IVF Treatment For The Over 40s
By Janey1966
@Janey1966 (24170)
Carlisle, England
February 20, 2013 7:13pm CST
A few years ago a lady had a baby after paying for IVF treatment in (I think it was) Italy. She was some ridiculous age..like 57 or something when she had her baby and the strain of having it at such a late age caused her to break up with her husband. She has since said publicly that she 'regretted' having IVF at such a late stage in her life as bringing up a baby is so tiring.
Well, I could've told her that BEFORE and saved her all that expense...but anyway...
Our National Health Service, today, brought out guidelines in England which states women up to the age of 42 can now have IVF treatment for FREE.
I have a problem with this.
The main one is..why wait until you're 42 to have kids?
Secondly, why should tax-payers pay for it? Usually, it's couples in good jobs who tend to wait as long as possible before they have children so why can't THEY pay?
Thirdly, with all the poor little mites (not necessarily babies but little people) currently in care wanting loving homes, why don't they go down the adoption route? Also, why add to the ever-increasing population problem, it's so selfish.
I'm sorry, but couples who cannot be arsed having kids until very, VERY late on don't get my sympathy I'm afraid as the clock's ticking, they're INTELLIGENT enough to know it's ticking..and the kids will run rings round them as their older parents won't be able to cope.
Your thoughts?
4 people like this
9 responses
@wilsongoddard (7291)
• United States
21 Feb 13
If people want IVF, it should be paid for out of their own pockets. Why should tax payers have to finance someone's vanity and selfishness?
A more reasonable thing would have been to provide more adoption incentives. There are so many children who need homes, and there are too few people who will open their doors to older children and sibling sets.
I want to adopt. That has long been my plan. I made that clear upfront to my boyfriend that I wanted children and that I wanted for them to be adopted; he agreed with it. I am glad that we are on the same page regarding children, because that would be a deal-breaker if we were not.
2 people like this
@wilsongoddard (7291)
• United States
21 Feb 13
Not yet. I want a ring on my finger before we start that process. Plus, I want to own our own home; I don't want to raise a child in a rental.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
Both myself and John knew early on in our lives (even before we met) that neither of us wanted children. It's not that we don't like them, we just don't have that maternal instinct..and adopting wouldn't be on the agenda either, although I do know it's extremely difficult to adopt. Far harder than conceiving in fact, which is ironic isn't it?
How far down the adoption line have you gone? Do you have an adopted child yet? I wish you luck with it.
3 people like this
@bounce58 (17387)
• Canada
21 Feb 13
I was in a discussion last weekend with a friend of mine about people nowadays embracing their independence. Like they get into a lot of activities and enjoy being single before they plunge into marriage or family life (or parenthood). And it isn't until they are at their 40's when they start settling down.
This sounds like your discussion.
Maybe the age of having kids HAS shifted this late a stage in life!
I don't get why it has to be free though.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
What's so unfair (for me at least) is that I want to get RID of my womb and it would only cost £2,000 or so on the NHS. It would cost me nothing but it's free due to our National Insurance Contributions (and taxes although the government would deny this) coming out of wages. That's how the NHS is paid for.
Now, to pay for IVF it's around £20,000 as it normally doesn't work first time, which is why the price is so steep.
Compare the two. £2,000 as opposed to £20,000. It's a no-brainer isn't it EXCEPT I'm not allowed to have a hysterectomy and there will be thousands of women like me, around the country, who would dearly like one but can't because of 'cost.' And yet, the NHS can now give 42 year old women IVF if they so wish (depending on the area they live in as the NHS is a postcode lottery with many treatments) to help them conceive a baby into a system that cannot cope with extra mouths to feed NOW. I'd be doing them a favour by having my womb taken out but the stupid NHS cannot see it.
2 people like this
@wolfie34 (26771)
• United Kingdom
21 Feb 13
What I don't understand is the population crisis is worsening, why should we be increasing it to full capacity and more some? Isn't the UK crowded enough, with housing problems, mass unemployment and the double dip recession, and they come up with this? The timing as usual for the government is perfect. We should be concerned about how many people are in this country not making room which we haven't got for more! Crazy, utterly crazy, just when you think the government can't come up with anything more ridiculous they pull another stunt. And they are getting rid of more NHS staff too. These bozos haven't a clue!
@wolfie34 (26771)
• United Kingdom
21 Feb 13
Scary stuff indeed my friend, I would hate to be a child growing up in the world today, people say they would love to be young again, I wouldn't I am glad I am in my forties and happily single, I wouldn't wish life on anyone, sad, but true, and if I do ever get reincarnated, I do NOT want to be a human again.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
23 Feb 13
A wolf, perhaps? I think wolves are cute actually..not vicious at all in my opinion.
Knowing my luck I'd probably come back as a wildebeest being chased by lots of lionesses.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
I agree totally. I once watched a 'Horizon' programme, fronted by David Attenborough (a man who knows what he's talking about) and it was all about world population and how we're running out of land to grow food as it's now getting out of hand, particularly in rapidly developing countries like China, who have their hands on resources in Africa meant for the locals but the Chinese want it instead. We're as bad though, buying up huge swathes of land far away.
The 'Horizon' programme should be played in every school around the world as it was frightening stuff to watch. Wars will be fought over resources (look at Russia holding other countries to ransom as they have the supplies) and our Power Stations are due to be shut soon..with no back-up plan, so why on earth we should be encouraged to have kids late on in life beats me.
This is no world to bring up kids in, in my opinion. It's too damned hard and bloody expensive!
1 person likes this
@jenny1015 (13366)
• Philippines
21 Feb 13
Generally, women can still get pregnant at 40. And beyond that wold mean lesser chance. So maybe that is why they chose it at 42 years of age. But I am not in favor of giving the IVF for free. It should be rightfully paid by those who really wanted it. And I do get your point about having to want children at that age when it is not that easy anymore to keep pace with running kids by the age if 45 -50. But I guess, a lot would still prefer to raise children of their own rather than adopt another person's child.
1 person likes this
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
In some cases - like the 50-odd year old I mentioned - the pressures of bringing up the child break up a once stable relationship between the parents. I think, the older the parents are, the more stresses there will be and it wouldn't have anything to do with money, it's the fact that this little person is taking up far too much of their precious time.
1 person likes this
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
23 Feb 13
I think it's quite sad that they're not even thinking about having children until late on. I know that 40 is the new 30 these days but, even so.
@jenny1015 (13366)
• Philippines
21 Feb 13
I agree with you. How could they ever have the strength to take care of their children at their age? I guess, they are not thinking of the other consequences because of them being desperate.
@41CombedaleRoad (5952)
• Greece
21 Feb 13
I don't agree with IVF really, although I have never been in a situation where I wanted a child very badly and couldn't have one, so I must not be too harsh.
It is against nature to have a baby after the menopause so anyone who does is going to have problems either with their body having to take the strain or else later on when they are pensioners bringing up a teenager.
As a young woman I observed various older ladies going thru the menopause and trying to cope emotionally with teenagers and decided it was not for me. I married young and I had my children with plenty of time for them to grow up before I grew old.
If people put their careers first and their family second then they have made their choice and they should pay for it, not the state.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
I totally agree with you. My Mum had both me and my brother by the time she was 22 or thereabouts. She is now 66 and I'm 46 and we're more like sisters than mother and daughter.
I nearly threw something at the telly last night as this very posh new mother was on-screen and said, 'I pay my national insurance contributions therefore it's my right to have IVF.'
I shouted, 'I'm sorry luv, but it isn't your right. You're LOADED so pay for it yourself!'
1 person likes this
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
It is paid by National Insurance Contributions which come out of people's wages so we pay for it indirectly.
@blackrusty (3519)
• Mexico
21 Feb 13
still it is free but we will stay pay for it your giving the person the right to have many kids and go onto a welfare system and make more money off the goverment and our goverment is already broke
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
It's normally professional people who have IVF, I don't think the poor on state benefits do. I could be wrong though.
@ElicBxn (63252)
• United States
21 Feb 13
My mom waited a LONG time, when she was young, to start having children. She was 24 when my brother was born, 30 when my sister (who was a surprise) and was generally the oldest parent of my sister's friends parents.
I used to use the excuse that I was too young to have children until I suddenly realized I'd be nearly 50 with teenagers and then I was too OLD to have them! (of course you do have to have a man in there someplace to have kids at all...)
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
I know my Dad was in his 50s when his grandson was a baby and, invariably, it was he who would pick him up from nursery and be left with him for hours on end because his mother couldn't be bothered coming to pick him up. Can you imagine if he was a new FATHER at that age instead?
My Mum got it all done and dusted by the time she was about 22 and Mum is more of a friend than a mother as she is only 66 now, and I'm 46. I much prefer that arrangement than her having a baby at 46 lol.
2 people like this
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
23 Feb 13
I think we've had a lucky escape lol.
1 person likes this
@scarlet_woman (23465)
• United States
24 Feb 13
why not wait til 42?i'm almost 44,and if i could afford it,i'd adopt tomorrow.i do not think 44 is too old.60+ is another story however..
a lot has to do with expenses.nowadays,sometimes you do have to wait.
BUT you should not be asking public help to do so.if you can afford the child,then have one.if not,then you shouldn't as even beyond birth the child may not get all it needs.
@scarlet_woman (23465)
• United States
27 Feb 13
exactly.one big reason i'd adopt.some poor kid already here has no home.
then we got the beauty here in america."octo-mom"...already has 6 kids,has IVF,has 8 more,and then guess what?can't afford them,goes on welfare.
that is straight out criminal.
then we got the beauty here in america."octo-mom"...already has 6 kids,has IVF,has 8 more,and then guess what?can't afford them,goes on welfare.
that is straight out criminal.@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
24 Feb 13
Also, there is the valid point of over-population, even in affluent areas where the IVF is more widespread. No-one thinks about that aspect and that's why I think it's selfish.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
21 Feb 13
57 is way too old. 42, not so much. I had my twins at 42, and don't regret it. But where do you draw the line?
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
21 Feb 13
both true...
It's a HUGE difference between 42 and 57 though. You give birth at 57, you are 75 years old when the child turns 18. You have a much better chance of surviving to see the child grow up, know your grandchildren, etc. at 42. I wonder if some of these much older people who have children even think about such things.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
I don't think they do..they have children purely for selfish reasons in my view.
@Janey1966 (24170)
• Carlisle, England
21 Feb 13
I bet you didn't need IVF though and for you, it was different as you were already a mother before.
1 person likes this
