Should elderly women be allowed to have babies?

A 59-year-old plans to have a baby through IVF and dissenting voices can be heard everywhere from the newspapers to the office watercooler. But is there really any reason why we should have a problem with the idea, asks medical ethicist Daniel Sokol.
Imagine walking past a poster on the street. It shows a mother and baby. The mother, however, is old enough to be the baby's grandmother. The initial reaction of many passers-by, upon being told that this grey-haired and wrinkled woman is the mother, would be one of revulsion. There is something deeply unnatural about the image.

FIND OUT MORE... Too Old to Be a Mum? is on Tuesday 26 January at 2235 GMT on BBC One Or catch up using the iPlayer

These are the thoughts that many have had in response to the news that Susan Tollefsen, who became a mother at 57, is now considering IVF treatment again at the age of 59. But is there a rational basis for concern?
The 'yuck' response
The "yuck" response is not uncommon in the face of new things. It is an internal red flag, telling us in an indistinct way that something is amiss. At times, that something is perfectly reasonable.
The disgust we feel at the recent torture of two young boys by brothers aged only 11 and 12 is underpinned by solid reasons. Yet, often, our "yuck" response is nothing but the external manifestation of ignorance or prejudice.

CHLOROFORM CONTROVERSY In the 1840s, the use of anaesthesia in childbirth was strongly opposed by clergy in the Church of England Even some clinicians believed it was going against God's will that women should "in sorrow, bring forth children" as punishment for Eve's sin And some thought it caused women to become sexually aroused during labour

This is apparent by looking at history. Pain-relieving chloroform in the 19th Century, heart transplantation (involving a donor and recipient of different races), homosexuality, and in vitro fertilisation in the 20th Century, were all met with initial cries of disgust.
The birth of the first "test tube" baby, Louise Brown, in 1978 was deemed immoral by, among others, the Vatican and Nobel laureate James Watson. "I am not a wizard or a Frankenstein," said Dr Patrick Steptoe, the gynaecologist involved in the creation of Louise Brown.
These examples show that what society considers morally permissible evolves with time. They also point to the need to dissect our gut reactions.
It's unnatural
In one sense, the computer screen in front of you is unnatural. It is the product of man's ingenuity. So too is an umbrella. Distinguishing the natural from the unnatural is not an easy task.

Rajo Devi had a baby at the age of 70

Can we say that keeping people alive on life support or resuscitating them when they would otherwise have died is natural, but that enabling an older woman to conceive a child is not?
Both are trying to "remedy" the natural ravages of ageing. If we accept that both can be viewed as unnatural, we must appeal to something else to justify treating them differently.
Welfare of mother and child
Assisted reproduction, like virtually all medical procedures, carries a risk of harm. The treatment, usually requiring several cycles of IVF, is hard on women emotionally and physically. At 60, the impact is likely to be greater than at 30. Yet, in a liberal democracy, individuals are to a large extent allowed to incur even significant risk as long as this does not harm others. "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign," wrote the 19th Century philosopher John Stuart Mill.

RASHBROOK REACTION Dr Patricia Rashbrook had a child by IVF at the age of 62, prompting controversy Jon Gaunt, in the Sun, wrote: "The news that the selfish 62-year-old, Patricia Rashbrook, has 'given birth' to a baby boy makes me sick to the pit of my stomach." Karren Brady, in the Birmingham Mail, wrote: "I know that there are wrinkly old rockers like Michael Douglas, Rod Stewart and Mick Jagger who are fathers to young children, but they are because they can be. Women of the same age aren't because they can't be. Or shouldn't." AN Wilson, in the London Evening Standard, wrote: "Women in their 60s these days are usually fit, and often make ideal carers for children. Why the uproar about supposed selfishness? Is it because the sight of a competent, pretty woman being happy fills other people with envy?"

The problem is that assisted reproduction involves a third party - the potential child. He or she cannot consent to the risk of harm. Neither, of course, can any baby. There is evidence, however, that IVF babies are at greater risk of birth defects than naturally conceived babies. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 suggested that IVF babies have double the risk of major birth defects compared with naturally conceived babies.
"How much more at risk with potential mothers in their 60s?" is a key question in determining the morality of assisted reproduction in that age group.
Another concern is the child's welfare in childhood and beyond. Last July, the single woman who had become the oldest mother in the world at 66 died after having cancer, less than three years after the birth of her twins. What awaits them now?
They may grow up to live a fulfilled life, as many orphans do, but their odds are not as favourable as their parented counterparts. But what about a young mother in a country where civil war, disease or other factors mean she may not see the child to adulthood? Yet we are not comparing like with like. It is always possible to point to a worse situation and say "see, it's not as bad as this". Maybe so, but that is not a cogent reason for allowing the practice.
An argument popular among philosophers is that, as long as the child's life is of acceptable quality, it is irrational to use arguments based on the child's welfare. The alternative for that particular child is non-existence. The twins would not be alive without their elderly mother's decision to undergo IVF. Is their life really so bad that they themselves would have preferred non-existence? Philosophers are still not agreed on how to solve this apparent puzzle.
The good mother
There has been much talk in recent years of reproductive autonomy, the idea that people should be able to make their own reproductive choices. Yet what are the limits of such autonomy? Did the lesbian couple who in 2002 sought a deaf sperm donor to create a deaf child overstep the mark? Can people choose to have a baby girl because they prefer girls?

Is there an ideal age for a family?

And what about our 60-year-old mothers? While these questions have no easy answer, it is clear that the limits must in part be set by the risk and severity of harm to the potential child. Who determines the cut-off point is another matter.
There are many other arguments both in favour and against allowing older women to use assisted reproduction techniques (including issues of resource allocation, age discrimination, adoption and other alternatives, feminist critiques, and slippery slope arguments), but one that appears repeatedly in everyday conversation is the feeling that there is something "not quite right" with a 60-year-old woman who wants a baby: "What kind of selfish woman would dream of such a thing? She won't be a very good mother at that age. Poor child".
This is where prejudice and societal values colour our judgement in ways that may be imperceptible to ourselves. Many passers-by will look at the woman in the poster like a jury eyeing up the defendant at the start of a trial. They will deliver an immediate verdict. Justice requires a more considered approach.
Check out BBC1 10.35pm tonight...

So Should eldery women be allowed to have babies?

In a word, no!

no they should think of the future.who will look after the child when they pass away because of old age

NO it could be both baby and parent dribbling in their chair

No, No thrice times No!!!!!!

So what age is to old then ??

I reckon when the natural baby body clock runs out would be a fair time to give up.

ted the head wrote:I reckon when the natural baby body clock runs out would be a fair time to give up.

Unless the natural clock gets broken through injury or disease at an age not normally acceped with menopause then IVF is acceptable.

I'm not sure that we 'older women' would have the stamina nor the patience (especially with the terrible twos) and if you last long enough how would you cope with a hormonal teenager - curse the thought - it was bad enough when I was in my 40's!!!

I totally agree with Karma....
I wouldn't ever think of having a baby at my age and i will be 45 in March....i find IMO it gets harder as they get older....U never stop worrying about them ....
Soo NO NO NO having a baby at 60 is crazy !!!!

plimmerton811 wrote:

ted the head wrote:I reckon when the natural baby body clock runs out would be a fair time to give up.

Unless the natural clock gets broken through injury or disease at an age not normally acceped with menopause then IVF is acceptable.

Fair point and totally agree

Last night I watched a documentary on older mums, and we are talking older. The editorial above appears to have included some of the women. A British woman at 72 wanted children, hello she could just about carry herself let alone a baby. Last seen she was phoning round the world trying to find someone to do the insemination and loan eggs etc,etc. Sincerely hope she fails to find anyone.

Then there was the Indian lady, (Rajo Devi above)who lived in a village got up at 5am each morning to sort the cows and do the chores. She had a 6 month old and she was, wait for it, 70 years old at birth. But give her due she was physically fit. But even then she suffered. Last seen her 60 year old sister (same husband as Devi)was trying to get IVF, mainly cause they wanted a son.

An American woman who had twins at 55, she was now 70 but kept fit. Kids were well balanced and understood what having an older mum was about.

The programme showed the cultural differences between India and Europe. In India the older mother was reverred instead of despised and had greater support from family and the village in general. The programme did not change my personal view but it did make me appreciate why some people in different cultures and at different times of life went for children. Like the Spanish lady who had twins at 65 by conning the US laboratory into believing she was 55. She had looked after her mother for most of her life and found that time had passed her by. Unfortunately she died aged 67 as stated above, during the filming of the doco'. For the children there was a happy ending as they were taken in by their young cousins who had one child. I think this was a blessing in disguise because at two they were still in nappies and sucked dummies whilst in a buggy!!