Free fertility treatments for post-menopausal women in the UK?
India has not got a patent when it comes to IVF mothers in their 60s, British first time mother Elizabeth Adeney, 67, proves. Adeney had her son last year, at age 66, and thereby became the new holder of the “Oldest Mom in Britain” title.
Before Adeney gave birth, that title belonged to 62 year old first time mom Patti Farrant. If a new proposal to do away with age limits for IVF treatments on the National Health Services gets accepted, we’ll likely be seeing a lot more of this soon.
Who on earth would be proposing to allow women in their fifties and sixties to receive free fertility treatment? Who in the United Kingdom wants to follow India? It’s the “National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence” – Nice. Nice is worried that the UK government would have problems with age discrimination laws by disallowing women over 40 to get IVF on the NHS.
The same institute who brought us the smoking breathilizer proposal last week has now given us yet another gem. They are proposing that women are granted or denied IVF treatment on the basis of their ovarian reserve, meaning how many eggs they have left, rather than their age.
While it is noble to want to avoid discrimination, Nice seems to forget that the largest ovarian reserve on the planet would not increase a woman’s life expectancy as well. No matter how many eggs a woman in her sixties has left, she will leave her future IVF children motherless at a younger age. I understand the NHS’ wish to help anyone overcome infertility, but how about the rights of the children involved in this story?
Also, it is funny, is it not, that the same institute, Nice, created guidelines saying that women who are obese are not entitled to have IVF on the National Health Service until they lose weight. Fattism, apparently, is OK. Why? Well, because being obese and having IVF is a combination that creates health risks, apparently. Having children well past your prime is not a health concern, then? The fact that women in that stage of life cannot conceive naturally is not enough of a warning that it is a bad idea?
Remeber the 72 year old Indian mother of a one year old, now dying? There is no need to tell anyone about the dubious ethics of cases such as that, least of all the British government. I really hope this proposal does not make it. I see nothing wrong with a public debate about upper age limits for IVF, and I don’t think denying women in their sixties fertility treatment is discriminatory.
The menopause in general is nature’s way of making sure that as many children as possible get to grow up with their mothers by their side. Now that we, as humans, are able to create life and do just about anything, we should make sure that we have everyone’s best interest at heart.
What do you think?
Twitter
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Stumble
RSS
Loading ...
I totally agree with you.
Nature did not invent the menopause without a very good reason in my opinion.
That excludes early menopause mind.
Why have a baby at an age that you wont be able to look after it properly and most likely not even be able to see them grow up to there adulthood.
Surely that was not the way life was intended ?
This institute must have lost its marbles.
Good luck with the blog by the way,
I like it a lot
Anne (June 28, 2010 @ 12:47pm) Do you have children? I am 51 yrs old and have two adopted children. I would love to have a child that my husband and I made together and to feel that life growing inside you. To be able to say to your husband, “I’m pregnant! To find out if it’s a girl or boy and of course to feel the pains of giving birth! Adoption took away the need to be a mom but it doesn’t take away wanting to go through all of the above. I still struggle with the fact that I get one shot at life and I have to go through life without knowing what it feels like to bring life into the world. The heck with the risks! I would love to go through it! Unfortunately you have to be rich to afford it.
I understand. Even though I have two healthy children now, I still remember the feelings that come with wanting to get pregnant but not succeeding very clearly! I conceived with the help of IUI eventually. I understand wanting to gestate a child, and I understand not feeling complete. But “To heck with the risks”? If the risks were only maternal, I’d say, go for it! But do you think it is a truly responsible act on the part of the famous Indian mothers to have IVF in their 70s? If you do, I’d have to respectfully disagree.
i m 53yrs now. married on 20th November 2007 i wish to be a mom with your ivf treatment .i got encouragement to read about free treatment from your side will you help me to be a mom in this age.i will be very grateful with your response
Hi Farida.
You should contact your health provider, or even better endocrinologist, and have an appointment. Best wishes!
It sounds to me like you are one of the lovely people who have priviledge and prejudice, who complane about THOSE people on the dole or who are from a third world background.
There is no reason on earth that someone in their 50′s should be denied a child…especially since we have extended the life expectancy of humans substantially in just the last few years alone. The retirement age is now set at 70 instead of 65 as it was for generations because people are “younger” longer and can contribute fully much longer….Hears something you didn’t seem to give acknowledgement to; the woman in India may have died from a health issue. The age is not really a factor! I lost my mom at an early age to cancer. One of my good friends who had a little baby died because she broke her ankle stepping off a curb crossing the street and it caused a clot in her blood stream she was 19…if you are a proported Christian, then I would remind you that “NO ONE is promised tomorrow” including you! Who are you to DECIDE that someone of a certain age or race or even sexual preferance should not be allowed to procreate! Again, Sarah is suppose to have conceived at 90 by “God” opening her womb….2 thoughts on that…God gives man the wisdom to heal and advance….and if God did it, then it must be OK…cause he is infallable….Who are you to overrule God himself? If you are not a Christian or any other religion for that matter, then check this…until YOU personally can bring someone from nothing or give life back to a deseased person, then you don’t have the right to say diddle over those who can….Check your own self…what have you done for YOUR kids you were LUCKY enough to have? Do you have an inheritance saved for them? Do you even have a will to assure their propper care? Do they actually hate you for being a biggot? And final comment….Pretty much EVERYBODY has a relative or mate who could and would take over the care and raising of the child in the unforseen event of death, so there really is nothing to “consider” as far as consequences concerning the child, unless you consider the child who never got to live or be loved in the first place because people like you have performed a MORAL ABORTION!
***Please forgive the spelling errors…I was really pissed while writing the above
One last thought on the subject…this goes to both the government officials and the lilly’s out there…..
All the third world people you secretly or outwardly despise that are multiplying unchecked as you would term it are outpopulating the uppercrust races….and destroying the tax bases…..this is a big part of the overall arguments out there
Fact! MOST of the older people who are still trying to have children are white and on the well to do side….if they could procreate they would be increasing the Lilly’s and increasing the tax base to SUPPORT the government…this is a good thing!