The modern world is filled with scientific innovations that have advanced the quality and longevity of life. There was a time when women who were infertile had two options: adoption or nursing an empty womb. There have certainly always been women who did not desire to mother, but for those who were involuntarily infertile, the inability to conceive created terrible pain. IVF has brought the joy of motherhood to millions of women and we have come to see this as a scientific good without questioning what — if any — limitations should be imposed on this process.
Women’s advocates argue for female autonomy and the right of women to control their own bodies; however, in the case of IVF treatment, women are not the only ones being affected. It is important to remember that a child is the result of a successful treatment and that he or she is going to be in a dependent situation for years to come. No one speaks for these potential children in fear that putting limitations on this procedure means putting restrictions on women’s reproductive choices.
The media is continually reporting on women who have long since passed menopause giving birth to children. In the U.S. 60-year-old Frieda Birnbaum gave birth to twins. Professor Severino Antinori became the U.K’s oldest mother when she became pregnant at the age of 62. When the public began to question her pregnancy, Severino responded by saying, “it’s not my physical age that’s important – it’s how I feel inside.”
At the age of 66, Maria del Carmen Bousada gave birth to twin boys and died before the children had reached their third birthday. She had assumed that because her mother had lived well into her twilight years, the same would be true of her.
In India, Mrs Bhateri Devi, at the age of 66, became the oldest woman to give birth to triplets weighing 2lb 6oz, 2lb 4oz and 1lb 7oz respectively. Mrs. Bhateri says, “I did this because people used to mock us.” One child has since died. Since the birth of Mrs. Bhateri Devi’s children, 72-year-old Raji, who is the mother of an 18-month-old child, has reported that she believes she is dying from complications due to her labour and delivery. When asked what made her want to have a child, she responded:
“I would have wanted a child even if I were a 100 years old. Seeing others with their children made me want one to.”
The doctor claims that her illness is unrelated to her pregnancy. It is important to note that Raji and her husband are uneducated farmers, who when they took out the 2000-pound loan to have this procedure had no idea of the risks they were taking.
Dr Bishnoi, who treated both women, stated:
“Even though Raji’s health is deteriorating, at least she will die in peace… She does not have to face the stigma of being barren. She had an ovarian cyst that was causing her problems but that has now been removed. The IVF treatment is completely safe. Raji is an old woman and her life expectancy was only about five to seven years.”
A pregnancy this late in life is extremely dangerous for the mother and Mrs Bhateri Devi proves that it is also a risk for any potential child that is born. In most cases, because these women are beyond menopause, the birth of a child is only possible with the use of a donor egg. Due to the recession, there has been a rise in the number of women willing to participate in so-called egg donation, thus raising the question of biological exploitation.
Young girls who themselves may be unable to support themselves or any potential child are donating their eggs so that in some instances, women of class privilege are able to give birth. Poor women have historically had their biological processes exploited by women of class privilege, with the most universal examples being performing as wet nurses and surrogate motherhood. Western women are turning to Indian women to bear their children because the cost is considerably lower and Indian women see this as an opportunity to provide for their families. This may seem to be a good arrangement; however, it still once again amounts to women using class privilege to exploit the bodies of other women.
Science has provided women with reproductive options that were unavailable 50 years ago, but nowhere is there a serious conversation regarding the morality of this decision. Is it really fair to bring a child into this world when the chance of being able to raise said child to adulthood is highly questionable?
We may not like to think about reproduction in terms of what is natural, but women go through menopause for a reason. At a certain age, women’s bodies become less able to support a pregnancy. It is possible to argue that a younger age is no guarantee that a woman will live long enough to raise her children; however, I believe that this is far more likely with a mother who is advanced in age.
A young girl who menstruates at the age of 12 is capable of becoming pregnant and yet this causes increased risk to the child as well as mother. As a society we have attempted to protect our children from becoming teenage mothers because we realize that their bodies have not reached maturity and that they may not have the maturity level to raise an infant. If we can take into consideration someone’s youth when we talk about pregnancy and motherhood perhaps advanced age should also fall into the category of prohibitive actions. Children also require a lot of energy, which is something that elder women may not always possess. Grandmothers raise children all of the time because of the absence of a parent; however, this is a completely different situation from actively choosing to become a parent later in life.
There are no legal barriers at this time regarding late in life IVF treatment, but perhaps there should be. People make decisions all of the time that are neither healthy or wise, but in this case, the repercussions move beyond the individual to impact an innocent child. We are not talking about an abstract set of cells; we are talking about a living, breathing human being that is dependent on the adults in hir life. It is hardly fair to privilege someone’s desire to have a child over the potential for said child to grow with the security that all children deserve. Just because we can help women to become mothers in their sixties and beyond does not mean we should.
You raise a number of important concerns. Ideally, every woman would have the right to choose whether they get children or not, and should have access to reproductive services. However, reproductive services should include counseling. Why do we counsel people against abortions, but not against risky IVF? Ultimately, a doctor should be able to refuse IVF in particular cases based on the serious harm it would do to the mother.
I still find it hard to digest how the right of the child plays a role here. Many children live with marganizalized/disadvantages parents. Should these parents (disabled people, people on welfare, etc.) also be denied IVF?
Astrid, the problem is that children of exceptionally old mothers are more likely to be orphaned at a young age (death of mother or death of both mother and father, assuming the usual age pattern of similar age or older-husband couples). If the exceptionally old mother was acting as a gestational surrogate for a daughter with eggs but without uterus, that’s another matter, as the child would be likely to have its genetic parents around during its youth.
Surrogacy in general is fraught with ethical problems – as are other reproductive alternatives, including adoption.
It is telling that the technology is being applied to Indian women customers in India, a culture where women are stigmatized for “being barren” (more so than in the US), and a country where state-of-the-art-trained doctors are available for those who can pay.
Ever the issue in fertility treatment is the tendency to blame the woman rather than query whether the man is shooting blanks.
I agree with Astrid’s second paragraph. There are all sorts of factors that could keep a child’s life from being stable. If we should create legal barriers to prevent older women from having children because the woman might die before her child reaches adulthood, then should we also create legal barriers to prevent impoverished women from having children because they might not be able to feed them? Who is able to provide more security for a child – a wealthy woman who is older and might not see her child grow up or a young woman with no money? It’s not my place to make that call for someone else. I am against the possibility of legal barriers because it leads into very sticky territory very quickly.
I am also wary of the argument that because women do not naturally have children at a certain age means that they shouldn’t or that there should be legal barriers to do so. This logic very quickly becomes heteronormative – two women cannot “naturally” have a baby together, does that mean they shouldn’t?
I am shocked that you wrote this for many reasons, perhaps most notably because of your recent defense of a severely disabled woman to have visitations with her children. It was a swift take-down of ableist bullshit, and it was right on target… but now this? Surely you realize it’s not just older women who are at a higher risk of dying– younger, disabled women also fit that bill. Should they not have children? What about incredibly impoverished women who may not be able to support their kids? Where does it end? The whole argument just reeks of so much classism and ableism and even heterosexism and cissexism… and of course ageism! Comparing post-menopausal mothers to twelve-year-old mothers? It seems to me like the common trope that all elderly people are ‘child-like’ in their agency…
I KNOW you don’t mean to support any of this, and that’s why I’m so damn confused. You seem to be following some logic of privileging the rights of unborn, hypothetical humans over those of women, and I’m wondering what in the heck prompted this.
In answer to the other commenters, to get pregnant on your own in reduced circumstances of health or finance is one thing. To get IFV and do so is another. Menopause is a natural process that is supposed to end child-bearing. There are so many elements of class privilege here. These ppl are saying damn the child’s welfare, I want what I want. And cultural issues are also at play. In many society’s a woman is valued for her ability to have children, so how do you think IVF will be used will be used in the future? To extend the childbearing years of ppl who have moved beyond that stage. No one wants an Orwellian dystopia of constant surveillance, but there’s a long way between that and ordinary common sense.
I also think adoption should be much more heavily regulated. I knew a family where the husband was in his late eighties, yet they adopted a little girl. Naturally he died at ninety, and the mother, who is also feeble, is left to raise her. These ppl had a great deal of money, but the husband was already old and very ill, and the mother is headed that way. What kind of life could they expect to give the girl? Money isn’t everything.
what are the disadvantages of ivf, i always asking nobody says nuttin. with respect to a woman age to having a baby i think its her rite to have a baby at any age be it natural or any other medical way, its her rite to choose, this should never be taken away from her, rich poor or inbetween, so many ppl aborte babies and so many ppl grieve for babies, women should be allowed the rite to give birth, at what eva age.