 03:41PM

Caryatnid wrote:

Um, yes. But you can't give birth to pets, unless you're a humanshaped pet already yourself.
And remember, a person is for life, not just for Christmas...

You, ST*, and Davei141 need to power on your sarcasm-meters.

ST* · 07-05-2006 07:39PM

fly_agaric wrote:

You, ST*, and Davei141 need to power on your sarcasm-meters.

Perhaps you should power-off your pc. Now was that sarcasm or not..

On topic: As someone else said earlier, she had two children before. It isn't like she missed out on a chance of having them. In spite of her being in good health etc., her frame wouldn't be able to carry a baby as well as a woman in her 20 -40's. I do hope the pregnancy goes well for her, even though I don't agree with her having the child this late in life.

Caryatnid · 07-05-2006 10:48PM

fly_agaric wrote:

You, ST*, and Davei141 need to power on your sarcasm-meters.

Right. Whatever that means.
I was trying to highlight the crazy thing you said. You can't possibly seriously be comparing a human baby to a 'humanshaped pet'. Perhaps this is the way the 67 year old woman is thinking. I understand that the woman is in a very horrible situation where she seems to have gotten 'the craving' at an incredibly old age. However I do think her and her husband are selfish. Nature doesn't allow us to have children when we're children for a reason, and likewise we can't have children when we're post-menopause.
I agree that people who cannot have children who are otherwise healthy, and of child-bearing age should get medical help if wanted. But this woman is at least twenty years past the last time she should have been last able to conceive and give birth naturally.
Forget about twenty years time - when the child is three, she will be seventy-one. I have great memories when I was younger when my dad used to throw us around, my mam and dad used to take us to parks where we'd play frisbee, play chasing......
My grandparents weren't even this much older than me, but yet I remember my grandfather used to play golf.....but neither of them were very energetic - they were normal grandparents. Both are dead now.
Realistically speaking, and statistically speaking, this child will not have parents by the time it has reached adulthood. Therefore, the parents will not be able to bring it up fully and completely. How can these parents claim not to be selfish? Surely you want the best for the child, and that means giving it the best upbringing you can. Its not enough to say you have many good friends (I heard her say this in an interview). It is not your parents job to bring you up.

Tobias Greeshman · 08-05-2006 09:34AM

Similar treatment like this woman has had, was conducted on a 49 year old woman in either Holland or Belgium (can't remember which). The woman was completely healthy, but yet she died of a brain hemmorrage minutes after the child was born.

I can't understand what is possessing this 63 year old woman to go through with this, she already has children of her own. Since she's a psyciatrist and a woman of science, and about to be the oldest woman in the world to conceive a baby, then maybe she wants the fame that goes along with it, although that's a very cruel thought to bring a child into the world in the name of science.

Anyway she's very unlikely to be around by the time her child is doing their leaving cert, so that's not entirely fair on the child, to losing their parents in their mid-teens. That is if she ever gets to see her child of course.

63 year old mum-to-be

Comments