[Niamh.]

Thoughts on this? I think it's incredibly selfish, the mother is in her early 70's and the father is almost 80, the life expectancy in India is 67, what's going to happen to that child when they die? he could still be a toddler. Disgraceful that they were allowed have IVF imo

Doctors raise concerns after elderly Indian woman gives birth

New Delhi (AFP) - Doctors in India on Wednesday raised ethical and health concerns after a woman gave birth to her first child in her 70s, following two years of IVF treatment.

Daljinder Kaur gave birth last month to a healthy boy after falling pregnant by her 79-year-old husband, following fertility treatment at a northern Indian clinic.

Kaur said the couple, married for 46 years, were overjoyed at finally having their first child after enduring years of taunts in a country where infertility is sometimes seen as a curse from God.

“I feel blessed to be able to hold my own baby. I had lost hope of becoming a mother ever,” Kaur told AFP from her home in Amritsar city.

“I used to feel empty. There was so much loneliness.”

Kaur put her age at about 70 – a common scenario in India, where many people don’t have birth certificates – while the clinic said in a statement that she was 72.

But fertility expert Sunil Jindal raised questions about the future of a child born to elderly parents, as well as health issues for the mother.

“There are ethical issues. In my opinion it is unfair to do such a procedure on a woman who is over 60,” Jindal told AFP.

“The sheer fact that a woman in her 70s has to carry the weight of a child in her womb for nine months is stressful.



"Then the question comes how are the parents going to look after the baby? That is also quite a task.”

The clinic, in the northern state of Haryana, told AFP the couple’s baby was conceived using Kaur’s egg and her husband’s sperm after two previous unsuccessful attempts.

But Britain’s the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday quoted the clinic’s doctor saying donor eggs were used. The doctor declined to comment to AFP on Wednesday, saying it was not ethical of him to do so.

Gynaecologist Anshu Jindal, based in Meerut not far from the capital, said she tried to discourage women over the age of 60 from undergoing fertility treatment – for the sake of both mother and child.

“According to me it is not an age to have a baby. It will take a toll,” she told AFP.

The clinic’s doctor told AFP on Tuesday that tests showed Kaur was medically fine to carry the baby through pregnancy.

The case is not the first in India – a 72-year-old woman from Uttar Pradesh state reportedly gave birth to twins in 2008, also through IVF.

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/indian-...100752048.html

[Crimson Dynamo]

yes because what India need is more people

[Kizzy]

I am not a fan of aiding a woman to have a child post menopause. If you have money these days anything is possible, there is no ethical dilemma :/

[arista]

At Least
they have a big family
to help them old folks and baby

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by arista

At Least
they have a big family
to help them old folks and baby

well i hope they have someone lined up to raise that child because chances are that kid won't be raised by them, the height of selfishness

[Livia]

As long as the child is loved and cared for (and she does seem to have quite an extended family) then it's no one's business but hers.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

As long as the child is loved and cared for (and she does seem to have quite an extended family) then it's no one's business but hers.

I'd agree totally with this.

It does on the surface seem kind of unnatural to become a Mother at 70,however for men, they can become Fathers and do in their 70s.

Definitely the overriding element to this as is said in the quoted post,is that the child is wanted, loved and cared for.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

As long as the child is loved and cared for (and she does seem to have quite an extended family) then it's no one's business but hers.

Where does it say that? And where does it say that they would raise the child when these too inevitably die, it's pure selfishness imo

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I'd agree totally with this.

It does on the surface seem kind of unnatural to become a Mother at 70,however for men, they can become Fathers and do in their 70s.

Definitely the overriding element to this as is said in the quoted post,is that the child is wanted, loved and cared for.

Until they die though and where does that leave the child? parent less

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Where does it say that? And where does it say that they would raise the child when these too inevitably die, it's pure selfishness imo



Until they die though and where does that leave the child? parent less

Agreed,however also that is something no one really knows, when someone will die.

Children lose Mothers and Fathers to cancer and other illnesses for instance often at very young ages.
It is also possible these Parents may live to into their 80s or beyond even, then this child will be a adult anyway.

Sometimes even a few years with loving parents is better than a lifetime with bad parents and it must be the case that this Lady wanted this child.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Agreed,however also that is something no one really knows, when someone will die.

Children lose Mothers and Fathers to cancer and other illnesses for instance often at very young ages.
It is also possible these Parents may live to into their 80s or beyond even, then this child will be a adult anyway.

Sometimes even a few years with loving parents is better than a lifetime with bad parents and it must be the case that this Lady wanted this child.

Well the father is 79 now so he would 97 (or more than likely dead) when the child is 18

ETA : And yes children can lose parents to cancer etc, that's unfortunate but nobody can predict circumstances like that. What you can predict though is that a couple in their 70's are A - Unlikely to make it through the childs childhood and B will more than likeliy struggle to look after a baby/toddler.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Where does it say that? And where does it say that they would raise the child when these too inevitably die, it's pure selfishness imo

On the news this morning.

We've all had this discussion before... and we all had the same opinions before.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

On the news this morning.

We've all had this discussion before... and we all had the same opinions before.

fair enough but why have a child that you expect someone else to raise? What's the point?

We have had this discussion before but this situation is even more severe imo, this couple are alot older than others that have been posted about before (iirc)

[billy123]

I bet it came out with a puff of dust.

[bots]

well, we don't make rules for anyone about them being a good parent before they have kids, so, this falls in to the same bracket for me. If its medically possible to have kids, then why shouldn't they. I will still personally shake my head though

[Crimson Dynamo]

India should be actively stopping people having children not letting grannies have them

[billy123]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

India should be actively stopping people having children not letting grannies have them

Why should India be actively stopping people having children? Why make that distinction above other countries?

[andybigbro]

It's a shame for the child because they'll never really know their parents.

[Kizzy]

Expecting family members to take on your kids no matter how well provided for is a big ask, that said I haven't had to go through life childless so it's a toughie.

[AnnieK]

I'm torn over this...on the one hand I worry for the child in this situation (and the parents, children are exhausting and cause no end of stress, worry and obviously happiness). The likelihood is he will lose his parents young and not have the most active parents in his formative years (although I could be doing them a great disservice there).

On the other hand - I agree with Joey in that a loved child is (usually) a happy child and there is no evidence to suggest they do not lead active healthy lives and will be around for many years.

Having struggled through infertility for 15 years, I can understand her never wanting to give up and have her own child (although I would never have continued that long). IVF is a very invasive procedure and I would imagine she had to have a string of rigorous health checks prior to being accepted for it.

In short, I'm on the fence but wish them and the child a long and happy life

[Niamh.]

But why should extended family be expected to raise a child they didn't decide to have? That's kind of unfair


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anaesthesia]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

But why should extended family be expected to raise a child they didn't decide to have? That's kind of unfair


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm hoping they would be involved in the whole having a child discussion, if there were a likelihood of the parents not lasting long...if not, that's a whole nother story.

[Denver]

I was expecting the dad to be her 18 year old toyboy

[Anaesthesia]

Originally Posted by Adam.

I was expecting the dad to be her 18 year old toyboy

Haha, Jeremy Kyle would have a field day!

[user104658]

Well, go have_. had two years of IVF we at least can guess that they have the cash to support the child whether they live long lives or not.

My only real caveat would be, that they have someone 100% on board with being the child's new parent should they die or become unable to be primary carer, and that that person is a major part of the child's everyday life up until that point and has as strong a bond with them as the parents themselves. No matter how much a child is loved, you can't underestimate the damage that losing both parents and then going to a stranger or relative stranger does to a child. It would have to be that, if the parents do die, the child can continue their life without it being turned upside down, and with someone who they already know and love.

[Anaesthesia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well, go have_. had two years of IVF we at least can guess that they have the cash to support the child whether they live long lives or not.

My only real caveat would be, that they have someone 100% on board with being the child's new parent should they die or become unable to be primary carer, and that that person is a major part of the child's everyday life up until that point and has as strong a bond with them as the parents themselves. No matter how much a child is loved, you can't underestimate the damage that losing both parents and then going to a stranger or relative stranger does to a child. It would have to be that, if the parents do die, the child can continue their life without it being turned upside down, and with someone who they already know and love.

Agree 100%