A Romanian woman, Adriana Iliescu, is reported to have given birth at the age of 66 in Bucharest following nine years of fertility treatment. It is believed to be the greatest age at which a woman has produced a child and has earned her a place in the record books. Previously the honour was held by a woman of 65.
Ms Iliescu's daughter was born prematurely by caesarian section weighing 3lbs, after her twin died in the womb.
I don't apologise for feeling that this is a ridiculous, ill considered and selfish act. I do understand that for many women the need to have a child is an inherent and deep seated aspect of their psychological make up and that to have remained childless, is for some a devastating situation. Does there not thought come a point where one learns at least to accept fate and build a life without children.
To become a parent at the age of 66 seems to be a choice entirely about the needs and wishes of the mother, not those of the child. I don't doubt for one minute that this baby will be loved and cared for but in reality, at 66, one is unlikely to live to see many of the important life stages of the offspring and is even more unlikely to have the physical capacity to be involved in the child's life to the degree a younger parent would and should be. This child is very likely to have to deal with the trauma of losing her mother at a relatively early time in her life, something most parents abhor the thought of.....this lady had created the possibility of that happening willingly and knowingly.
And where were the morals and common sense of the medical profession here? Ms Iliescu, a well qualified and intelligent woman it seems, may well have had her ability to see this decision in the 'cold light of day' impaired by her emotional need for a child but could the professionals caring for her not see the problems involved?
I don't believe as women we have an absolute right to children at any cost and particularly where that cost is likely to be highest for the child, though I am an advocate of assisted fertility in appropriate circumstances.
I am childless, in part from choice but in part due to circumstance. My choice was made more on the basis that my life was never in a place where I felt I could offer a child a stable and suitable life, than a decision made purely because I didn't want a child. Yes, certainly my psyche seemed to be lacking the desperate need to reproduce that many women suffer, so the decision for me was not perhaps as difficult as for many who find they are unable to conceive naturally.....but I do know that it is possible to have a life without children!
Maybe I should be rejoicing in the happiness of this lady and in the technology that allowed her to fulfill her dream but I just can't help feeling she has made a selfish decision that has a strong possibility of adversely affecting her daughters wellbeing and happiness at a time in her life when she should be care free and happy.
Adriana Iliescu says her family have a history of longevity, let's hope she is right!
Monday, 17 January 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 Comments:
Couldn't have put it any better.
I agree with you completely! My lord, I had the twins at 35 - more from "oops, I'm pregnant" than any planning and I realize that when I'm 50 they'll only be 15! The older boy will at least be 21. I was raised by older parents - granted I'm adopted and I bless them for taking me and giving me a great life - but I was a care taker for my mom by the time I was 26 and by the time I was 32 both parents had died.
They never saw the twins and they never even saw the older boy turn into a toddler. And I had a whole lot of responsibility on my shoulders at a young age.
I don't think it's fair either way and also your energy level at that age? Please.
I agree 100%, Scottie. I have a friend - Christine - who longs to have a baby. She's miserable because she's 35 and she's not even married. She doesn't have a boyfriend. She's an emotional mess. She's my friend, though. And I love her dearly. But my goodness! Surely there can be a Life, a happy Life, without children.
I had my youngest at 35 and I remember thinking that I wouldn't have the energy to go through labour again.
Overall i still agree with everything Gem says...there must be a point where self indulgency has to cease, at 66 its waaaay over due.
I had "A" at 32 her dad was 39..........its now 9 years on. I was married at 27 and it took us nearly 5 years to concieve ( largely due to our careers ). Yes, its true the more you want a child it appears the longer it takes to concieve; for us we were at the stage of "well its obviously not going to happen for us...god has other plans) then.......my 31st birthday.....was spent at the dr's....michelle, your 6 weeks pregnant! Point is though, real thought needs to go into wanting a child....the overall picture has to be looked at NOT just the woman having the baby.....this is a human being, you want the best life possible. Self indulgency isn't the way to go.
Interesting thoughts and valid points made and though I still feel this was an ill thought through decision I do accept that there is a child in the world now who will hopefully have a good life. For me there is still a massive difference between 30 or 40 something and 60 something where parenthood and child birth are concerned. my energy levels would struggle with a you ng child 24/7 now in comparison to 10 years ago and I hate to imagine how difficult it would be in 20 years time.
I too would be interested to know if there are cultural 'systems' set up to care for this child or another in the same position should she lose her mother at a young age. If so the sadness and practicalities may be alieviated to some point but it remains a situation I am uncomfortable with.
As a foot note, PG was in the main bought up by his grandparents and whilst he loved them and appreciates now the care they gave him, it was hard in many ways for all concerned and has left it's mark.
Bingo Lisa!! I read with interest this morning about the Romanian laws or lack of being in place. Here in Oz, adoption and ivf are stringent guidelines, surrogacy was illegal at one stage ( i think it still is...or perhaps you can but no money can change hands) i better find that out!!
Post a Comment