Question of the Day | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Should 70-year-old women be given in-vitro fertility treatments?

Joan Ganz Cooney | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Joan Ganz Cooney: Thankfully, It's Not a Trend

I don’t think the 70-year-old woman is going to create a big new trend so our opinions probably are pretty irrelevant. That said, I think it’s very unfair to an infant to have a 70-year-old mother who almost certainly will not be able to do anything very active by the time the child is five and has a good chance of not being well or even alive when the child is ten. I think it’s irresponsible of a doctor to give in-vitro fertility treatments to a woman that old or 60 years old, for that matter.

1 Comment

Sheila Nevins | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Sheila Nevins: Fewer Babies, More Babysitters

The world is overpopulated. This odd woman should live her days with her womb barren as it was meant to be and take up knitting, gardening or possibly babysitting.

3 Comments

Cynthia McFadden | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Cynthia McFadden: Pregnancy? That's the Easy Part

I think Joan has it totally right. Furthermore, the "equity" argument — that guys can have children after 70 so why not women — doesn’t wow me either. Having the baby is the least of it; raising the baby is the challenge.

2 Comments

Liz Smith | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Let Old Eggs Rest! Says Liz Smith

I’m with Joan Cooney on women over 60 having babies. "Let doctors renege on fertilizing an old egg!" or words to that effect.

Click here on this text to read my nationally syndicated column.

2 Comments

Mary Wells | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Mary Wells: Evolution or Adoption?

Natural evolution works. A 70-year-old woman giving birth to a child doesn’t work. Unless she knows she is unusual and will live to be a vigorous 90, she is assuming she will be giving the child away at some stage. Adoption is a wonderful thing but to plan it before conceiving is so unnatural it may be insane.

2 Comments

Judith Martin | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Judith Martin on Efficiency

Excellent idea. I can think of two situations in which this would be a great boon:

1. If the children were born old enough to be able, patiently, to fix their mothers’ computer problems and to find their mothers’ misplaced keys and reading glasses.

2. If the babies could be declared to be legally and practically in the custody of the birth mother’s previous children who have been slow in giving her grandchildren.

5 Comments

Jane Wagner | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

Jane Wagner Thinks With Her Heart

I could never say "never" for there are always special cases where this could be wonderfully positive. I can think of many 70-year-old women for whom this would be a blessing, not only for them, but for the children. Yes, we do have an overpopulation problem, but most likely it would rarely be utilized. Anyway, my heart — not my head — rules here. I say yes, the treatment should be available.

7 Comments

Julia Reed | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

What Makes Julia Reed's Stomach Turn?

NO! It may not be nice to fool Mother Nature, but it’s even worse to mess with her in this way, especially when it’s for such utterly selfish reasons, as is generally the case with these old-age/in-vitro treatments. (This one was in order to produce a male heir, which begs the sticky question of what they would have done — or did do — if the only viable fetus were a girl.) I agree with most of my fellow wOwers that the child is usually the last person taken into account, when he or she should be the chief concern. Even before this question popped up, my gut response was "YUCK." It still is.

2 Comments

Candice Bergen | 07/10/2008 12:00 am

At 39, Candice Bergen Was Pushing It

Oh yuck! I gave birth at THIRTY-NINE and it was pushing it. And whichever wOwer said no doctor should agree to give fertility treatments to such a geezer I agree with. It endangers the health of the geezer and geezer offspring. Although this 70-year-old geezer seemed to have vast support networks of grown kids to take over. It’s too big a reach. The age is way too advanced.

4 Comments

Joan Juliet Buck | 07/10/2008 8:43 am

Joan Juliet Buck: You Jest

Don’t be silly.

11 Comments

Lily Tomlin | 07/10/2008 8:48 am

Lily Tomlin: Is There Anything Left?

OMG. I can’t answer this question in the general; however, in the specific (with regard to the case in India where the couple prayed to God and visited religious sites, sold all their worldly goods and charged the rest on a credit card to get fertility drugs in case God didn’t come through — SO THE WIFE COULD GIVE HER HUSBAND A MALE HEIR): How does this work in India when there’s nothing left to inherit? Just asking.

9 Comments

Read more about: Family, Health, India, News, Omkari Panwar, Pregnancy, World Records

77 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

We ask this question in light of the recent world record set by a 70-year-old woman who, with the help of in-vitro fertility treatments, gave birth to twins last week. Read about it by clicking here.

By Joni Evans on 07/10/2008 12:00 am

e-mail alert

I love your hair, Joni.

By James the Game on 07/10/2008 9:30 pm

e-mail alert

I am reaching the end of my fifties and I am asking myself about a timeline that I may have for another pet. I certainly would not take on a parrot, tortoise, or a BABY! I am expecting my first grand baby in January. That is the cycle I am looking forward to living. Ask me at the beginning of the year if I change my mind and want to keep the visiting grand child. I am up late at night anyway so I could take care of the feedings….. no, I think a puppy would be nice.

By Peggy Sue on 07/10/2008 12:17 am

e-mail alert

I had my last child at 41. I didn’t do hormones, it was a natural birth, I didn’t have a C-section, and it wore the hell out of me. I recovered of course with my beautiful son in my arms. It is so much work, and takes a lot of energy. At 60 or 70, you may not be there for her/him to go off to high school or college. There is an question of being interested in their interests, and believe me, as we get older, it is different than when we are younger. I had my other child at 30 yrs old. My energy and interest levels were different.

By Frannie Em on 07/10/2008 12:23 am

e-mail alert

Frannie Em I had my 3rd child at age 44, same as you all natural, no problems. At this time I have a 26 yr old, 21 yr old (in Sept) and 6 yr old. I also find my energy levels aren’t what they used to be, but… I also think with all my experience, acquired knowledge, shortcuts and not sweating the small stuff, compensate for the lower energy levels. My one hope though, and I agree with you, is that I’ll remain healthy for a long time so I can raise this one into his adulthood. But I suppose, anything can happen even if a person has their children very young.

By DeBúrca obj on 07/10/2008 12:41 am

e-mail alert

Peggy: “I am reaching the end of my fifties and I am asking myself about a timeline that I may have for another pet. I certainly would not take on a parrot, tortoise, or a BABY!” LOL. Exactly !! Grandchildren are the way to go at this point. All play and no work. I have two delightful 5-year old granddaughters. If it weren’t for them I’d never know about Hannah Montana. I’m cool with that.

By Marjorie C. on 07/10/2008 5:55 am

e-mail alert

Yes, I would have gotten a pet, I would have recieved more love.

By Juanita Ward on 07/10/2008 11:09 am

e-mail alert

You all have said it so well. I’m not the best person to respond to this question. I thought my 50 year old girlfriend was crazy to use a donor egg to have a baby and then lied on the birth certificate so her daughter wouldn’t know she was that old at her birth. YeeGads! My mom had her breast reduction at around 70. That I understood because it was painful and damaging her spine. But, a baby at 70 means you’d be trying to figure out how to pay for college when you were 88 years old. No! No! No! No!

By C A Rose on 07/10/2008 12:46 am

e-mail alert

P.S. My mom’s 78…her comment was, ‘You’d have to be very wealthy and be able to drink from the fountain of youth.’ No way!

By C A Rose on 07/10/2008 12:52 am

e-mail alert

I am sure this woman didn’t really want this, but the culture forced her to do it. Her husband sold his buffalo so he could have a male heir. Now he could die happy? It’s amazing this wife survived the c-section. But, after selling off most of his “fortune”, what exactly does this poor child inherit? A life of poverty?

By Brooklyn Gal on 07/10/2008 12:47 am

e-mail alert

In a word: no! what for?

By Frank Peterson on 07/10/2008 1:16 am

I agree Frank. A simple no. I mean it’s very likely this mother won’t even be around when their child hits puberty and I really can’t imagine her running after a todler. I have trouble keeping up with my 5 year old cousin and I’m not even 20 yet so…

By Marisa J on 07/10/2008 1:27 am

e-mail alert

I have an odd slant on this. I will be 62 in two months and have just adopted twin two year old boys. They are my greatgrandsons and I thought long and hard before I took them out of foster care. I talked to many people who were adopted and the one thing that kept coming up was ‘why didn’t someone in the family care enough to take me’. I couldn’t let my greatgrandsons (now legally my sons) ever feel that way. But it was not what I had planned out for my golden years. As far as the energy goes, I found a surprise. As I walked every day with them, play on the floor with them, lift them in and out of things, I am actually getting healthier. I don’t have time to think about complaining about my knees snapping when I get up and down. I could go on for several pages about the pros and cons of older women raising children but I will get to my point on this article. If a 70yr old woman found that she was pregnant she would learn to deal with it but to cause it to happen is just crazy. I would never have LOOKED to adopt two little boys in my 60’s but as always - we deal with what life throws at us.

By Maggi D on 07/10/2008 1:30 am

e-mail alert

The different between being 62 and 70 is vast (I think) and adopting your greatgrandsons out of Foster Care is heroic on the order of Mother Teresa, vs choosing to bring another child into the world at 70. To me very different things. Lucky little boys, and lucky you, too. Even if something you’d never have envisioned or planned.

By No Way-No How -No McCain on 07/10/2008 2:33 am

e-mail alert

Winery - you are right. This isn’t anything I would have chosen to do. (Well, I guess I did choose - but you all would have too). I can’t imagine getting a tatoo at this age, let alone giving birth.

By Maggi D on 07/10/2008 3:31 am